Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have absolutely no criticism of the D700's focus abilities ... they are phenominal. Maybe you misread my post?
The Sigma on the other hand is pretty awful IMO. 😀
Disappointing D700 ... who would have thought!
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 4K
I have absolutely no criticism of the D700's focus abilities ... they are phenominal. Maybe you misread my post?
The Sigma on the other hand is pretty awful IMO. 😀
David_Manning
Well-known
Warning: fantasy camera alert follows...
I wish there was a relatively small-sized dSLR that had the D700's focus capabilities. It's the best focus system I've ever used (I'm not a pro-sports shooter, so I don't shoot pro bodies). Nikon, why oh why did you hobble the Df with an inferior focus system???
Note: I've never used a Df...I just read it has a D4 sensor BUT uses a DX focus system.
I wish there was a relatively small-sized dSLR that had the D700's focus capabilities. It's the best focus system I've ever used (I'm not a pro-sports shooter, so I don't shoot pro bodies). Nikon, why oh why did you hobble the Df with an inferior focus system???
Note: I've never used a Df...I just read it has a D4 sensor BUT uses a DX focus system.
KM-25
Well-known
With the D700, if I had done my job as a photographer, as in identifying and using proper technique to record good light, form, color and tone, I did not have any post processing to do, just initiate an export and move on to more important things. The photographs stood on their own merits.
In my opinion and experience, there is nothing wrong with the "files" from the D700, there is no post processing needed if the photographer is the master of his technique. For what it is worth, I use a D800 and an X100S now for my digital jobs, pretty much treat them the same way except for the X100S, I mostly shoot that in JPEG. I'm hoping they are the last digital cameras I have to buy because I am hoping to be totally rid of digital in the next couple years...
Everyone treats "photography" differently. I treat it as I either got it right in camera or I did not get it, that includes my black and white film & darkroom based fine art.
In my opinion and experience, there is nothing wrong with the "files" from the D700, there is no post processing needed if the photographer is the master of his technique. For what it is worth, I use a D800 and an X100S now for my digital jobs, pretty much treat them the same way except for the X100S, I mostly shoot that in JPEG. I'm hoping they are the last digital cameras I have to buy because I am hoping to be totally rid of digital in the next couple years...
Everyone treats "photography" differently. I treat it as I either got it right in camera or I did not get it, that includes my black and white film & darkroom based fine art.
Pablito
coco frío
KM-25
Well-known
LOL, I think you know the answer to that one....
Bille
Well-known
David_Manning
Well-known
KM-25, I think it's a bit unrealistic to accept that if you master your exposure, you won't need post-processing for RAW files. Well-exposed jpegs, yes, but not good RAW files.
Good RAW files have lots of exposure range and data. Result: flat file with lots of data...very little mid-range punch, no blacks (just dark grays). But we all know this already.
I think it comes down to how demanding you are of your RAW files and finished files. I agree with Keith...the D700 needed massaging to get nice images from all that good Nikon data. It's not a criticism...but the D700 wasn't meant solely as a point-n-shoot. It's good professionally because there is so much data captured. The RAW is just the mid-point to the image, n'est pas?
Good RAW files have lots of exposure range and data. Result: flat file with lots of data...very little mid-range punch, no blacks (just dark grays). But we all know this already.
I think it comes down to how demanding you are of your RAW files and finished files. I agree with Keith...the D700 needed massaging to get nice images from all that good Nikon data. It's not a criticism...but the D700 wasn't meant solely as a point-n-shoot. It's good professionally because there is so much data captured. The RAW is just the mid-point to the image, n'est pas?
KEH
Well-known
A D4s shot for you Keith - raw converted in LR. Just a grab shot, but I find the rendering very beautiful. Tough light as well. Getting ready for Botswana in June.
Cheers,
Kirk
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I just seem to believe (could be wrong of course 😀) that certain sensors will have a look no matter what your post processing approach. To me the foveon and whatever is in the Nikon are very different. The Sigma files never look sharp in the way that the Nikon files do but they contain an equal amount of detail. The foveon sensor has some colour fringing issues and we all know it's limited in its ISO capabilities ... techinically the Nikon sensor is all over it!
I guess it's a little like comparing TRi-X to Neopan ... it comes down to personal preference and what you wnat to see with 'your' eyes.
I guess it's a little like comparing TRi-X to Neopan ... it comes down to personal preference and what you wnat to see with 'your' eyes.
Range-rover
Veteran
I find with using a Nikon Digital it really takes time to set the camera to get things
the way you want.
Range
the way you want.
Range
kuzano
Veteran
Solution to the slow AF (film days- you know this)
Solution to the slow AF (film days- you know this)
Manual focus on the target location. Your finger is faster than even the D700 Autofocus.
Automation ain't all it's cracked up to be. Me, still shooting mostly film
I have found the same lifeless quality to both Canon and Nikon.
For digital, was spoiled by two camera's for color... The Fujifilm S5 Pro, and the early kodak sensored Olympus. Shooting the S5 Pro (Nikon D200 body) for it's dynamic range, and an ancient (2003) Evolt E300 8 Mp for the Kodak color drawing quality of that sensor.
Canon and Nikon are NOT producing color rendering in their digital products. If you want that you MUST post process and should stick with RAW, which I never shoot.
My only RAW is T-Max and Velvia in various emulsions. Not rendering financial support of any kind to either Canon or Nikon any longer. Too much money spent there already and even on Full Frame.
Pan or Pre-focus.... remember the film tricks. They apply in lieu of computer based camera's.
Solution to the slow AF (film days- you know this)
Manual focus on the target location. Your finger is faster than even the D700 Autofocus.
Automation ain't all it's cracked up to be. Me, still shooting mostly film
I have found the same lifeless quality to both Canon and Nikon.
For digital, was spoiled by two camera's for color... The Fujifilm S5 Pro, and the early kodak sensored Olympus. Shooting the S5 Pro (Nikon D200 body) for it's dynamic range, and an ancient (2003) Evolt E300 8 Mp for the Kodak color drawing quality of that sensor.
Canon and Nikon are NOT producing color rendering in their digital products. If you want that you MUST post process and should stick with RAW, which I never shoot.
My only RAW is T-Max and Velvia in various emulsions. Not rendering financial support of any kind to either Canon or Nikon any longer. Too much money spent there already and even on Full Frame.
Pan or Pre-focus.... remember the film tricks. They apply in lieu of computer based camera's.
ssmc
Well-known
OOC, what raw software do you use? Sorry if it's in the thread and I missed it. I found the early versions of NX2 (before they started to remove functionality) really excellent, especially when coupled with the "D2x" modes which give a quite different rendering of green compared to the stock settings (mode 2 seems a lot like Canon IMO). Whatever mode you use, under the "Advanced" tab, set sharpening to zero, then apply a USM under Adjust->Focus. Keep the radius as small as possible and the threshold at zero for conventional sharpening and the results are outstanding (I usually stick with 100%, 1, 0).
But I doubt you will ever get the files to look like they came from a Foveon... 🙂
But I doubt you will ever get the files to look like they came from a Foveon... 🙂
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I shot MotoGP a few weeks ago using a few different Nikon cameras. The Df, D5300, and D700. The Df RAW files were definitely better than the D700. I think it had something to do with the RGB metering sensor and white balance. The Df was spot-on for exposure readings and color rendition. The D700 needed some tweaking for every shot. The D5300 was also very good when it came to color and exposure accuracy.
The Df AF was plenty fast to capture motorcycles. The AF array is small, but it's definitely not "hobbled" as someone put it. It's just as fast if not faster than my D700 or D3. The D5300 wasn't quite as snappy, but for an entry-level camera it really held it's own in a very tough shooting situation.
The Df AF was plenty fast to capture motorcycles. The AF array is small, but it's definitely not "hobbled" as someone put it. It's just as fast if not faster than my D700 or D3. The D5300 wasn't quite as snappy, but for an entry-level camera it really held it's own in a very tough shooting situation.
