tensai
Established
I didn't just get an evil SLR, I got me a digital one...
I have to say the files are more film like than any other digital I've seen before.
First day, in very very harsh light... Nothing too grant, just getting a feel for the camera and the files.
D700, and the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8..
I'll put some more up over here:
http://gallery.me.com/lokjansen#gallery
I have to say the files are more film like than any other digital I've seen before.
First day, in very very harsh light... Nothing too grant, just getting a feel for the camera and the files.
D700, and the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8..
I'll put some more up over here:
http://gallery.me.com/lokjansen#gallery
Attachments
Last edited:
Mattikk
Well-known
Wow. Amazing pictures.
Krosya
Konicaze
Not bad, but from this size hard to tell - so far I can say that I have seen as good files from R-D1. - nothing against D700, just my opinion.
chambrenoire
Well-known
Can one use Ai / Ai-S lenses on the D700?
b&w
Member
yes, with metering on AP and P modes.
Spider67
Well-known
Please tell mor about its handling...how does it feel compared to others (I use an FM/FG)
desire
Amateur RFer
Excellent pictures and gallery.
Please post more pictures at higher resolution.
Please post more pictures at higher resolution.
Avotius
Some guy
Looks great to me. I am seriously considering a switch to Nikon. I have a Canon 20D and a few little trinkets, most of them save for one lens about to break for over use. Highly considering a switch to D700 and one or two Zeiss optics when the price comes down a bit.
Nh3
Well-known
I can't afford it otherwise I would have bought it simply for its high ISO capability if nothing else.
If you have the money go for it.
If you have the money go for it.
Nh3
Well-known
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
tensai
Thanks for posting the photos, it sets my mind a ease a little more. Also glad someone else jumped on the D700 too, I hope to be able to get out and use mine tomorrow. First impressions without using the camera point towards the positive but that could all change once I get some images.
Thanks for posting the photos, it sets my mind a ease a little more. Also glad someone else jumped on the D700 too, I hope to be able to get out and use mine tomorrow. First impressions without using the camera point towards the positive but that could all change once I get some images.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
O wow, I like how this looks....
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
The D700 is like a baby D3, and its performance doesn't surprise me. I must get one before I die. And that probably will be the last camera I buy.
Thanks for posting these shots, Tensai!
Thanks for posting these shots, Tensai!
tensai
Established
I didn't mean to start a post about any technical quality of the files or anything technical about the camera. Just wanted to show some photos I did while getting acquainted with the camera.
I'll answer the questions though, seems only polite.
Obviously these small shots saved for web were not to compare the quality of the files to any other files or anything. There are enough full res test shots on the web to compare. My feeling about it is you can really tell that it's a full frame sensor not crammed to the brim with pixels. It's got great smooth tonality, not much of that computer file look. I really like the files at iso 1600. Slight noise with a very nice structure to it that I find a pleasure to look at. Perhaps even more than the super clean iso200. DR doesn't equal film though. Or doesn't roll of like film. At least not like the 120 negs from my Bronica.
spider76 - Handling. its a DSLR. Pretty big one at that. I have never used an FM/FG. I've owned a FM2n and own a FE2. This is more like the F100 kind of stuff. They are thick, solid, with an insane amount of features. Nice but it's definitely not as inconspicuous as shooting an FE2...
The ergonomics are very very good though. I personally like the Nikon DSLR's a lot in that sense. But if they ever put this sensor in a FE2 kind of body with only the most essential features I would for sure prefer that.
Like SolaresLarrave said, it's a baby D3.
NH3 - Iso 25600 better than Trix 400@1600? No. Don't think so. Like I said, the noise is really nice. Especially at 1600 I really like the way it gives the files some texture, but none of that digital looking brittle stuff.. Iso 3200 and 4000 looks good, i prefer it over D200 iso 800 but you start to see it more clear.. 6400 very much usable but I'd avoid it if I can of course.
There are noise comparisons out there, I'm not one for tripod/pixel peeping tests and stuff. I did take a shot at roughly 04:30 am for you though. Lights off in the room, some ambient light available. I have never pushed trix but have pushed Neopan400 to 1600. The grain looks nicer on my negs (120, don't know about 35mm). But the thing is, the contrast goes up a lot in the pushed shots. You'll find more open shadows in these files. And with 1600, or 3200, you're still pretty far off from the light you'll be getting in.
Now, about this photo, I would normally not go above 6400, and 25600 is really insane. You have to understand, my Sekonic meter wouldn't even meter as the light was too low. I couldn't see my subject except for the outer shape and some brightest parts. I couldn't focus, well the camera did, I just didn't know on what... Everything else was just black.
I normally prefer to inspect files at 50% zoom in to see how it prints, not 100%. But I've included both for you. Set in camera to monochrome, low noise reduction, opened in NX2, saved to jpg, jpg resized and saved for web.
This is basically the scene the way I saw it:
this is the photo at iso 25600
50%
I did use save for web on these. Like I said, I couldn't even see the camera. I often have it the other way around with my film camera - I'll stand in a narrow alley or market and see all this awesome stuff only to find it buried deep in the shadows when scanning my film. If you're in Iraq or whatever and you have to get a shot, this sure beats nothing.
(I'm sure I've done things technically not as some people want it, please bare in mind, I'm only interested in testing something the way I would shoot. If you want consistency etc, etc. there are files out there on dpreview and some japanese sites.).
I'll answer the questions though, seems only polite.
Obviously these small shots saved for web were not to compare the quality of the files to any other files or anything. There are enough full res test shots on the web to compare. My feeling about it is you can really tell that it's a full frame sensor not crammed to the brim with pixels. It's got great smooth tonality, not much of that computer file look. I really like the files at iso 1600. Slight noise with a very nice structure to it that I find a pleasure to look at. Perhaps even more than the super clean iso200. DR doesn't equal film though. Or doesn't roll of like film. At least not like the 120 negs from my Bronica.
spider76 - Handling. its a DSLR. Pretty big one at that. I have never used an FM/FG. I've owned a FM2n and own a FE2. This is more like the F100 kind of stuff. They are thick, solid, with an insane amount of features. Nice but it's definitely not as inconspicuous as shooting an FE2...
The ergonomics are very very good though. I personally like the Nikon DSLR's a lot in that sense. But if they ever put this sensor in a FE2 kind of body with only the most essential features I would for sure prefer that.
Like SolaresLarrave said, it's a baby D3.
NH3 - Iso 25600 better than Trix 400@1600? No. Don't think so. Like I said, the noise is really nice. Especially at 1600 I really like the way it gives the files some texture, but none of that digital looking brittle stuff.. Iso 3200 and 4000 looks good, i prefer it over D200 iso 800 but you start to see it more clear.. 6400 very much usable but I'd avoid it if I can of course.
There are noise comparisons out there, I'm not one for tripod/pixel peeping tests and stuff. I did take a shot at roughly 04:30 am for you though. Lights off in the room, some ambient light available. I have never pushed trix but have pushed Neopan400 to 1600. The grain looks nicer on my negs (120, don't know about 35mm). But the thing is, the contrast goes up a lot in the pushed shots. You'll find more open shadows in these files. And with 1600, or 3200, you're still pretty far off from the light you'll be getting in.
Now, about this photo, I would normally not go above 6400, and 25600 is really insane. You have to understand, my Sekonic meter wouldn't even meter as the light was too low. I couldn't see my subject except for the outer shape and some brightest parts. I couldn't focus, well the camera did, I just didn't know on what... Everything else was just black.
I normally prefer to inspect files at 50% zoom in to see how it prints, not 100%. But I've included both for you. Set in camera to monochrome, low noise reduction, opened in NX2, saved to jpg, jpg resized and saved for web.
This is basically the scene the way I saw it:
this is the photo at iso 25600
50%
I did use save for web on these. Like I said, I couldn't even see the camera. I often have it the other way around with my film camera - I'll stand in a narrow alley or market and see all this awesome stuff only to find it buried deep in the shadows when scanning my film. If you're in Iraq or whatever and you have to get a shot, this sure beats nothing.
(I'm sure I've done things technically not as some people want it, please bare in mind, I'm only interested in testing something the way I would shoot. If you want consistency etc, etc. there are files out there on dpreview and some japanese sites.).
Last edited:
tensai
Established
and 100%
If it's not sharp.. again, it was too dark. I guess I focussed somewhere on the aperture ring.
50 mm, f1.4, 1/30 sec. Guess I should have brought down the exposure to 1/50 or slightly more. But hey, I was still half asleep.
If it's not sharp.. again, it was too dark. I guess I focussed somewhere on the aperture ring.
50 mm, f1.4, 1/30 sec. Guess I should have brought down the exposure to 1/50 or slightly more. But hey, I was still half asleep.
Last edited:
sweathog
Well-known
So, the D700 is full frame, isn't it?
But smaller and cheaper than other full fram DSLRs.
This would make me go over to Nikon. Not that I have anything against Nikon, I just happen to be happily using Canon.
Hmmm...
But smaller and cheaper than other full fram DSLRs.
This would make me go over to Nikon. Not that I have anything against Nikon, I just happen to be happily using Canon.
Hmmm...
tensai
Established
No, the 5D is cheaper, lighter etc.
sweathog
Well-known
What is the D700 at the moment, compared to the 5D?
Also, I was not talking about weight, but size. Is the 5D smaller?
Also, I was not talking about weight, but size. Is the 5D smaller?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
tensai
I would agree with your comments to spider 76. If you hae used a Nikon film SLR, say F90x and newer, you have a pretty good idea of what the D700 feels like. Like you, I would have preferred an digital FM2n/FE2/FM3a camera for my needs. Having said that, I in no way am regretting buying the D700. Nikon got a lot right and very little wrong IMHO. I haven't tried the higher ISOs but here is a test shot at 1000 ISO, F4, 1/30 from an old 70-210/4 AF Nikkor. The original file was JEPG FINE size large with some USM applied in PS Elements 2.0 before resizing for web. I think, for the ISO, it will do me just fine but of course your MMV as well as your preferences. Your high ISO examples have me wanting to try them even if I may never need them.
Bob
I would agree with your comments to spider 76. If you hae used a Nikon film SLR, say F90x and newer, you have a pretty good idea of what the D700 feels like. Like you, I would have preferred an digital FM2n/FE2/FM3a camera for my needs. Having said that, I in no way am regretting buying the D700. Nikon got a lot right and very little wrong IMHO. I haven't tried the higher ISOs but here is a test shot at 1000 ISO, F4, 1/30 from an old 70-210/4 AF Nikkor. The original file was JEPG FINE size large with some USM applied in PS Elements 2.0 before resizing for web. I think, for the ISO, it will do me just fine but of course your MMV as well as your preferences. Your high ISO examples have me wanting to try them even if I may never need them.
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
tensai
Established
Yeah definitely, I think up till 4000 is fine. I don't think I will ever really need to go any higher than that. I'm just happy it's not all about the high iso performance though, although it's great to have.