Reading mode: Light Dark

Is D700 any good for landscape

Go to last post
dont compare it to D90 or D300s , of course , the 700 is better than these.

but compared to high resolution options such as the A900 , A850, 5D2 and D3X, the D700 is just ok-ish landscape option.

any stock agency does not accept it any more.

but personally, I think stitching photos make it a great landscape option.

however , when you can't stitching is not a option , you better use high resolution body for landscape or architecture.

this camera is bascially a PJ or Eent camera,IMO.
 
Hi Ronni and thank you so much for letting me see your artistic world - or at least a part of it. I was ascinated by your images and had a good time admiring your talent but you were right that for my purpose they are more than typical representation.
Ronni H said:
The D700 files can appear a little flat and not very contrasty straight out of the camera - one of the reasons being that shadows are full of detail. However if you use Capture NX2 you can really bring the best out of the camera and make superbly pleasing results.

If you miss "pop" I suggest you to look at these samples: http://fiveprime.org/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_type=Tags&photo_number=50&photo_type=250&noform=t&quicksearch=1&sort=Interestingness&textinput=d700%2Clandscape

--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
Thank you Peter. Even though I would have preferred raw file, the images are very helpful for my evaluation. to start with they look good and the d700 represents a wider DR than the D90 which is strange. I did try to play with them in PS and found that the d90 had more room to recover shadows but the d700 can't match it for highlights (see the rob) and I think the D90 looks a bit sharper but his may be just a different contrast… and yes, I know that its not comparing apples to apples.
peterclark55 said:
ruvy, the following two shots were taken with the Nikon 16-35, the first with the D700 and the second with the D90, both unprocessed.

The D700 one could be processed for more saturation, I believe, but you could hardly increase the field of view of the D90 one, :-)

I would go for the D700 for landscapes and its wider view. Peter
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
Ruvy said:
Hi Ronni and thank you so much for letting me see your artistic world - or at least a part of it. I was ascinated by your images and had a good time admiring
Click to expand...
They are Not His Photos.

They are everybody's photos.

That link he gave is a "search engine" to find D700 landscape on flickr - interestingness.
 
Thank you Pandalee for your independent thinking in this and the other post. It is much appreciated.

Buying NIkon may fulfill two dreams for me; 1- have a nearly pro Nikon camera - something I envied friends for 30 + years 2- To get a camera that can b serviced anywhere in the world but unlike the Sony, also in Israel where I live.

So far, it seems like landscape leaves a lot to be desired though with some PP a reasonable result could be at hand but at least for screen viewing its not more than reasonable. People on the other hands re rendered extremely well ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35426581 ). I shoot both so its a big question what should I do -for the time being still looking for outstanding landscape examples. Re. relying on stitching I know its sounds good in theory but in practice its good only for the times it serves a panorama development - I can't afford the time it takes on each landscape shot.
pandalee said:
not good enough MP wise but it is a really good when you can stich photos.

I mean the D700 has very good shadow qualtiy and you can manipulate files a lot in ACR or other RAW conveters.

So, if you goal is good shadow quality and you dont mind stiching photos , then it is a good landscape camera , however,detail and color wise there are many better options.

I think the D3X and A900 are better options if you want to stay in 135mm format.
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
UponQuai said:
Ruvy said:
Hi Ronni and thank you so much for letting me see your artistic world - or at least a part of it. I was ascinated by your images and had a good time admiring
Click to expand...
They are Not His Photos.

They are everybody's photos.

That link he gave is a "search engine" to find D700 landscape on flickr - interestingness.
Click to expand...
He he, yes - I wish I had taken some of them but no, they're not mine:-)

However it's a good search engine because it leaves out all the crappy shots:-) The only problem with it is that nearly all cameras look great when you do a search from there. Try to do a search on your current camera for example - and you'll ask yourself if you really HAVE to switch.
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
 
Thank you David. Not too many images are proving it as well as theses do with such a good measure of PP and fine details even though these images are much more architectural than landscape (or is it just my love of Italy that does it).

Can you link me to more of your images?
David V said:
Nope! It's great for landscapes!
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
Thomas Karlmann said:
Has anyone with a D700 used a good stitching program for landscapes? Do they work well enough for you to create a higher rez photo that you would sell? Which programs would you suggest?
Click to expand...
Generally stitching isn't necessary for great tack sharp 17" x 25" (A2) prints. However, PS CS4 and CS5 do a GREAT job of stitching, with little practice. A 6 panel stitch can even be done HAND HELD with practice. It is fairly easy to end up with a 25-50 mp image. 3 frame (shot vertical) and stitched horizontally can easily produce a 24 mp image, even after trimming. Use a tripod and get a 30 mp image (less overlay and trimming). Go to a 6 panel and 50 mp is available. This will make a 3' x 5' print that is TACK sharp. More importantly, you can use a lens like the 24-70 and get great wide angle results without the distortion. Use a Nikon 24mm PC lens and get all the foreground and corners super sharp. (careful, this is NO place for a novice!)

Need bigger????
Thomas Karlmann said:
I mean, if you only used just 2 or 3 frames your can get the 24MP resolution without buying an expensive new camera. Landscapes don't typically move too much, just wait till the wind dies down and use a tripod like Ansel did.

Anything wrong with this approach?
--
Thom--
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Do you print larger than A2? How often? The D700 can produce STUNNING A2 prints in the right hands, with great glass, raw, and proper printing techniques.

A1 is also possible, but you need proper A1 viewing distance . . . and opposed to say, reading distance.

Great photos, as always, require great skill . . . and a great eye.

If you go with the D3x, you will need the best pro glass . . . Nikon 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Figure close to $13,000 dollars. Now you have the BEST available in 35mm format. The Canon can't match it, and the Sony can't either.

The Sony 850 is the best buy if all you care about is pixel count. As I explained in earlier posts, there is more to photography than pixel count. Much more.

1- How good a system camera is it? What accessories and lens are available? How good are the lenses for YOUR intended uses? How about in 2-3 years?

2- Weather and dust sealing can make a huge difference down the road (no pun intended)

3- Dependability and guarantee. How about expected shutter count?

4- Ergonomics. How does it fit in your hand? My D700 feels like it was MADE for my right hand. I can carry it one-handed for hours at a time.

5- How about noise? Ever want to hand hold a sunset photograph and need a higher ISO?

6- Focusing in dim light. (Yes, I have taken many a landscape in fading light.) How fast and accurate is the focusing system?

7- Resale value. Nikon lenses often sell on e-bay for very close to original cost. If unavailable, you may even sell the lens for more than you paid. I have. Twice.

And much more . . .

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Hi Mojn,

This place looks an awfiul like the beach where I live - Bøgeskoven, Stevns ?
It certainly is a small world ;-)
 
Well, I need not do such search, mine was stolen and I know it was a good one but it had its share of problems too which is the reason for my search
Thanks
do a search from there. Try to do a search on your current camera for example - and you'll ask yourself if you really HAVE to switch.
Ronni H said:
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
This is Nørreskoven, Als. It's a rare phenomenon in DK with these large trees falling into the sea isn't it?
 
Thank you steve for this detailed reply.

It has something in common with some of the other messages - starting to feel like a "group size complex" - you and other members in this thread and other say things like "size don't bother me", "I can print big… any size you want", "feeling comfortable with the size", "at.. viewing distance size…", "old discussions here were we all agreed that size" "you can't compare it to Sony size" "same but to D3x" I just get a sense of feeling of inferiority that has no reason what so ever.. It is strange because I stated at the beginning and several times down this thread that I care not about size nor even about soft corners - just want to see great landscape images being rendered here on screen with good details specially in the green and without excessive PP manipulations.
Steve Bingham said:
Do you print larger than A2? How often? The D700 can produce STUNNING A2 prints in the right hands, with great glass, raw, and proper printing techniques.

A1 is also possible, but you need proper A1 viewing distance . . . and opposed to say, reading distance.

Great photos, as always, require great skill . . . and a great eye.

If you go with the D3x, you will need the best pro glass . . . Nikon 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Figure close to $13,000 dollars. Now you have the BEST available in 35mm format. The Canon can't match it, and the Sony can't either.

The Sony 850 is the best buy if all you care about is pixel count. As I explained in earlier posts, there is more to photography than pixel count. Much more.
Click to expand...
From this point on I have no argument but I can add some warm words (that you missed) about how D700 render people, live and still objects, architecture etc…

I am not trying to bash the camera but being a landscape architect, at least 50% of my images are landscape related and in the set of compromises one has to do when getting into a new system it is important to know its limitations and this is why I asked for pictures not for words. I am not sure what it is about greens in the landscape, perhaps the structure of the photo cells that makes greens look good in such as Sigma SD14, sony A850 and d3x but not as good to my eyes in D700 and below.

As you mention in your list of consideration there is more than one argument to make the choice. I am always difficult in making decisions - this is no exception but I know that D3x is not going to be my next camera so it leaves D700 and a850 for FF and SD15 for APS-c too many past issues with SD14 leaves D700 and a850 leading choices with D700 great advantage in having local service in Israel Sony doesn't.
Steve Bingham said:
1- How good a system camera is it? What accessories and lens are available? How good are the lenses for YOUR intended uses? How about in 2-3 years?

2- Weather and dust sealing can make a huge difference down the road (no pun intended)

3- Dependability and guarantee. How about expected shutter count?

4- Ergonomics. How does it fit in your hand? My D700 feels like it was MADE for my right hand. I can carry it one-handed for hours at a time.

5- How about noise? Ever want to hand hold a sunset photograph and need a higher ISO?

6- Focusing in dim light. (Yes, I have taken many a landscape in fading light.) How fast and accurate is the focusing system?

7- Resale value. Nikon lenses often sell on e-bay for very close to original cost. If unavailable, you may even sell the lens for more than you paid. I have. Twice.

And much more . . .
Click to expand...
Thanks for "forcing" me to think
Steve Bingham said:
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
Nikon 24 PC is recognized in the architectural community as one heck of a lens to have in your bag. Sony has no such PC lens, nor will the Nikon or Canon PC adapt to the Sony. Back to the camera system argument. Oh, and one of my closest friends used to make a damn good living doing architecture. Like 100k plus. He shoots Nikon.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
True, I have added architecture as well as portraits and some other items to your list of strong points of the D700- what was wrong with it?

On the other hand, thanks for the info about the 24 PC, I know nothing about it.
Steve Bingham said:
Nikon 24 PC is recognized in the architectural community as one heck of a lens to have in your bag. Sony has no such PC lens, nor will the Nikon or Canon PC adapt to the Sony. Back to the camera system argument. Oh, and one of my closest friends used to make a damn good living doing architecture. Like 100k plus. He shoots Nikon.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
Thanks Mojn

Somehow I am starting to suspect that landscape green details are not handled very good by digital cameras unless they are like the Sigma or with a large pixel count. I see no size problem with the much better images here of people, architecture and still or live objects than landscape greens. I know people here will disagree.
Mojn said:
Thanks Ruvy. "Gentle light" is a very positive interpretation of fog, rain, snow and winter darkness ;-)

But in fact most of the linked images are quite difficult when it comes to exposure and PP: Lots of DR and controlled clipping. I'm impressed by how much intact shadow detail you can lift in PP. D700 can handle almost anything in one single RAW frame - only had to use multiexpose a few times.

For me D700 is only "landscape limited" by it's 12MP. Not only because more MPs means larger prints, but also because they give you more PP headroom.
Click to expand...
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,
 
After used both 5D2 and D700 (3 bodies), I have no doubt to chose 5D2 for landscape.
Search on the forum...
D700, D3, D3s have some type of bandings too:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=31855144

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=35411356&q=Banding&qf=m
The second type of banding in nikons is due to pixel bleeding.
There isn't perfect camera..
UponQuai said:
pandalee said:
dont compare it to D90 or D300s , of course , the 700 is better than these.

but compared to high resolution options such as the A900 , A850, 5D2 and D3X, the D700 is just ok-ish landscape option.
Click to expand...
5D2 banding at low iso is a nightmare for landscape photographers.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=35398767

I did comparison tests
Click to expand...
 
Roman ... you make a reasonable argument :-)

Thanks very much for sharing ....

Amongst others, your fall tree is superb.

--
David



-sadly lacking a witty clichéd comment-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top