Thinking long and Hard about D700

I had a Canon 5D and although the handling was frustrating and the weight with a decent zoom lens was high, the detail and sharpness of the pictures was great.

I went to a D5000 and 16-85mm for holidays which is acceptable quality and bought a D300s for more serious work.

Although the handling and picture quality (from an overall picture) of the D300s is excellent, I miss the FF level of pixel detail. Many folk will argue with me, but I find it essential for cropping and also applying PP more effectively and naturally.

So I now i have sold the D300s and want a new FF. Nikon makes sense as I can share some equipment with the D5000, but it is not a paramount concern.

I was looking at the sony a900, canon 5DII and the nikon D700.

All of these are excellent, however the D700 seems to make more sense as its a very good all-rounder with excellent (class-leading?) handling, not to mention the leading ISO noise, where I want to shoot some hand-held low light.

BTW I wil only be shooting primes on the FF, for Nikon it would be 20mm (or14mm), 50mm and 105mm.

The only thing that bothers me (apart from the extra 160g, but this is mitigated as I will be using primes), is the 12mp.

Regardless of the D800/D700x rumours, my question is, for those folk with a D3X and a D700 (or a D700 and a Canon 5DII / 1DsIII or Sony A900), is the extra resolution a deal killer for portraits, or is it only marginal ?

My 5D was great for portraits, but is the move to double the resolution really significant or a nice to have ?

I will be primarily shooting landscapes and portraits. However there will be significant indoor hand-held activity (and I don't like flash that much).

any thoughts would be appreciated.

I use the D3 and D700 for my wedding and event work and for low light or high iso work they are superb. I have the 5DmkII and use it mainly for landscape work , i actually find that the higher megapixel cameras are too detailed for portraits
Jim

I find the D700 totally adequate to enlarge those measly 12MP shots into 20x30". If you have the pixel hunger, perhaps you should start with D3X or MF. Personally, I'd prefer 2-3 excellent lenses + D700 vs more (and more) pixels. This is an excellent camera in many respects.

I can send you some recent samples, if you contact me.

Leswick

Leswick said:

I find the D700 totally adequate to enlarge those measly 12MP shots into 20x30". If you have the pixel hunger, perhaps you should start with D3X or MF. Personally, I'd prefer 2-3 excellent lenses + D700 vs more (and more) pixels. This is an excellent camera in many respects.

Click to expand...

D700x with 24,5MP sensor is not likely going to cost much more than D700. So you can get more likely a cheapish prime + D700 for the price of a D700x, not two pro zooms or so like you made it sound (to me at least).

--
Osku

You cannot imagine what amazing high iso capabilities D700 has,it is making the night day and can see more things than your eyes in night.

The difference is going to be marginal for portraiture. The glass is going to make a huge difference -- I have head shots that blow me away with detail and sharpness on the D3 + 105DC, for example, and I can't imaging needing more (i.e. you can tell the model is wearing coloured contact lenses).

I have compared my D3 and D3x side by side on the same subject, and while the D3x's image are slightly better in per-pixel sharpness, you have to know what you're looking for and at 100% viewing.

Also, for available light portraiture, you'd generally be better off with the better ISO performance than resolution to give you a better shutter speed. At anything past base ISO, I feel the D3/D700 will give you a bit more latitude to play with in post as well.

Martin

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

mchung said:

The difference is going to be marginal for portraiture. The glass is going to make a huge difference -- I have head shots that blow me away with detail and sharpness on the D3 + 105DC, for example, and I can't imaging needing more (i.e. you can tell the model is wearing coloured contact lenses).

I have compared my D3 and D3x side by side on the same subject, and while the D3x's image are slightly better in per-pixel sharpness, you have to know what you're looking for and at 100% viewing.

Also, for available light portraiture, you'd generally be better off with the better ISO performance than resolution to give you a better shutter speed. At anything past base ISO, I feel the D3/D700 will give you a bit more latitude to play with in post as well.

Martin

Click to expand...

The other thing the D700's ISO capabilities give you is the ability to take portraits in the most minimal light, and still get fantastic images at 3200. I had to see it for myself to believe it, but most of the time, I keep my ISO around 800-1250 by default becasue a) there is no noise and b) the shutter speed for grabbing snaps of my kids is too important.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I went to shoot some cliffs as a storm was rolling in at late afternoon. I was shooting at 1600 and the images blew me away.

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

harold1968 said:

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

Click to expand...

I agree, the D700's high iso performance is really amazing and expands the creative possibilities a lot.

Shot at iso 3.200 without any noise reduction in postprocessing.

Andre De Angelis said:

The other thing the D700's ISO capabilities give you is the ability to take portraits in the most minimal light, and still get fantastic images at 3200. I had to see it for myself to believe it, but most of the time, I keep my ISO around 800-1250 by default becasue a) there is no noise and b) the shutter speed for grabbing snaps of my kids is too important.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I went to shoot some cliffs as a storm was rolling in at late afternoon. I was shooting at 1600 and the images blew me away.

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

harold1968 said:

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

nice
what lens ?

lp2dp said:

I agree, the D700's high iso performance is really amazing and expands the creative possibilities a lot.

Shot at iso 3.200 without any noise reduction in postprocessing.

Click to expand...

lp2dp said:

Andre De Angelis said:

The other thing the D700's ISO capabilities give you is the ability to take portraits in the most minimal light, and still get fantastic images at 3200. I had to see it for myself to believe it, but most of the time, I keep my ISO around 800-1250 by default becasue a) there is no noise and b) the shutter speed for grabbing snaps of my kids is too important.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I went to shoot some cliffs as a storm was rolling in at late afternoon. I was shooting at 1600 and the images blew me away.

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

harold1968 said:

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

Click to expand...

great example o the D700 capabilities....I love mine....Set your auto ISO to 3200 and away you go. Just buy the camera, you wont regret it ....wait you will have one regret, tht you did not buy it sooner.

lp2dp said:

I agree, the D700's high iso performance is really amazing and expands the creative possibilities a lot.

Shot at iso 3.200 without any noise reduction in postprocessing.

Andre De Angelis said:

The other thing the D700's ISO capabilities give you is the ability to take portraits in the most minimal light, and still get fantastic images at 3200. I had to see it for myself to believe it, but most of the time, I keep my ISO around 800-1250 by default becasue a) there is no noise and b) the shutter speed for grabbing snaps of my kids is too important.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I went to shoot some cliffs as a storm was rolling in at late afternoon. I was shooting at 1600 and the images blew me away.

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

harold1968 said:

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

Click to expand...

--

harold1968 said:

BTW I wil only be shooting primes on the FF, for Nikon it would be 20mm (or14mm), 50mm and 105mm.

Click to expand...

Just be aware the Nikkor 14mm prime lens (which I do own and use) sometimes has nasty vignetting but given my type of shooting, I fix it in post-processing whenever it happens as needed.

harold1968 said:

The only thing that bothers me (apart from the extra 160g, but this is mitigated as I will be using primes), is the 12mp.

Regardless of the D800/D700x rumours, my question is, for those folk with a D3X and a D700 (or a D700 and a Canon 5DII / 1DsIII or Sony A900), is the extra resolution a deal killer for portraits, or is it only marginal ?

Click to expand...

Somewhere between marginal to a total non-issue for portraits.

Also, I've made great 20x30 prints with a well-exposed 12 MP base ISO shot, for instance. Though I do understand and appreciate that it's often much desired to have greater MPs when doing landscape shooting.

harold1968 said:

My 5D was great for portraits, but is the move to double the resolution really significant or a nice to have ?

Click to expand...

Nice to have. when talking portraits. Of course, more pixels on target is nice, but you already have more than enough needed at 12 MP. Healthy amount of crop headroom there as well as printing big (but again taking into account viewing distance, quality of interpolation uprez'ing software, etc...).

harold1968 said:

I will be primarily shooting landscapes and portraits. However there will be significant indoor hand-held activity (and I don't like flash that much).

Click to expand...

I do tons of high ISO shots (my raison d'etre for the D3) and there, it's superb!

I am a wedding photographer, and I can't imagine a better portrait camera than the D3 (same image quality as the D700).

When shooting portraits, you should never have to crop, so 12 MP is plenty. I did a 30x40 bridal portrait that is just unbelievable! It's tack sharp at six inches.

And D3 (D700) skin tones are absolutely perfect. You don't even have to shoot raw unless you want to, because the jpeg engine is dead on, especially for portraits.

In my opinion, the D3 (D700) is about as close to perfect as a camera can get in 2009!

The D3s extends the ISO, which would be nice, but the quality of the images is essentially identical to the D3 (D700), so I don't see much reason to buy one.

--
Russ MacDonald
http://www.russmacdonaldphotos.com/
http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/

Although I mentioned the positives (above), you might also want to think about the other issues. If you increase resolution, you'll also have to upgrade your computer, and the rest of that chain.

I was not equating D700 w/pro lenses to D700X or their prices. The D700X, at the present, is not much of an issue unless someone desperately awaits one. I think that D700/D3 with great optics (not always expensive) + technique, can equal (or nearly so) D3X. As someone already mentioned, it's hard to believe the results till you shoot with one.

Leswick

No offence intended, but it sounds to me that you are camera hopping. The pature will always seem greener around the corner. I would stick with the equipment you have until the next generation of Nikon cameras come out. The D300S also has excelllent capabilities and most people only scratch the surface of what this camera is capable of doing. The claims in this thread about the D700 being able to see better in the night than the human eye are just nonsense rationalizations for spending the big bucks. I willing to bet most of these people would do just fine with a D40! No currrent camera sees better than the human eye at night!
--
Erwin

Arkayem said:

I am a wedding photographer, and I can't imagine a better portrait camera than the D3 (same image quality as the D700).

When shooting portraits, you should never have to crop, so 12 MP is plenty. I did a 30x40 bridal portrait that is just unbelievable! It's tack sharp at six inches.

And D3 (D700) skin tones are absolutely perfect. You don't even have to shoot raw unless you want to, because the jpeg engine is dead on, especially for portraits.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. The D300 is also dead on for portraits any used by many professional photographers. There is little if any advantage to going to the D700 for portraits. No one will know the difference. It is all in the head.

Arkayem said:

In my opinion, the D3 (D700) is about as close to perfect as a camera can get in 2009!

The D3s extends the ISO, which would be nice, but the quality of the images is essentially identical to the D3 (D700), so I don't see much reason to buy one.

--
Russ MacDonald
http://www.russmacdonaldphotos.com/
http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

--
Erwin

Thanks, the lens used is a 105 2.0 DC, aperture f2.5. Great focal length on FX for portraits.

harold1968 said:

lp2dp said:

I agree, the D700's high iso performance is really amazing and expands the creative possibilities a lot.

Shot at iso 3.200 without any noise reduction in postprocessing.

Click to expand...

harold1968 said:

Andre De Angelis said:

The other thing the D700's ISO capabilities give you is the ability to take portraits in the most minimal light, and still get fantastic images at 3200. I had to see it for myself to believe it, but most of the time, I keep my ISO around 800-1250 by default becasue a) there is no noise and b) the shutter speed for grabbing snaps of my kids is too important.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I went to shoot some cliffs as a storm was rolling in at late afternoon. I was shooting at 1600 and the images blew me away.

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

harold1968 said:

interesting, thanks

it seems that you are saying its quite marginal and also that the D700 has better ISO performance then the D3X (is this a stop or more ?)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

The D700 allows you to shoot comfortably at iso 1.600 or higher and get really great, virtually noisefree, results. No camera in the D40 or make that current DX-range will do that.

Can a D40 do this?

iso 1.600



or this, iso 3.200

Erwin Buske said:

No offence intended, but it sounds to me that you are camera hopping. The pature will always seem greener around the corner. I would stick with the equipment you have until the next generation of Nikon cameras come out. The D300S also has excelllent capabilities and most people only scratch the surface of what this camera is capable of doing. The claims in this thread about the D700 being able to see better in the night than the human eye are just nonsense rationalizations for spending the big bucks. I willing to bet most of these people would do just fine with a D40! No currrent camera sees better than the human eye at night!
--
Erwin

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards

Luc de Schepper

http://www.pbase.com/lucdeschepper
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

The D300 if properly exposed and no apparant shadows can manage 3200 fairly well, and 1600 with ease.

Just buy the camera, you wont regret it ....wait you will have one regret, tht you did not buy it sooner.

minor salazar said:

minor salazar said:

minor salazar said:

I simply cannot imagine ever having a body that does not match the D700 for ISO aever again.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Probably the 2 best ways to describe the D700. If you are on the fence, jump. We who have D700's have all been there and I have yet to hear anything other than, for lack exact accuracy in quoting, "This is the best DSLR Nikon has made. This is the best high ISO performing DSLR Nikon has ever made. This is the Nikon DSLR we have all been waiting for since leaving film." Period. The D700, for me, is the best camera I have EVER used. I don't care what features come out on any new Nikon bodies. The D700 does EVERYTHING I wanted in a dslr that my D70 / D2H / D300 never could provide. I'm finally content with my camera body and that's a great place to be, esp. when everyone else in the world is now adding video hype to their MP hype...Just get the D700 and you will never regret it.