All D700 users who upgraded from D300...

[Jason Ostoforov]

I recently picked up a D700 to replace my D300 about a month ago and haven't really had a chance to put it to the test (crummy weather). Prior to my D300 I had a D70s and D80.

Coming from D40/60/70/80 the D300 is a huge jump up in IQ and features IMHO. I liked the the D80 but when I got the D300 I couldn't put it down it was a pleasure to use.

Going to from a D300 to D700 I would say the differences in upgrading not as drastic as mentioned above but still I a slight improvement. My main motivation for switching was getting a FX sensor as I mainly shot landscapes and having the extra wideness is great. I have not used the Tokina 11-16 but should be a more than capable lens on a DX sensor. To be honest you will be hard pressed to see any difference is IQ between the D300 and D700 except for better ISO performance on the D700.

I must be honest, prior to deciding to get the D700 I got my hands on the Canon 5D Mk2...and I must say I was blown away with its capability. For example I was able to read 12 inch text (crystal clear) on our courthouse which was about a mile (1.5 km) away, whereas the D700 all you get is some contrasty areas which is hard to even decipher as being text in the first place. I am a Nikon guy at heart, I think the D700 is more well rounded camera than the 5D Mk2...but may be an option for you?

If you are willing to consider the 5D Mk2 here are a few of my reasons why I didn't get it: AF system is dreary...extremely hard time to locking on to things (compared to Nikon, but when it did was very accurate and fast), build quality questionable (in my hand the CF door would creak and if you gripped the handle hard it didn't feel all that rigid), Menu system somewhat difficult to use (time would fix this likely, but a lot of features are hidden in menus, whereas Nikon has buttons on the body to adjust almost every conceivable thing you use on a regular basis), ergonomics where good but handle has to small for my hand (holding it for a few minutes hand would cramp up). Those are the main ones anyways

I do regret selling my D300 for the D700, only because I couldn't wait for Nikon's rival to the 5D Mk2 (D700x/D800) as I have two spectacular trips coming up and needed a camera ASAP. In your case I don't think the extra $1500.00 or so is worth upgrading to D700...I would suggest in getting some nice glass (14-24 F2.8) comes to mind...till then practice on the D300 for 6 months or so (sell it..I sold mine for about $200.00 less than I paid for it)...get the D700x/D800 and then you will ultimate resolution (more MP for enlarging pics) with likely the best landscape lens to date (compatible on both DX and FX bodies).

My two bits worth!

J

 

[manel]

IMO, the D300 is a very good camera.

So far, I'm not extremely happy with D700 and I'm thinking that maybe a 14-24 2.8 would have been a better investment.

FX has both advantages and disadvantages compared to DX. For macro work I'll keep using D300.

I have also found the banding problem at ISO6400. Ok, it is a very high ISO but that is precisely the point of D700. The uniform noise can be removed with software but not that banding.

Think twice, it is a lot of money... and maybe your problem is not the camera, can be the processing, lens..
--
Blog: http://www.frikosal.blogspot.com
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/frikosal

 

[manel]

By the way, here is a ISO3200 sample from D700



--
Blog: http://www.frikosal.blogspot.com
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/frikosal

 

[Rick La Rocca]

Well I upgraded from a d200 to d300 wanting better iso performance right before the d700 came out, ( who knew the D3 sensor would be affordable so soon?) And I did see an improvement. In my opinion the D200 was very limiting with regards iso performance and the d300 made a difference here.

Then the d700 came out... I waited hemmed and hawed and finally broke down and got one.

I love the d700, six months of use and it is all the camera I could want. I really don't need more. I am thrilled. But its not night and day better than the d300 under descent lighting situations. Better, but not that much better.

What it has done is allow me to use my old nikon ais primes again, in a way the d200/300 never did. I had 'forgotten' that a 28 is pretty wide, and my 24 and 28 ais had been collecting dust...not any more.

And the raw files from the d700 absolutely have more dynamic range you can pull out in post processing if you spend the time.

In my ideal world I would have known about the D700 and skipped the d300. But that's not what happened. In my opinion unless you want small wide primes, want to use ais lenses, or shoot frequently above iso 1000, the d300 is the pick based on $$$. But if $$$ doesn't matter, or any of the above matter then the d700 is the way to go.

http://www.ricklarocca.com

 

[brandonh_sd]

(please save the comments it's me, while It might be true
to SOME extent , it's not really it).

No, that IS it. Image processing technology isn't really all THAT different between the two cameras. The lens you use also makes a huge difference. (more so than the body).

Listen, I have seen images taken with the D3x and D3 that are just plain horrible. I have also seen images taken with the D70 that literally made my jaw drop. So, is it the camera? or the photographer?

 

[wildlife1212]

yes there was black-dot on 5D2 and Canon has fixed it with
firmware... but never like this highlight banding...

and other cameras are entitled to "what you claim" user errors,
whatsoever.
but no highlight banding

Well .... I found the flickr group inconclusive. And since you are

I said that because it's not just on Flickr
If you search Google it's all over the place

My sample (happened to be on Flickr so to discuss with other owners) was at Iso6400 and one at highest Iso, but other owner has posted his problem at Iso200
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157612180508232
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29842439
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28793981
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30050293
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30801633
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=26700045

I am still wishing Nikon to make firmware to fix it

 

[LilKnytt]

I use the D300 for one set of things while I use the D700 for others. I'm not willing to give my D300 up.

It all comes down to what you want & need. Also - are you sure your settings are correct in the D300 because it blows my D200 away...

Lil
--
I'm just as entitled to be wrong as you are.

My ever growing gallery, can be visited by friends & family at

http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I said that because it's not just on Flickr
If you search Google it's all over the place

My sample (happened to be on Flickr so to discuss with other owners)
was at Iso6400 and one at highest Iso, but other owner has posted his
problem at Iso200

Pretty much every response was either "bad exposure" or "bad processing" ... and looking at those examples that are still accessible, I completely agree.

Your example, for example, was a really severe underexposure. It was the kind of image that couldn't be saved no matter how heroic the processing.

So I don't understand why you are championing Nikon to fix what is obviously user error.

I am still wishing Nikon to make firmware to fix it

I reread the D700 review at DPR today and they are quite clear that the jpeg engine uses too strong a curve by default, making for very touchy highlights. In RAW, there is a lot of headroom, but only with competent processing.

So all I can say is that I find the whole story, including all of your references, completely uncompelling.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[wildlife1212]

Sorry no matter what you said the D700 Highlight Banding is real.....

And no similar complainer from D300, D200, 5D...

It's just a fact....

I use camera for a lot of HDR and here the culprit, in HDR we push a lot of dynamic range, and there the highlight banding reveals...

I checked other complainers in this forum and his gallery also had some HDR photography.....

Only P&S gallery never complain about this things because they never push their camera to the maximum...

I used to use D300 too, I never had problem about highlight banding....
and also I used 5D, 40D, I never had problem about highlight banding....

search google

more than one people complained about highlight banding

sorry to say D700 highlight banding is real....

 

[NikonGal]

I've had my D300 since the first date of sale in the U.S. (Nov. '07). I recently added a D700 because my backup camera was a D50 -- nice little camera, but needed better for weddings, etc. It just made sense to go ahead with the D700 -- especially because of the full frame, but the D300 is an incredible camera.

I shoot with pro glass and in RAW, and the images from both cameras will blow you away. However, if you're not happy with the images from your D300, you need to make adjustments in your shooting -- switch to RAW, really work on your exposure and white balance, and then, if you're still not happy, buy some better glass. If you're not happy with what you're getting from a D300, I don't think the D700 will help.

Rhonda

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Sorry no matter what you said the D700 Highlight Banding is real.....

This is not a compelling argument.

And no similar complainer from D300, D200, 5D...

That's because you don;t shoot with one.

It's just a fact....

Had you presented any compelling evidence, I might stipulate to that.

I use camera for a lot of HDR and here the culprit, in HDR we push a
lot of dynamic range, and there the highlight banding reveals...

From what I have seen, HDR should not show the effect. HDR combines properly processed images of different exposures into a single image that is not push processed, but blended.

This effect does not show up in properly shot and processed images.

I checked other complainers in this forum and his gallery also had
some HDR photography.....

Even a google search shows up very few "complainers" ... and you are the only DPReview person that comes up.

The most credible sources I read characterize this as a form of sensor saturation or blooming. It only shows up around bright lights in dark areas; it only shows up at high ISO ... 3200 is where it becomes somewhat apparent; it is almost invisible when an image is processed correctly ... all examples have been push processed to make the image visible.

In other words ... it is not prevalent. The credible sources I read (those not ranting without any decent proof as you are) suggest that they never see it in normal shooting ... only in "fooling around" and "testing" situations.

Only P&S gallery never complain about this things because they never
push their camera to the maximum...

I don't know what that rather self-indulgent comment was supposed to mean, but when shooting HDR night images, you should use a tripod at low ISO, which makes the issue a non-issue. If you are shooting at high ISO, then I have to say this still looks to me like a competence issue.

I used to use D300 too, I never had problem about highlight banding....
and also I used 5D, 40D, I never had problem about highlight banding....

So what? The fact is that you are stimulating a minor issue with an otherwise stellar camera ... and the only way to stimulate it, according to the credible sources I found, is to shoot and process incorrectly.

search google

I did. There are very few credible sources (people who actually seem to understand what is happening) ... but the ones I found do not consider it an issue at all in normal shooting. And don't bother saying that HDR is not "normal" shooting ... shot correctly, it is bog-standard normal. 5 images at -2,-1,0,1,2 EV ... from dark to light ... no push processing ... then combine. Bog-standard and the issue should never show up.

more than one people complained about highlight banding

I found almost no credible sources. You are one of the least credible I'm afraid.

sorry to say D700 highlight banding is real....

Sorry to say that D700 blooming under terrible shooting conditions and with poor processing skills seems that it might exist ... but under normal shooting conditions with competent capture and processing it is essentially irrelevant from what I have read.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[James M Hughes]

... but sold the D300 and now use a Fuji S5 as my DX 'Nikon'. I never liked the colour and light/bright tonality of the D300. In my opinion, the Fuji S5 produces much better colour in both RAW and JPEG.

However, if sharpness and fine detail count above colour and tonality, then the D300 is superior to the Fuji. I loved the D300's sharpness, but ultimately (for me), colour and tonality are more important qualities. I could never get the D300 to give me the smooth natural tonality and rich colour I like.

The D700's IQ pleases me far more than the D300's - it's not perfect, but the results are preferable, and I feel the upgrade was worthwhile. The D700 is cleaner at high ISOs too, and better than the D300 and Fuji. However, I still prefer Fuji colour to Nikon's - I shoot mainly portraits, and good skin tone is vital.

J M Hughes

 

[wildlife1212]

Sorry to say, I wasted my time here

you don't shoot with D700 because you haven't had one, you know nothing about shooting with D700

and now you tried to acuse us because we have our real problem,
we shoot with our D700, we compare with our D300 and whatever we have

and we complained to Nikon because we got problem.....

and you.... you only talked based on what you read ?

I am really sorry to say, I don't need your theoretical advise here

May I say politely and humble,
I am finish with you

Thank you verymuch

 

[minim3]

I can asure you,that i have absoloutly no bandig with my D700, if somebody has, i'd recomend to send it to service.

Another think would be a High ISO wrongly exposed, there will be banding stripes as with any DSLR...
--
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/_gman_/

 

[Brooks Lester]

Better dynamic range.
About two stops better ISO performance - that's a huge increase.
Images look more like film and less like a digital.

The D50 was a great camera at its price point.

The D300 has all the major controls on the outside of a rugged body, and a stop better high ISO performance and twice the resolution of a D50. Great frame rate too.

The D700 feels like a high end film SLR with digital guts. 35mm film lens focal lengths look the same. There is greater depth of field to play with and lend emotion to the image. It's images don't look as digital as the APS-C cameras.

For me the D700 was two things: a return to an environment that felt like shooting 35mm film SLR's, and, an extremely capable digital camera.

The D300 is just an APS-C camera on steriods. The D700 is a full frame 35mm camera that just takes great pictures and happens to be digital.

Sure, if you shoot things that are far away, an APS-C camera can give you more reach with the same lens. But, other than that, an APS-C doesn't offer much other than light weight.

If you're shooting jpeg only you are missing out on a lot of what separates DSLR's from compact cameras, not to mention the performance differences between APS-C and full frame DLSR's.

 

[akjos]

Thanks , that is my thinking. You're probably right. Can someone loan me one for couple days ? (just kidding....)
--

I'm just an amateur shooting bunch of Jpeg's and hoping every once in a while something comes out OK.

http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

 

[akjos]

Thanks to all for opinions and suggestions.

I think I'll get some quality lens first, probably 24-70 and see what comes after D700 .By then I'll be ready with great optics for it. And yes, as others suggested I'm significantly adjusting my processing. I'm considering shooting raw only and then pick say 10 best of of maybe hundred images and take time to process those 10 and delete the rest. ( I'll probably save a lot of HD space this way anyway).

It's crazy- I processed same raw photo with 4 different programs and Each gives a different quality ( especially visible in clear blue sky -noise + color banding)
--

I'm just an amateur shooting bunch of Jpeg's and hoping every once in a while something comes out OK.

http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

 

[Fearless_Photog]

I recently got D300 ,secretly really wanting D700 but funds did not
let me. Camera before was D40. I got the D300 expecting significant
difference in image quality. While there is some , I'm not really
blown away by any means, except of course auto focus system, handling
and customization. But the photos themself are still lacking
something. (please save the comments it's me, while It might be true
to SOME extent , it's not really it).

I really think that is it. It's you. I'll tell you why I think so too, I've shot with a D200, D1X, D2X, D90, D300, and D700. The D300 was a big improvement in image quality compared to both the D200 and D2X. In fact I bought it to replace the D2X as my main wildlife camera. Compared to your D40 the D300 has over a stop more dynamic range, over a stop improvement in high ISO performance, a lot more resolution, and doesn't have the CCD amp noise issue on long exposures, as well as the option of 14-bit RAW.

If you're not noticing these differences, either you're not putting your camera in any situation where they make a difference (hard to believe since the dynamic range difference is almost always visible to me), or your photography skills and post processing skills are not at a level where you can take advantage of the difference.

The fact that you don't list any of your in camera settings, not picture control settings, not image quality settings, or mention any post processing workflow gives me the impression that you're not really interested in improving your D300 pictures. Rather you're looking for an excuse to justify buying a new camera.

You also say in your signature that you shoot Jpegs, if those are the images you're talking about not seeing much difference in, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. There is a use for Jpeg images, some clients need photos right away, and for online or newspaper work Jpeg quality is all you need as long as you have everything set up the way you want it.

However for personal use, with images I know I'll have time to edit, I always shoot RAW, even for clients I still shoot RAW+Jpeg so I can play around with the RAW files later.

I can't see anyone who's genuinely interested in maximum image quality buying either a D300 or D700 to shoot Jpeg.

I mean I mostly shoot landscapes,and occasional candid portraits. and
got supposedly best tokina 11-16 2.8 . While great lens, again not
fantastic.

No, not fantastic, this lens has a pretty pronounced chromatic aberration issue.

I shot 30 second exposure night shots of the bridge
tonight at ISO 200 and there is "digital noise" everywhere. Also the
sharpness while not really lacking is nothing great.

Did you use dark frame subtraction? What picture control settings are you using, what setting for sharpness, what kind of post processing?

The question is to all you former D300 owners- did D700 did the trick
as far as being blown away by difference in image quality (
considering using same lense such as 24-70 2.8). I'm not disapponted
but I just expected much bigger image quality difference form D40.
Should I sell D300 and get D700 as I originally wanted?Thanks
JP

I don't own a D700 but I recently spent a day shooting around 700 images at a zoo with a friend's, using my 300mm f/4D AF-S. Honestly, yes I prefer the images to those of my D300, the autofocus is more responsive as well, and it seems to make any given (full frame) lens seem like an even better lens than it was on a 12mp DX camera.
Am I blown away by the images coming out of the camera?

No I'm not, for one thing the images coming out of the camera are just the starting point, the final result I can get after editing is what everyone else sees, and what really matters. The D700 files are cleaner, there's a slight improvement in dynamic range, and a slightly different look as far as the gamma and tones. There really isn't that much I feel I need to do when editing them, and my 8x12 prints look terrific, but that's expected.

However, if you didn't see much difference between a D40 and D300 in image quality, I have to wonder whether you'd even see any difference between the D300 and D700. Unlike the D40 to D300, there's really no resolution improvement with the D700, the dynamic range is slightly better, but the difference is much smaller relative to the D40-D300. For me the D300 is perfectly usable up to ISO 3200, the D700 is perfectly usable even at ISO 8000, but also much better at 3200, 1600, etc. For wildlife I rarely go over ISO 1600 since I'm shooting during the day.

Unless you shoot over ISO 1600 a lot you're not going to see any huge difference that will "blow you away"

In fact I could post D2X, D300 and D700 pictures side by side and I doubt most people would be able to tell any difference. I'll process my images to look the way I want them to regardless of the camera, the newer cameras mostly make it easier to get what you want with less manipulation. And of course the improved high ISO expands the range of conditions you can get good results in.

What I'd recommend is sticking with your D300, and actually putting some time into learning about post processing RAW images, and if you really have money burning a hole in your pocket, spend it on a good lens like the 24-70 you mentioned.

I still think it would be really helpful to you and everyone else giving advice if you actually listed what in camera settings you were using. For example, for wildlife I shoot in D2X Mode 3, sharpening 4, everything else on default, uncompressed RAW, 14-bit when I don't need the speed, 12-bit when I do. The D700 is always on 14-bit since there's no speed penalty for using it. After that I process the images in Capture NX 2, and what I do there varies per image.

So what are your settings?

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Sorry to say, I wasted my time here

I have to agree.

you don't shoot with D700 because you haven't had one, you know
nothing about shooting with D700

The fact that it uses basically the same guts and body as my D300 should not deter you from using this truly lame argument.

and now you tried to acuse us because we have our real problem,

Your problem is definitely real ... it's just not relevant to real-world images from what I have read (references were provided by you, remember.) According to your references, it appears that capturing and processing your images correctly would make the issue essentially unnoticeable ...

we shoot with our D700, we compare with our D300 and whatever we have

Yes, of course.

and we complained to Nikon because we got problem.....

Cool ... but reading all the info you provided, one cannot help but remain unconvinced that this is a real-world issue. Maybe Nikon are not too interested because the professionals who shoot with the camera don't seem to be complaining about it. (Not the ones I read, anyway.)

and you.... you only talked based on what you read ?

I based it on reading everything you pointed me at ... which you said would convince. It did not.

I am really sorry to say, I don't need your theoretical advise here

You don't need anyone's advice here ... you are entirely convinced that your highly over-processed images are in fact normal and should exhibit none of this blue channel noise that appears in bands around bright lights ...

Fine with me ... I'm just telling you that the data on which this is based (according to your quoted references) appears flawed ...

May I say politely and humble,
I am finish with you

You may, although I consider humble to be a stretch.

Thank you verymuch

You are verywelcome.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I can asure you,that i have absoloutly no bandig with my D700, if
somebody has, i'd recomend to send it to service.

Another think would be a High ISO wrongly exposed, there will be
banding stripes as with any DSLR...

My point exactly.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com