D700

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Note the streaking in Dave Lee's shot around the blown highlights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by streaking. Do you mean the star effect created by the small aperture? That's a function of lens design, not camera design.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>The blooming extends horizontally across the entire frame extending outward from the blown highlights. This is most assuredly not an optical phenomenon.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I've viewed the photo on a couple of monitors but all I can see is a couple of predictable spots of flare.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>I see no streaking, either. The D3/D700 are far and away the best cameras I have owned. The D300 was close, but no cigar. Also, while the D200 was a fine camera, it is not in the same league with the D700. However, that is MY opinion. The only one that matters to you is your opinion.</p>

<p>In the past 24 months I have gone from a D70s to a D2Xs/D200, D300/D200, D300/D3 to a leica M8, to a Canon 5D/40D, 5DII/40D, 1DMkIIN/40D and back to a D700/D200. Yes, my wife wonders why also. ;-) Bottom line IMHO, you can't beat full frame. Had my local dealer had a D700 when I traded the M8, I could have avoided all the Canon nonesense. The D3/D700 focuses better than all the previous bodies listed and the high ISO performance is outstanding. Again, this is my opinion. I could be wrong.</p>

<p>You will love the D700. It is a great camera. With the 24-70, who could ask for more?</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I can see the streaking, but hey, it's ISO 25,600! I see none of it on my ISO 6400 images.</p>

<p>IMHO, in terms of noise, the D700 at 6400 is about the same as the D200 at 400. In terms of DR and saturation, it's more like the D200 at 800. But the OP didn't ask for comparisons to the D200...</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Clear as day, and very familiar to me. The blooming extends from edge to edge along pixel rows horizontally. I see 4-6 in this shot. To see only this much at ISO 25600 is considered fine. I still love the camera.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I bought one about 2 weeks ago. I would like to say something negative, but so far I can find a single thing to complain about. It is by far the best camera I've ever owned or used for that matter. I had a D200 and was pleased with it overall but wanted better high ISO performance. The difference is night and day. The ISO quality is so good that I don't see changing bodies now for quite some time. Even though the difference in resolution is only 2mp over my old camera the images are sharper straight out of the camera and need very little work. The metering is improved as well, it handles tricky lighting situations pretty well as well as high dynamic range images. AF is fast and precise. It really feels and shoots like a pro level camera. You can certainly tell by the image quality the sensor is a pro sensor. I guess if I had a complaint it would be that the battery grip was cheaper. Other than that, nothing. Build quality is as you would expect like a pro camera. Going from a cropped sensor it took me a while to realize that for me all I needed was 24mm at the wide end. I can walk around with a 50mm 1.4 and it is equivelant to a 35mm on a dx sensor. The full frame sensor handles the high ISO so well I shoot indoors now with my 50mm 1.4 @ 3200 and get excellent images. I haven't had to use my flash since I bought this camera. I have almost considered selling it if this keeps up.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>a pick</p><div></div>

[dansutton]

<p>on an aside, i think that brian brings up a good point. he talks about his 50 on his d700 and puts it in terms of the equivalent on a DX body. that seems to be the best reference now. we used to always say that a 50mm on DX was equivalent to a 75mm on FX. this seems backwards now as about 90% or so of DSLR users are on some DX APS-C format, so it should be the new benchmark i suppose</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>I recently got a D90 and acually was coveting a D 700 but thought better get along with D90 now which is said to have excellent IQ also and get a fullframe may be 2 years later when prices are lower and choices of Fx are more. I am more than happy with the results. Attached here with is a sample image.</p><div></div>

[uzay_ki_i]

<p>I used D40, D80, D300 and now D700, ISO performance is the best but i also find results much more better in D700. I'm in love with my D700 regardless of the technical improvements, yes the lenses are expensive but i use some primes such as 50mm 85mm and also good results with some manual lenses. If you have a basic photography knowledge, a good eye and a good photoshop skills most of the cameras will satisfy you. If you have budget no one can question which camera you would buy. If i have budget and if i have a D90 yes i would also consider to buy a D700. D700 is the king:)</p>

[mike mcdermott]

<p>I never got the point of DX so I never bought into the DX system. I was shooting with an F5 until February of this year and then made the jump to digital and went for the D700. The quality of images produced at high ISO's is very good but FX is about more than that.<br>

It's also about having control over depth of field that you can never have with cropped sensors. When I put a lens on a body I want the focal length to be what the lens is. I want 50mm to be 50mm.<br>

I find that shooting at f1.4 with a D700, I never go above ISO 1600. At ISO 1600 the D700 is simply stunning. All that I want now is for Nikon to release a 28mm f1.4 AFS G.<br>

Come on Nikon - Give the people what they want!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, D700 is magic as is D3 - I use both - HOWEVER - I did not retire my D100 - I had it converted to IR</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>"If you are not printing bigger than 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, in normal everyday photography, you are really gaining little to nothing with a D700 over a D90. Your photos will look the same, you'll just print fewer of them, because all your money for printing is all spent on new lenses and an expensive camera. ;-)"</p>

<p>I totally disagree with this statement. How is the D90 going to "look the same" at ISO1600, 3200, 6400 or even beyond? The D700/D3 aren't all about resolution - it's their high ISO performance, dynamic range at lower ISO's, and traditional 35mm perspective that sets them apart from the DX sensor bodies. The FX cameras are more versatile, more creative tools. You gain a lot going from DX to FX. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It's not just that you can get more shallow DOF with FX. You get better rendition of the in-focus areas with FX than DX when using wide apertures like f/1.4-f/2. This is because the sensor looks at the image projected by the lens at 34% lower spatial frequency. This means higher detail contrast is observed with FX. Also, focusing and focus verification at wide apertures is easier.</p>

 

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>I have a question - I would say a slight variation to the original post - to the folks who responded saying they have D300 as well as D700. How would they rate D300 for the high ISO / low light shooting, against D700 ? I would say around 3400 ISO ? Is comparison chart available anywhere as Dave Lee put for D700 ?</p>

[bsd230]

<p>Dan I agree, I remember for the longest time converting everything I bought into DX. Now I am so used to DX, I am converting back the other way for reference.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>You couldn't shoot at ISO 1600 on film unless you wanted an image textured with extremely course grain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well sure if you used improper technique. While at a paper in the mid 90's, I used Fuji 800 Super-G pushed all the time and it held up really, really well, certainly not as coarse as you imply. The image of Comet Hale Bopp in my P.net portfolio is 800 neg shot at 2,000, I am shipping out a 14 x 20 from it today.<br>

But the D700 is a great camera, certainly much better than any of the DX cameras if you are a better than average photographer. I have both the D3 and D700 and see no difference in image quality which makes it nice when I do gigs that I have to shoot digital with....thankfully, my photography is relying on digital less and less these days.<br>

If you are not seeing a big difference between the D700 and a DX camera, then you are not shooting the types of photos that really show off that full frame sensor and that is OK, but it falsely puts the D700 in inferior light in these types of discussions. I had the D300 as a second or backup body when I got my D3. The difference in image quality was so remarkable, I almost never used the D300 and jumped for joy when I got to replace it with a D700.</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>All of the images added to this conversation are amazing. Thank you all for contributing.<br>

The comments added in the chain have been helpful to me from many perspectives, hopefully the conversation has been helpful to you guys too.</p>

 

[g-man1]

<p>The only compromise is the weight. Great to use all the old lenses with.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I had the D300 as a second or backup body when I got my D3. The difference in image quality was so remarkable, I almost never used the D300 and jumped for joy when I got to replace it with a D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never owned a D300 or D90 - I jumped to the D700 from the D200 - but your conclusions support my initial impressions of Nikon's marketing images. Nikon released the D3 and D300 simultaneously, IIRC. I remember looking at the D300 images and thinking that it really wasn't much of an improvement over the D200's image quality. The D3 images looked amazing, however. As I stated before, I have no idea how Nikon accomplished this. I would assume that all 12MP cameras would procude similar images, but for some reason, the FX sensor wipes the floor with DX sensors of similar resolution. I didn't want to drop five grand on a D3, so I was thrilled when Nikon released the same sensor in the D700 at a more reasonable price. I paid the full $2999 for my D700, and I haven't regretted a penny of that expenditure.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>Now I am so used to DX, I am converting back the other way for reference.</p>

<p>Heh-heh! You guys make a good point. I'm sure that there are lots of people involved in photography today (even pros) who started out on APC-sizes sensors. Also, far more people shoot DX cameras today than FX cameras. The 35mm standard was around for sixty years or longer, but I guess that doesn't mean much to people who started out with digital cameras in the last few years.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the C*n*n camp probably doesn't have this distorted perception of focal lengths. They've had full frame digital cameras for years, now. I guess I should blame Nikon for their stubborn refusal to release a full-frame body. :-)</p>

 

[dansutton]

<p>yeah. i threw a 28mm 3.5 AI on my d700, and just to aquaint myself with how wide i was shooting, i found it is equivalent to about an 18 or 19mm on my previous d90. so now i'm oriented that it was about as wide as i could affordably go on DX and it was a $70 prime with great contrast. Now if i can pick up a 20mm somewhere i'll be really wide. Also, about FX, 85 and 105 are gonna look real good. I'm gonna get a 105 or 135 AI lens as it gives me the field of view i want. On DX, 50mm was a 'telephoto' but it still didn't give the compression that one wanted; so you had all the effects of a standard angle lens but the angle of view of a telephoto. That is, it would not compress the face and give the DOF you might get. Makes me wonder not what the ideal focal length for portraits might be, but the ideal format for portraits. </p>

[bsd230]

<p>Douglas I agree with you, I loved the D200. It was my favorite camera, key word was. Once I bought the D700 I couldn't believe the difference in image quality. I think the D700 proves it's not just about the MP, it's the quality of the MP that count. I think the D300 is good but there is a difference in the images from the two. Don't know why but it seems to work better with my 50 1.4 than my D200 did. I guess it's because the AF system is better but the images are razor sharp right out of the camera. AF always seems to be spot on too. You really can tell that the sensor is "pro" caliber. I dreamed of owning the D3 someday, now I feel like I basically own one. At least the most important part of the D3 to me, the sensor. Now my big decision is should I add the battery grip. The extra 3 fps would be nice for action shots.</p>

[glenn_robelen]

<p>

 

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4495980">Andrew Miller</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 05, 2009; 05:51 a.m.</p>

 

<p >Hi there, D700 is magic as is D3 - I use both - HOWEVER - I did not retire my D100 - I had it converted to IR</p>

Andrew - IR is InfraRed? What did you have to do to convert the D100 to IR?

 

 

</p>