D700 owners: Which mirorless system do you use?

I love to use my D700 with some very nice primes. For some part of my shooting (street, shooting when hiking, climbing or biking) I would prefer a smaller, lighter and more discret (quite shutter) alternative. From time to time I use my wifes X100. While I like the concept and handling of the camera, the quality of the files is not even close to what the D700 delivers.

Is there yet a mirrorless alternative that can match the quality output of the D700?

Regards

Markus

Wouldn't that be the FuijiFilm XE-1 and the Sony RX-1...

--
Best Regards,
SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

I'm pretty happy with the Olympus OMD EM-5.

MarkusA said:

I use my wifes X100. While I like the concept and handling of the camera, the quality of the files is not even close to what the D700 delivers.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Yesterday I went out to do some shots and compare my D700 and my X100 -and the D700 didn't come off very well.

First, I used the 35mm f/2D. In my shots, the 35 f/2D simply was no match for the fujinon at f/2, f/2.8. It came close at f/4.
Second, the overall look of the Fuji files was better.

Third, at high ISOs in raw, the D700 was the clear winner, but I found the X100's jpgs to be almost exquisite.

In short, as far as IQ I would take the X100 over the D700 if I was to use the 35 f/2D.
After this, I'm now seriously considering the Samyang 35 f/1.4.

atamola said:

atamola wrote:

This is interesting. Yesterday I went out to do some shots and compare my D700 and my X100 -and the D700 didn't come off very well.

Click to expand...

This is interesting indeed because it is quite oposite to my findings. At 35mm I use the Zeiss 35/2 with the D700. I always shoot raw. I process the files with CaptureNX (D700) or Raw File Converter EX (X100) and afterwards in PS CS3.

When I compare files from the D700 to the files of the X100 the D700 files give me less noise (not only high iso but also less shadow noise), better DR, better microcontrast, better tonality and deeper and richer colours. The D700 files are also better suited for post processing.

I have to admit though that I have a lot more experience processing files from the D700 than X100 files. Which raw converter do you use for the X100 files? On the other hand, maybe the rather weak performance of the Nikkor 35/2 wide open are responsible for your inferior results for the D700.

MarkusA said:

MarkusA said:

atamola wrote:

This is interesting. Yesterday I went out to do some shots and compare my D700 and my X100 -and the D700 didn't come off very well.

Click to expand...

This is interesting indeed because it is quite oposite to my findings. At 35mm I use the Zeiss 35/2 with the D700.

Click to expand...

Well, I think there lies the root of the divergence of opinions: Nikkor 35 f/2D vs Zeiss 35 f/2.

But going to you point,I still think the X100 offers an excellent alternative. I had such a bad experience with Sony that I'm still reluctant to touch anything made by them (although specs-wise the NEX-7 sounds great).

I had the Epl-1, which is great, but the X100 is better.

PS: I was so seriously considering the Samyang 35 f/1.4 that I actually bought one online since my previous post I hope it lives up to expectation ($1700 for the Nikkor is above my budget)