Bikerbrent
Senior Member
Buying a newer model camera would NOT help with the price of good FX glass. But, saving a few dollars buying a 12MP sensor camera vs. a 24MP sensor camera might well be false economy.
Searching for a D700 a good idea?
- Thread starter daveward
- Start date
Buying a newer model camera would NOT help with the price of good FX glass. But, saving a few dollars buying a 12MP sensor camera vs. a 24MP sensor camera might well be false economy.
Just to throw another idea out there, D7200s are going for crazy low prices right now, and while they are not full frame, they would be a big jump forward in performance and megapixels. No new lenses to buy that way.
I'm not trying to talk you out of a D700. That would be a fun camera to own, and it's a good $5-600 less than a D750.
I'm not trying to talk you out of a D700. That would be a fun camera to own, and it's a good $5-600 less than a D750.
There is something important missing in this thread....what do you shoot? Does Fx aid or hinder that subject type?
Due to larger photo sitesm the D700 has a little, better signal to noise ratio is better by 1/2 a stop with the D700 in Fx mode but in Dx mode in case you are using Dx lenses, the D90 has better dynamic range and color depth throughout the ISO range. Both cameras are clearly weaker in dynamic range than newer cameras. At low ISO, the D90 is better in DR in both Dx and Fx mode.
Consider a D700 as end of life meaning most parts are no longer available from Nikon.
If you are staying with Dx lenses( by far the most expensive part of FX), a unused D7200 would beat the D700 in all criteria from detail, DR, high ISO, color depth etc.
If you shoot sports or wildlife, stay with DX. A D90 is a very competent camera with the only weakness is topping out at ISO 6400 but the noise at 6400 is only one stop lower than a D700 so neither is a low light camera. I have a D90 with 330,000 frames, almost 3 times the expected shutter life and it is still quite competent if decent lenses are used. Some of my my admired portraits and landscapes were taken with a D90 mated to decent lenses
The D700 is built really well but is heavier and larger, a little better AF module but with a lot more focusing points. At the time it was pro build and better weather sealing but is getting old enough that any defect will either be unrepairable due to lack of parts or high labor costs. Any repair that required cracking the case is $300 minimum for labor alone. So consider it a disposable camera.
How much is the used body and what focal length FX lenses would you need to buy. Remember, DX telephoto lenses are 50 more "reach", for the same field of view on a Fx. So telephoto lens for say 200mm on field of view you have on your D90, will require a much larger more expensive, heavier/larger 300mm lens on Fx.
IF you are mostly interested the landscape, FX has some real advantages.
If you are interested mostly in improved image quality and do not have fast primes, invest in those, a much better return on investment. For example a 85 1.8G used for $375 mounted on your D90 will mage that combination a great portrait kit. If you do not have lighting such as speed lights, umbrellas, light stands, and light portraits or interior shooting, get 1 or more speed lights($50), modifier($20), stand($20) and your current camera will beat almost any casual non augmented light setup. Top quality portraits can be done with almost any camera with good lighting and a little imagination.
So, please reply with what you want to shoot and what is expected from any improvement. Camera bodies are almost the least impact on image quality.
Due to larger photo sitesm the D700 has a little, better signal to noise ratio is better by 1/2 a stop with the D700 in Fx mode but in Dx mode in case you are using Dx lenses, the D90 has better dynamic range and color depth throughout the ISO range. Both cameras are clearly weaker in dynamic range than newer cameras. At low ISO, the D90 is better in DR in both Dx and Fx mode.
Consider a D700 as end of life meaning most parts are no longer available from Nikon.
If you are staying with Dx lenses( by far the most expensive part of FX), a unused D7200 would beat the D700 in all criteria from detail, DR, high ISO, color depth etc.
If you shoot sports or wildlife, stay with DX. A D90 is a very competent camera with the only weakness is topping out at ISO 6400 but the noise at 6400 is only one stop lower than a D700 so neither is a low light camera. I have a D90 with 330,000 frames, almost 3 times the expected shutter life and it is still quite competent if decent lenses are used. Some of my my admired portraits and landscapes were taken with a D90 mated to decent lenses
The D700 is built really well but is heavier and larger, a little better AF module but with a lot more focusing points. At the time it was pro build and better weather sealing but is getting old enough that any defect will either be unrepairable due to lack of parts or high labor costs. Any repair that required cracking the case is $300 minimum for labor alone. So consider it a disposable camera.
How much is the used body and what focal length FX lenses would you need to buy. Remember, DX telephoto lenses are 50 more "reach", for the same field of view on a Fx. So telephoto lens for say 200mm on field of view you have on your D90, will require a much larger more expensive, heavier/larger 300mm lens on Fx.
IF you are mostly interested the landscape, FX has some real advantages.
If you are interested mostly in improved image quality and do not have fast primes, invest in those, a much better return on investment. For example a 85 1.8G used for $375 mounted on your D90 will mage that combination a great portrait kit. If you do not have lighting such as speed lights, umbrellas, light stands, and light portraits or interior shooting, get 1 or more speed lights($50), modifier($20), stand($20) and your current camera will beat almost any casual non augmented light setup. Top quality portraits can be done with almost any camera with good lighting and a little imagination.
So, please reply with what you want to shoot and what is expected from any improvement. Camera bodies are almost the least impact on image quality.
Woody, I have always believed a d7200 would be a great upgrade for me...as I started this thing with: I have a great FX curiosity that I just can’t seem to shake off. Perhaps it is just the very simple notion that with FX over DX I would have bigger images from which to start. Too simplistic a view perhaps, but that’s why I was wondering about getting into FX as inexpensively as possible, to see for myself the differences.
Stan...what do I shoot? Great question. Let’s just say in simplest terms my favorite subjects are landscapes, mountains, rivers, sunsets, etc.
Again, to everyone who has replied...I appreciate all the encouragement and cautions...everything suggested makes sense. Thanks.
Stan...what do I shoot? Great question. Let’s just say in simplest terms my favorite subjects are landscapes, mountains, rivers, sunsets, etc.
Again, to everyone who has replied...I appreciate all the encouragement and cautions...everything suggested makes sense. Thanks.
Fred Kingston_RIP
Senior Member
Just a final observation. There’s nothing that says you can’t have both FX and DX systems… And multiples of each… :encouragement:
Ok, this is getting somewhere. FX is advantageous with wide angles because it naturally has a wider angle of view. All those subjects would really benefit from a decent wide zoom. For Dx, an ultrawide angle like the low cost Sigma 10-20, 3.5 or the lower cost variable aperture version that goto 5.6 as maximum aperture. That latter version is often the first dedicated wide angle that people get when beginning landscape Used it can be had for $100 It is Dx onl so could be used effectively with the D90 or a more modern D7200. Your camera is older so many people look down their noses at it but it was the frist Nikon of the new series that was essentially ISO less which means there was a linear decrease in signal to noise ration as ISO was increased. That means that exposing corrrectly had about the same DR/signal to noise ratio as greatly underexposing by 4-5 stops to allow getting the shutter speed up, amd boasting exposure gain in post processing to turn the very dark under exposed image to retain its detail and allow a 4 stop increase of shutter speed, and regain the exposure in post processing by boosting exposure 4 stops and end up with the same signal to noise ratio in the final displayimage.
The D90 would be fine with a 10-20mm ultra wide zoom and it would perform better at wide angles than a mid zoom like the kit 18-105. That 18-105 is actually a pretty good lens for optical performance but is not very good in low light because it does not gather as much light as wider aperture lenses.
Stan, I appreciate the extensive commentary, even though I’m not getting the significance of ‘signal to noise’, and I certainly understand the notion that with DX I could acquire good lenses to maximize either a D90 or D7200....however...I haven’t read yet a statement that with FX my experience would “not” be any better than with DX.
A lot of the memory of how good the D700 was came from comparing to cameras of the time and it certainly was good in comparison but things changed very quickly about 2008-9 in sensor performance and even the D90, intended as a enthusiast camera at a lower price point, ended up with very competitive image quality compared to pro cameras costing far more in other brands. Here is a chart of the plots of Photographic Dynamic Range of some of the models in this discussion. The D700 had lower noise contributed by the sensor and analog amplifiers bu as you can see the Dx D90 released shortly after beat it in dynamic range, a measurement really important to landscape shooter. n DX mode the D700 was a full stop poorer at base ISO than the consumer D90, which also had higher resolution. The larger photosites on the full frame sensor gathered more light then other FF cameras on the market until the D3s update came out. So for color depth, signal to noise ratio(the level difference between the lowest light level capture that still had a 6 db more signal than noise in the signal, compared to the highest level of light representing full well exposure(the point of clipping when no additional light adds to the output signal) really improved in the D3s over the D3 and D700 which shared the same sensor and off chip analog amplifiers. For a few years nothing else in the market competed for dynamic range or low light performance of Nikon DSLRs. The D90 was the first hobbyist camera to rival pro cameras for image qulity. Canon users were crying because it would be years later when they started to catch up.. Now, the state of the art is not much different in performance of the lowest cost DSLRs and many crop cameras now beat all ff DSLRs of 10-12 years ago.
All this is to illustrate how close those camera are. A D750 for example, used, is well under $1000 yet is neck and neck with the Z6 and D850. IF image quality, printability, color depth, resolution and dynamic range are important for your work, ....usually they are with landscapes than modern cameras are a better investment. If you are doing portraits, DR and resolution are not so important, in fact most modern cameras are too good for portraits which are aided by decreasing res and DR. The D700 still is a great portrait camera. So is the D90 and any camera made is if fed good lighting.
In the list of features or accessories for landscape shooters, DR and Resolution are key but external to the body is low distortion lenses or at least single axis distortion that is easy to correct, sturdy stable tripod, and a set of ND and graduated filters. It is easier to make wide angle lenses of a specific field of view for Fx but most are also faster lenses which increases their weight and cost over Dx lenses of the same field of view. If you do not have a good tripod, that, for a landscaper, is more important than the body. IF you are printing large for close viewing, high resolution really helps. But for normal viewing(where you are far enough away from the image to see it fully without scanning your eyes or moving your head, to see it as a whole, identical to how paintings have an intended viewing distance) then high res is not important. A 12mpx image 48 inches on the longest side viewed from 5-6 feet away will be a finely resolved as a larger mpx count. Billboards intended to be viewed from 40 feet away look good a 4-5mpx.
Unless there is some compelling feature, I would suggest staying with the body that has worked fine and focus on great tripod, and a nice wide angle
lens
Note on the chart how much degradation occurs even with high performance sensors when increasing ISO. A lower performance camera often does better at a stop lower ISO than a higher performance camera with ISO set higher than needed. An image shot at base ISO always had more detail and dynamic range than at higher ISO. That means you shooting a D90 at ISO 100 will have better signal to noise ratio than any excellent high ISO camera like the Z6 shot at ISO 400. So a good tripod allows shooting longer exposures and low ISO so as to equal top cameras shot at commonly used ISOs
All this is to illustrate how close those camera are. A D750 for example, used, is well under $1000 yet is neck and neck with the Z6 and D850. IF image quality, printability, color depth, resolution and dynamic range are important for your work, ....usually they are with landscapes than modern cameras are a better investment. If you are doing portraits, DR and resolution are not so important, in fact most modern cameras are too good for portraits which are aided by decreasing res and DR. The D700 still is a great portrait camera. So is the D90 and any camera made is if fed good lighting.
In the list of features or accessories for landscape shooters, DR and Resolution are key but external to the body is low distortion lenses or at least single axis distortion that is easy to correct, sturdy stable tripod, and a set of ND and graduated filters. It is easier to make wide angle lenses of a specific field of view for Fx but most are also faster lenses which increases their weight and cost over Dx lenses of the same field of view. If you do not have a good tripod, that, for a landscaper, is more important than the body. IF you are printing large for close viewing, high resolution really helps. But for normal viewing(where you are far enough away from the image to see it fully without scanning your eyes or moving your head, to see it as a whole, identical to how paintings have an intended viewing distance) then high res is not important. A 12mpx image 48 inches on the longest side viewed from 5-6 feet away will be a finely resolved as a larger mpx count. Billboards intended to be viewed from 40 feet away look good a 4-5mpx.
Unless there is some compelling feature, I would suggest staying with the body that has worked fine and focus on great tripod, and a nice wide angle
lens
Note on the chart how much degradation occurs even with high performance sensors when increasing ISO. A lower performance camera often does better at a stop lower ISO than a higher performance camera with ISO set higher than needed. An image shot at base ISO always had more detail and dynamic range than at higher ISO. That means you shooting a D90 at ISO 100 will have better signal to noise ratio than any excellent high ISO camera like the Z6 shot at ISO 400. So a good tripod allows shooting longer exposures and low ISO so as to equal top cameras shot at commonly used ISOs
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but full-frame lenses need not be expensive. There are plenty of capable, affordable manual focus and older AF lenses around that perform admirably. I use the same lenses for my D700 and my film Nikons, and have never had a complaint. You can even use your DX lenses, you just won't have access to the wide range of the zoom.
Ramseybella
Senior Member
So what did you decide on?
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
Since the original poster has not posted anything for 6 months, I think he has likely checked out!
Hello all.
I am not the original poster...but I did just order a used D700 body (way to go for staying current in 2020! lol). My previous system was a Sony a6000, which was fine, but always left me with an empty feeling. I am old school in my approach....and at one time was a working fashion photog. I always enjoyed the simplicity and organic nature of shooting with manual-ish cameras. I used to have a FM2n with motor drive that was possibly my favorite camera of all time, along with Hasselblad and Mamiya systems for medium format. 99.99% of my work was done on chrome or T-max, and I LOVED the discipline chrome required to get a great shot. You had about 1 stop latitude to nail the exposure on chrome and I just loved the fact it took a degree of precision to create a great image.
I spent a great deal of time agonizing over and comparing different models before buying the D700. What ultimately sold me in the end on this particular Nikon was its IQ. I have poured over tons of images from various makes and models, but at the end I kept coming back to and comparing everything to the D700. There is a quality to the color rendition and the images at high ISO (noise) that seems very close to what I came to love about medium format.
I don't need tons of megapixels. Most of the time I was downsizing the photos from the a6000 to share with family. I've printed a 6mp image to 16 x 20 before and it was just fine. I don't need tons of features, or 500 AF points or whatever. I usually choose one point for AF, and recompose after focus lock. I don't need to shoot 8 frames per second. I don't need face tracking or, or, or......
What I need is a camera that FEELS like a camera. I need an optical viewfinder. I need something solid and quick responding, and something that has terrific image quality. What I settled on, in 2020, was a D700. I found one in good condition with low shutter activations. I will be using this camera for portraits / family visits and what I call 'out and about' shooting (day trips, travel, you get the idea).
I will be using 2 lenses for about 95% of my shooting. A 35mm f1.4g, and an 85mm f1.8d. I also have an old 20mm f2.8 for the odd shot or two.
I know I am probably just looking for confirmation bias on my purchase, but....am I crazy? There are newer, and subjectively better cameras nowadays, but I think the D700 might just be a sweet spot for me....am I wrong?
Thanks!
I am not the original poster...but I did just order a used D700 body (way to go for staying current in 2020! lol). My previous system was a Sony a6000, which was fine, but always left me with an empty feeling. I am old school in my approach....and at one time was a working fashion photog. I always enjoyed the simplicity and organic nature of shooting with manual-ish cameras. I used to have a FM2n with motor drive that was possibly my favorite camera of all time, along with Hasselblad and Mamiya systems for medium format. 99.99% of my work was done on chrome or T-max, and I LOVED the discipline chrome required to get a great shot. You had about 1 stop latitude to nail the exposure on chrome and I just loved the fact it took a degree of precision to create a great image.
I spent a great deal of time agonizing over and comparing different models before buying the D700. What ultimately sold me in the end on this particular Nikon was its IQ. I have poured over tons of images from various makes and models, but at the end I kept coming back to and comparing everything to the D700. There is a quality to the color rendition and the images at high ISO (noise) that seems very close to what I came to love about medium format.
I don't need tons of megapixels. Most of the time I was downsizing the photos from the a6000 to share with family. I've printed a 6mp image to 16 x 20 before and it was just fine. I don't need tons of features, or 500 AF points or whatever. I usually choose one point for AF, and recompose after focus lock. I don't need to shoot 8 frames per second. I don't need face tracking or, or, or......
What I need is a camera that FEELS like a camera. I need an optical viewfinder. I need something solid and quick responding, and something that has terrific image quality. What I settled on, in 2020, was a D700. I found one in good condition with low shutter activations. I will be using this camera for portraits / family visits and what I call 'out and about' shooting (day trips, travel, you get the idea).
I will be using 2 lenses for about 95% of my shooting. A 35mm f1.4g, and an 85mm f1.8d. I also have an old 20mm f2.8 for the odd shot or two.
I know I am probably just looking for confirmation bias on my purchase, but....am I crazy? There are newer, and subjectively better cameras nowadays, but I think the D700 might just be a sweet spot for me....am I wrong?
Thanks!
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
Welcome aboard Kamurah. Enjoy the ride.
We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.
If you like the camera and it does what you want, you have made a good decision.
We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.
If you like the camera and it does what you want, you have made a good decision.
Danno
Senior Member
You are not crazy. I have a D700 that I have had about 2 1/2 years or so. It is a great camera. There is just something about it. It works great on landscapes and I have taken several graduation photos with it and I have not been ever disappointed.
I recently upgraded to the Nikon Z6. There were a number of things I wanted that the D700 could not offer. That included improved High ISO performance, focus stacking and the EVF and IBIS... THe EVF and IBIS a friend convinced me of with his Z7.
Now I have this D700 and I am not really using it and I should sell it, but I am finding that very hard to do. I can tell you that you will enjoy the camera. I wish you well with it. Good Shooting.
Thank you guys for the positive reinforcement. The D700 arrived today and I have been spending some time setting it up the way I like to shoot. I will be sure to check back and give an update once I have had time to get familiar with how it behaves and what I think of the output.
Nice to have a place to come to for info and to talk shop!
Nice to have a place to come to for info and to talk shop!
So I have had a couple of days to familiarize myself with the D700, and I guess I have some observations and a question:
1. Ergonomics are top notch. I really REALLY like the way this camera handles. It feels good and sturdy, and it responds pretty much like every other AF Nikon I have used. This is a good thing IMO because that means there is a level of predictability. For instance, I tend to prefer center weighted or spot metering over matrix, and the exposure has been pretty bang on with what I would expect. I once owned a F4s, and while this isn't as rugged as that slab of metal, it responds about the same.
2. Output has been mixed. I am not totally in love with the way it handles JPEGs. No real surprises there. I have not encountered a camera yet whose JPEG output blew me away. It isn't as heavy handed as other brands (looking right at you Sony), but I think RAW will be my preferred choice. I have not tried to upload custom JPEG profiles, just using stock neutral for the testing. I have done some quick shots in both ideal and challenging light, and the RAW files generally range from 'useable' to 'WOW'. I also really REALLY like the way those big pixels handle noise and dynamic range. It feels like I have a bit more latitude to adjust than other cameras I have used. High ISO noise looks as close to film grain (out of the camera) as I have seen. In fact, this is the first digital camera I have used that I actually LIKE the noise. Sounds silly I know, but some of the shots remind me of scans I used to work with from Tri-X. 12mp is just fine for what I need.
3. I love the way everything about it can be customized. Sooo many options. Just the little things like, how you can use the jog wheel as left-to-right for scrolling through images instead of up/down. I know it isn't unique in this...my A6000 was able to be configured similarly...but it feels like Nikon thought of the things a shooter would like, vs what an engineer would envision. Make sense?
4. I LOVE the fact it is old enough that all the extra accessories are now cheap. CF cards....cheap. Batteries....cheap. Big thumbs up there. I am thinking of ordering a MB-D10 to round out the physical shape.
So surely none of this is new to you guys....you have known and enjoyed this little gem for years; but I am so far very pleased with the purchase.
Here is my question:
Which program are you using for RAW conversion?
So far I have tried Aperture, Fotor, Nikon ViewNX-i, GIMP, and Photo Ninja. Currently, I am running Photo Ninja in demo mode (cannot save), but I am tempted to purchase as it seems to have the easiest toolset to get me where I want quickly. I find it's sharpening algorithms to be very nice looking while also retaining a bit of subtlety. I like Fotor as well, except that any zooming in looks like it is coming from the embedded JPEG vs the actual RAW file rendering (very jagged looking / pixelated). I cannot find a setting to switch it to using the RAW file for visualization.
I have not tried Lightroom or PS. I am sure they are good, but subscription models get under my skin. If I was a working pro, sure, no problem. Tax write-off. As is, I think seeing that bill every month would make my blood pressure rise.
So what am I missing? What do you guys prefer for RAW work?
Thanks in advance!
1. Ergonomics are top notch. I really REALLY like the way this camera handles. It feels good and sturdy, and it responds pretty much like every other AF Nikon I have used. This is a good thing IMO because that means there is a level of predictability. For instance, I tend to prefer center weighted or spot metering over matrix, and the exposure has been pretty bang on with what I would expect. I once owned a F4s, and while this isn't as rugged as that slab of metal, it responds about the same.
2. Output has been mixed. I am not totally in love with the way it handles JPEGs. No real surprises there. I have not encountered a camera yet whose JPEG output blew me away. It isn't as heavy handed as other brands (looking right at you Sony), but I think RAW will be my preferred choice. I have not tried to upload custom JPEG profiles, just using stock neutral for the testing. I have done some quick shots in both ideal and challenging light, and the RAW files generally range from 'useable' to 'WOW'. I also really REALLY like the way those big pixels handle noise and dynamic range. It feels like I have a bit more latitude to adjust than other cameras I have used. High ISO noise looks as close to film grain (out of the camera) as I have seen. In fact, this is the first digital camera I have used that I actually LIKE the noise. Sounds silly I know, but some of the shots remind me of scans I used to work with from Tri-X. 12mp is just fine for what I need.
3. I love the way everything about it can be customized. Sooo many options. Just the little things like, how you can use the jog wheel as left-to-right for scrolling through images instead of up/down. I know it isn't unique in this...my A6000 was able to be configured similarly...but it feels like Nikon thought of the things a shooter would like, vs what an engineer would envision. Make sense?
4. I LOVE the fact it is old enough that all the extra accessories are now cheap. CF cards....cheap. Batteries....cheap. Big thumbs up there. I am thinking of ordering a MB-D10 to round out the physical shape.
So surely none of this is new to you guys....you have known and enjoyed this little gem for years; but I am so far very pleased with the purchase.
Here is my question:
Which program are you using for RAW conversion?
So far I have tried Aperture, Fotor, Nikon ViewNX-i, GIMP, and Photo Ninja. Currently, I am running Photo Ninja in demo mode (cannot save), but I am tempted to purchase as it seems to have the easiest toolset to get me where I want quickly. I find it's sharpening algorithms to be very nice looking while also retaining a bit of subtlety. I like Fotor as well, except that any zooming in looks like it is coming from the embedded JPEG vs the actual RAW file rendering (very jagged looking / pixelated). I cannot find a setting to switch it to using the RAW file for visualization.
I have not tried Lightroom or PS. I am sure they are good, but subscription models get under my skin. If I was a working pro, sure, no problem. Tax write-off. As is, I think seeing that bill every month would make my blood pressure rise.
So what am I missing? What do you guys prefer for RAW work?
Thanks in advance!
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
I agree with you on not liking the subscription for PS, which is why I am still using Photoshop CS6. However, I am sure I will need to abandon it sooner or later (The new mirrorless cameras are tempting me, and CS6 will not read RAW from these cameras). So I also look forward to seeing what programs work well for RAW conversion.
Not to beat an expired equine, but Adobe is really one of the worst offenders when it comes to milking its patrons for money. I have several older versions of Photoshop Express (bought and paid for); however, Adobe does not save your account details for purchased items (S/N) for software they no longer support. Likewise, they do not even have the original installers online. Most companies will allow you to install on an alternate platform (like going from PC to Mac), without any issue as long as you are not abusing the system. Adobe...nope.
Not really photo related, but it irks me that just about every document program in existence allows you to export / edit / create a PDF file.....except Acrobat reader. You must pay for the full version. It's really quite silly and transparently greedy.
/end rant
Phew! I feel better....lol
Not really photo related, but it irks me that just about every document program in existence allows you to export / edit / create a PDF file.....except Acrobat reader. You must pay for the full version. It's really quite silly and transparently greedy.
/end rant
Phew! I feel better....lol