Nikon D700

I took my D200 out to Mt. Rainier, about every 5 shots I wish I had my full frame, and I couldn't just step back 🙂 I also hate flashes, so the low noise will also be a blessing. I don't dream that this camera will make me a better photographer, it'll just increase the likelyhood that I'll get the shot I want, which in the end still might suck, but at least I'll have every opportunity. Plus My wife will love my D200.
 
I just shot about 20 exposures out my window with the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens, and it worked perfectly with my 14n, as it has always worked in the past.

The versions of the camera are:

1) The original Pro 14n

2) The 14NX, a 14n sent into Kodak and upgraded with the SLR/N sensor

3) The Pro SLR/N, with new sensor and additional processing power.

All are based on the Nikon N80 body.
 
What the hell is everyone going on about full frame and crop sensors for as if it's blasphemous to talk about it.

I'll break it down nice and simple:

a Nikkor 20mm f2.8's EQUIVALENT field of view on a:

a)Nikon d300 is - 30mm
b)Nikon d3 is - 20mm

If you got a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and stuck it on a D3 (yes I'm aware it's only for DX sensors but lets pretends it's a regular lens), and a nikkor 20mm 2.8 and stuck it on the d300, both would produce around the same field of view.

The only problem is that on the d300 you're using a lens that had to be designed with far more compromises to achieve a wider field of view normally, and so it probably won't perform as well, wether it be in terms of distortion or CA or sharpness etc.

The full frame sensor DSLRs tend to be easier on lenses flaws than crop sensor DSLRs, as they aren't "magnifying" a cropped out portion of the image.
In my experience with the 5d, 30d and nikon d300, lenses seem a bit better and show their character more with the full frame camera.

It's sort of like comparing a film camera to a point and shoot camera. One is nearly impossible to achieve limited depth of field in pictures with, the other is the exact opposite.
 
fdigital said:
What the hell is everyone going on about full frame and crop sensors for as if it's blasphemous to talk about it.

I'll break it down nice and simple:

a Nikkor 20mm f2.8's EQUIVALENT field of view on a:

a)Nikon d300 is - 30mm
b)Nikon d3 is - 20mm

If you got a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and stuck it on a D3 (yes I'm aware it's only for DX sensors but lets pretends it's a regular lens), and a nikkor 20mm 2.8 and stuck it on the d300, both would produce around the same field of view.

The only problem is that on the d300 you're using a lens that had to be designed with far more compromises to achieve a wider field of view normally, and so it probably won't perform as well, wether it be in terms of distortion or CA or sharpness etc.

The full frame sensor DSLRs tend to be easier on lenses flaws than crop sensor DSLRs, as they aren't "magnifying" a cropped out portion of the image.
In my experience with the 5d, 30d and nikon d300, lenses seem a bit better and show their character more with the full frame camera.

It's sort of like comparing a film camera to a point and shoot camera. One is nearly impossible to achieve limited depth of field in pictures with, the other is the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Glad you correctly stated this. I was wondering, before I got to your post, how much misinformation could accumulate in just one thread!
 
fdigital said:
In my experience with the 5d, 30d and nikon d300, lenses seem a bit better and show their character more with the full frame camera.
Click to expand...
This is the contrary of what I've experienced myself with the 5D versus a 20D, and what I've found seems to be confirmed at serious lenses reviews sites like www.photozone.de, but, as they say, "everybody sees noon light rays at his own doorstep".

BTW Gavin the pictures you uploaded at another thread from your D300 and the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar ZF are truly superb, congrats.

🙂
 
Highway 61 said:
This is the contrary of what I've experienced myself with the 5D versus a 20D, and what I've found seems to be confirmed at serious lenses reviews sites like www.photozone.de, but, as they say, "everybody sees noon light rays at his own doorstep".

BTW Gavin the pictures you uploaded at another thread from your D300 and the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar ZF are truly superb, congrats.

🙂
Click to expand...

Thanks - although they were just snapshots.

I have to say though, I've read quite a lot that agrees with my opinion that DX sensors are harder on lenses than full frame sensors. I have some examples in my image library from my 5d and 30d with the same lens, but it's a bit late to pull them out and show them... Maybe tomorrow if I'm motivated.
 
Robert Budding said:
Glad you correctly stated this. I was wondering, before I got to your post, how much misinformation could accumulate in just one thread!
Click to expand...
Well, with all respect for Gavin's explanations, comparing an old lens designed for 24x36 film with a very recent lens designed for 17x24mm sensors is biased a little bit since the optical formulas are very different.

Not speaking of the manufacturers' efforts to design lenses having a "telecentric" way of transmitting light towards the sensor.

Not speaking of the role played in the image capture process by not only the photosites but the integrated circuitries driving the signal from the photosites to the CPU.

On "old" sensors (sensors of some 2-3 years vintage) these tracks were on the same level as the photosites themselves. Now the sensors manufacturers have been successful at fitting these tracks under the photosites so that the signal/noise ratio for a made in 2008 LxH xMP is way better than what it was on a made in 2005 LxH xMP sensor, the size of the sensor and the MP resolution being exactly the same.

Heat transfer was also a problem, seems that it's to be solved as well, that's why we can now have a live view mode with large sensors. The 20D Astro opened the path.

Anyway I don't care, what gets me to laugh is that I guess that about 70% of the contributors of that thread never used a digital SLR and never post-processed a RAW file with either NX, COne or CameraRaw, and wouldn't be able to tell the basic yet important differences between a Jpeg and a TIFF file, and still want to apply theories from the good ol'time of film to solve digital imaging problems, so why bother ?

Now back to trolling !

😀
 
As for Nikon not making a simple DSLR (let's say, with just some A and M shutter modes, only two metering modes like center-weighted and spot, a mechanical DOF tester button, and interchangeable focusing screens and with a Ai/Ai-S lenses prong), well it's IMO the proof that the D700 is by no means aimed to "appeal shooters wanting to use their old lenses".
Click to expand...
Once economy of scale and availability of modules make sticking a digital sensor into a simple body cheaper and easier, I wouldn't be surprised if some company, maybe Chinese, does do that. In a few years they'll be building cheap ultra high quality sensors into EVERYTHING.

Maybe do the same for numerous classic mounts, like old Minolta, etc.

I would be first in line to buy one, it would be a swell toy. Make some cheap Leica M boxes too. With a live rear screen and a focus confirmation light. Great idea.

.
 
Last edited:
the day when full frame digital compatibility with m lenses will come, just not yet. This is why I don't own a DSLR, they come out with new ones way to fast to justify my opportunity cost and the quality I get from 35mm film. Sure the little dgigi p&S is great for snaps of friends and stuff but for my hobby I'm still holding out.
 
fdigital said:
I have to say though, I've read quite a lot that agrees with my opinion that DX sensors are harder on lenses than full frame sensors.
Click to expand...
Gavin, it depends on what you are talking about and on which part of the whole digital imaging process you are referring to.

As for resolution (say, levelled in pair of lines per mm resolution power) yes a "full frame" sensor will be "gentler" on lenses than a "DX" sensor if and only if those two sensors have the same megapixels number.

A "FX" or "FF" 24x36 12MP sensor will be less hard on lenses as for resolution (thus, as for the lenses sharpness) than what a "DX"17x24 12MP sensor will be because the "DX" 12MP sensor is, finally, the "center crop" of a virtual "FF" 24MP sensor. Get it ?

But how do you compare a 24x36 12MP sensor to a 17x24 8MP or 10MP sensor while using the same lens at the same aperture and in front of the same subject evenly illuminated by the very same light ?

😉

And then, resolution is not all.

Chromatic dispersion (that pesky CA & purple fringing problem) in particular is an important factor for an image not to appear sharp and full of crisp details.

In that matter, "FF" sensors are a problem in particular when used with old lenses designed for films.

The best lens sales for the 5D were for the 24-105 that was released specially by Canon for that body.

The 17-40 L which was a killer with film is just above average with the 5D, OTOH it's a killer once and again in front of the 20D/30D/350D sensors.

Yet an old lens can produce terrific images in front of a sensor once you accept to spend several hours tweaking the digital file with a RAW software and another software suite so that all the problems are corrected.

This is called the lightroom post-processing.

This is mainly what people ready to spend $2500-$4500 on some high-end prosumer digital ecuipment have the greatest difficulties with : I mean, people actually don't want to acknowledge that the image isn't completed in the ultimate way just a few seconds after the shutter button was depressed.

:angel:
 
Last edited:
No matter what digital SLR I use, all of the files I produce wether it be for newspaper publication, advertising or internet use go through post processing.

In terms of doing the least amount of PP possible, Olympus cameras seem to be the best. They produce very rich and true colors straight out of the box, even with RAW files. On the other hand, Canons produce colors and tones that are most easily tweaked to what the user desires. I know there's a better way to explain this but I'm rushing inbetween work breaks.
In my direct experience, olympus RAW files need little tweaking. Canon RAW files need a lot of tweaking but if you're prepared to put in some effort, the results can be better than anything. Nikon RAWs didn't work for me... my d300 tended to blow color channels a lot - especially reds.

As far as a lens like the 17-40 f4L is concerned - I really liked mine. I compared it to the kit lens for my e-410 - the Oly 14-42 and while the zuiko was very close and even sometimes slightly better with IQ, the canon is by no means a poor lens.

There are millions and millions of amazing photographs taken with that lens by pros all over the world. It's solid, flare resistant, relatively cheap, has low distortion, and once stopped down a little is sufficiently sharp even in the corners.
 
It turns out the D700 viewfinder specs are identical to the FM3a's.

To bad the D700 is heavier and larger. Of course it does not have spit circle focusing screen either.
 
D300 is all that I need

D300 is all that I need

I bought a D300 a couple of months ago

It is a great camera, so versatile and interesting - I just use mine all the time with my old MF Nikon lenses.

OK modern Nikon AF glass is good but it is great to use the old stuff especially when you are not in a hurry

I have never used a camera as much.

Would I upgrade to an FX......I am sure that there is no real need

I would like inter changeable focusing screens to make better use of MF lenses.........but I suppose I could replace the OEM screen with a Katzeye...but it is not quite the same
 
paragon said:
IMHO there is nothing to really hate

no reason why you should not use both...........either has a unique place in life as well as being complementary to the other
Click to expand...

I do use both because I have to for work.....hence how I know I hate it. Sorry, dont wanna change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom