should I upgraded to D700?

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ranalli Senior Member • Posts: 1,016
Re: D700 is a low light monster

Mr Physics wrote:

tmtmtmt wrote:

i see the huge megapixel count as a negative thing, as i shot raw having 20 -30 mb files, like on the D600, is just too much (i don't print that big). However, i wold like a camera that handles dark situation better then my D90, and faster AF is also a welcome upgrade.

Have you compered pictures in dark situation, with similar focal length, between the D700 and the D90 (or higher) ?

I don't really believe that 12MP is a limitation with regard to print size. I recently printed a 20" x 30" D700 tripod held, well exposed landscape and it came out perfect. I can examine this print with a magnifying glass and can see no shortcomings. I don't know what to do with this print, it's too big to display: I only wanted to satisfy my curiosity as to the common statement that "12MP is great if you don't print big".  This is a MYTH. 12MP prints big very well.

I wanted to comment on your post earlier but I was too lazy. I have a D90 and found a very good, used D700 as well. I love them both. The D700 has some extra magical powers: it can focus pretty well in a dark saloon and capture images that a D90 simply can't. I can pull an underexposed image up a full 2 stops with little noise. It is a low light monster.

As others have said, you won't feel like you are missing out or be disappointed by the D700

Best regards,


Agreed.  I print 24x36 frequently....ZERO ZERO issues at that size.

You might think that some of the people claiming to *need* a D600/D800 were printing full size replicas in galleries.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow