Made the leap to D700

[cindygillespie]

<p>I shoot with a D7000 right now...<br>

I traded in a second body D5100 and have now purchased the D700 for the pure fact my D7000 is amazing and the only fault that I had / have with it is that it is not a full frame.<br>

The D800 .. well lets face it . No one that pre-ordered even has a clue as to when it will arrive. I wasn't in the position to wait for the D800 as I get very nervous about only having one camera around when I have clients scheduled for shoots. And the fact that really I can't even imagine what 36 mp are going to do to my external TB's in a matter of a month or year. I have no problems taking my images to 30x40 with the D7000 as it stands now. It does what I need it to do.<br>

My question is this...... What are the recommended settings and or learning curves that I am going to encounter with the D700 vs the D7000?<br>

Thank you all !</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Probably the biggest learning curve issue is going to be the fact that none of your lenses will behave as you're used to having them behave. Which lenses are you using?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>What Matt said. For example, your 24-70 will get wider but it won't be long enough for head and shoulder shot often.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>My current lens lineup is:<br>

Nikkor 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, Macro 105 f2.8, 85 1.4,70-300 f4.5-5.6, 24-70 f2.8 and lusting after the 70-200 maybe yet this year.<br>

I know the 35 1.8 will not work on the D700</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The D800 .. well lets face it . No one that pre-ordered even has a clue as to when it will arrive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Slightly off topic, but it seems clear that Nikon will start shipping the D800 later on this month. I think anybody who can afford a D800 can get one within 2, 3 weeks.</p>

<p>But the D700 may be the "better" camera for your needs.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>Cynthia, <br /> I like the 35/1.8DX (without hood) for closer shots at wider apertures (f1.8-2.5) on my D700<br>

- the vignetting isn't too bad and will add „something special” to some subjects.<br /> Have fun, the D700 is a fantastic tool.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>For whatever its worth Cynthia, the D7000 has slightly more resolution than the D800 on a pixel density level, while the D700 has a third of the resolution. I only point this out because you mentioned you print 30 x 40, where your D7000 will probably have much better detail (at low ISOs) to your D700. Just keep in that mind before blowing up a D700's image to 30 x 40 :).</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Skyler... can you please elaborate a bit more on that? I for the most part don't shoot high ISO's ... 3200 at most (some say that's high others say that's low by todays cameras abilities). So... I guess I am not clear as to "where your D7000 will probably have better detail at low ISO compared to the D700". </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Cynthia: At low ISO, all of these cameras are very good. But the D7000 has a lot more pixels than does the D700. If neither camera are having to fight for image quality because of a difficult exposure, the D7000's image file probably <em>does</em> lend itself to larger prints ... because there's more data there. More pixels. Not D800-ish more, but more. Of course none of that matters if the lens is marginal or the technique doesn't take advantage of that extra resolution.<br /><br />I believe that's what Skyler's getting at.<br /><br /></p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Thank you George.... I will try that once I get things moving along with the D700. I refuse to use it until I have the battery grip.. The camera came today and the grip will be here hopefully tomorrow.. that way I can unveil it all at once. LOL Apparently I personally like the dramatic effect of all of it together. </p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Matt.... are you possibly implying that I may have made the wrong decision? I can always send it back. LOL I just really want the full frame and the dynamic range that the D700 has been noted for.... and I know that with the glass I have I can continue to offer 20x30 prints to my clients.... but, I am a pixel peeper also. If I can't blow something up to 100% and remain tack sharp (me personally) the image is no good to me and god forbid the event that someone may want it and I have then stuck myself with selling a soft image with my name on it. Make sense? </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Cynthia: I'm not implying anything, just interpreting his comment. <br /><br />But it's simple: the D7000 has more pixels than the D700. That doesn't mean that one camera is going to always make a better 40-inch print than the other. But if you do everything right, in good light, with both cameras, you've got more information per square inch of print using the sensor with more pixels. <br /><br />In practice, reality has a way of confounding simple predictions like that. Your technique and other equipment, or the D7000's inferior AF system (relative to the D700) could have more of an impact on the perceived quality of a large print than anything else. You may find that you get equally printable images out of either camera, but that the D700's higher frame rate allows you to capture an image (in focus!) that you'd miss with the D7000, if we're splitting hairs, here. Which we are.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Take the time to do side-by-side comparisons of identical shots with the same settings and same lens - You will likely be pleasantly surprised at the results (if you shoot RAW, after post processing and upsizing the D700 image).</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Yes... Elliot. I shoot RAW .. thank you !</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>Good point, Elliot! <br>

The files from the D700 up-rez much more beautiful than the ones from a D7000.<br>

The D700's files can also take a lot more of sharpening afterwards if needed. </p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>Cynthia Congrats. I've been on the fence waiting for the D700 replacement. I'm not sure the D800 is the replacement. Its a new breed of camera. Its going to be completely awesome, but I really don't want 36mp and an extra $800 that I don't have plus a wait. I shoot raw and most of my stuff is online so 12 quality mp will be perfect for my needs! I have two D7000's and I am trading one in for a new D700. I'm in your camp. I'm so excited to get a D700 where I can get a little more depth of field and better low light.</p>

<p>I should have taken the advice that everyone has given on this form for years. If a camera fits your needs now, that the right camera. Had I not fallen in the trap of waiting I would have been shooting with a D700 six months ago.</p>

<p>The D700 is old technology, but at some point technology just becomes useful at any age. Computers for example. In the 90's a new computer every three or four years was almost mandatory. Today I run with a 5 year old Core2duo and it's still totally usable.</p>

 

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>while the D700 has a third of the resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so, Skyler. The D700 is a bit more than half the D800 in terms of resolution (both in total and per unit of area).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The files from the D700 up-rez much more beautiful than the ones from a D7000.<br /> The D700's files can also take a lot more of sharpening afterwards if needed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's surprising - but I'm glad to hear it as I have a D700. :-) I know for sure that at high ISOs, the D700 effectively out-resolves the D7000. But at low ISOs? I assumed that the D7000 should have the advantage there...</p>

<p>As far as sharpening goes, surely the reason why the D700's files can take more sharpening is because they actually <em>need</em> more? Just curious!</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>The d7000 has better DR than the d700, they say. Not sure if DR is detriment to portraits tho...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you print 30x40 on a regular basis, I think the D800 is a much better choice than the D700. The fact that it has dual memory cards and video helps. Another bonus for you is that the D7000 and D800 use the same memory cards and battery.</p>

<p>Hope you got a good deal on the D700. You can always use that for a little while and sell it when the D800 is more widely available. I don't expect any huge shortage for the D800, but you may need to wait a couple of weeks if you order one early on.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>Karim,<br>

I shoot a lot of sports and while „up-rezzing crops” isn't a daily routine, it has to be done sometimes.<br>

The files from the D700 (JPGs in this case, the same goes for the NEFs from a D2H) hold up a lot better than the JPGs from the D7000.<br>

I'm not able to explain it in a scientific way, but the up-sized files from the D7000 seem to look much more „fuzzy/frayed” (like files from a P&S-camera) compared to files from the D700 if enlarged to the same degree.<br>

For newspaper-reproduction I like to use a healthy dose of sharpening and have to be much more careful with the D7000s files again.<br>

I've never done serious side-by-side comparisons; these are just my personal observations from handling a wide variety of pictures.<br>

A landscape- or studio-photographer who shoots NEFs only and from a tripod at the optimum aperture might come to a different conclusion.<br>

Please excuse my poor English, Georg!</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<blockquote>

<p>Not so, Skyler. The D700 is a bit more than half the D800 in terms of resolution (both in total and per unit of area).<br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll have to explain this one to me Karim, because where I come from when two sensors are the same size and one has 12MPs and the other 36MPs, we say that the 36MP sensor has 3 times more total pixels than the 12MP or that the 12MP has a third total pixels of the 36MP sensor. I would be very interested in hearing where you came up with more than half :).</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Sorry to interrupt:<br>

SQRT (36/12) = 1.732<br>

1/1.732 = 0.577 is a bit over 0.5.<br>

Pixel count/area and pixel count/length are obviously two different things. And it is easy to argue over two different things.<br>

Cheers Kari</p>

 

[cyrus_procter]

Oh I see. I'm not impressed though. It sounds like something a company would come up with to make their product look

better, except this sounds like something a D700 user came up with to their camera look less out of date.

 

The D700 has a 12MP FX sensor, the D800 a 36MP FX sensor. No matter what math formula you come up with to

change the numbers around, bottom line is for every pixel the D700 has, the D800 has 3 pixels, and since pixels are

resolution, that means the D800 has 3 times the resolution of the D700.

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>and since pixels are resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is incorrect. Pixel count does not equal resolution. :-) To double the resolution of a sensor you need to double the pixel count in both directions. So you end up with four times the number of pixels. Also, what Kari said.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" I know for sure that at high ISOs, the D700 effectively out-resolves the D7000. But at low ISOs? I assumed that the D7000 should have the advantage there..."</em></p>

<p>I owned and used the D7000 side-by-side with my D3 for over a year. I did some quick comparison tests when I first got the D7000 to understand is high and low ISO properties and had numerous occasions where I shot the same scene with each camera and compared the results. After post processing (RAW Files), the differences just aren't that big at any ISO.</p>