Disappointing D700 ... who would have thought!

[Keith]

I've been working with some raw files from my D700 that I took at a motocross meeting a year or so ago. Yes they're sharp, the colour's OK and they certainly don't lack detail .... but they are lifeless!

The foveon output, via my SD1M, absolutely slays the Nikon's efforts.

But there is irony .... because the Sigma could never have got the shots that the Nikon took in it's stride. It's lethargic autofocus woudn't have a hope! 😱

 

[btgc]

It's lethargic autofocus woudn't have a hope! 😱

How did they took sports photos back then at days of manual focus? Learned track, how bikes appear there and pre-focused, I believe?

 

[Keith]

How did they took sports photos back then at days of manual focus? Learned track, how bikes appear there and pre-focused, I believe?

Yep .... and they got completely different types of photos from my observations.

Not to mention motocross bikes back then weren't airborne for large distances at high speed the way they are now because they didn't have the suspension they are blessed with currently. The keeper rate with focus tracking is phenominal with pro level DSLRs in such an environment.

So your point is pretty irellevant IMO.

 

[peterm1]

I do notice when I shoot images taken with a D700 and various nikkors that I get a similar outcome to the one you report - good solid raw files that are sharp but lacking somehow in "zip". But I am not convinced it has anything to do with the physical architecture of the sensor. Rather I think it may be because Nikon does not do much in-camera software processing of the images made with its DSLR cameras. Particularly with raw files. The reason I put it down to this is that I even notice a difference between my D700 files and files that come from cameras like my Panasonic GF1 which allows you to select how the image looks when it is output from the camera (e.g. it has settings for smooth, vibrant and three or four other settings that change the way images look in camera.) I don't get this type of choice with the D700.

As a matter of fact today by coincidence (before having read your post) I started to shoot in jpg with my D700 to see if it produces different outcomes as I suspect that being raw files they are not really processed by the camera and hence need post processing when they are "developed" to get the most out of them. I suspect that even shooting in jpg will not produce major differences as to my knowledge Nikon has never, in its pro grade cameras, embedded software that produces "sexy" images - preferring to leave this to the photographer to do in post processing. Least this is my belief.

 

[btgc]

Yep .... and they got completely different types of photos from my observations.

Not to mention motocross bikes back then weren't airborne for large distances at high speed the way they are now because they didn't have the suspension they are blessed with currently. The keeper rate with focus tracking is phenominal with pro level DSLRs in such an environment.

So your point is pretty irellevant IMO.

My point may be irrelevant, but at least you have choice between zippy and zip-less pictures.

 

[jarski]

How did they took sports photos back then at days of manual focus? Learned track, how bikes appear there and pre-focused, I believe?

Sigma SD finder isnt very big, not always easy to manual focus. depends how good eyes are, ofcourse 🙂

 

[Keith]

I do notice when I shoot images taken with a D700 and various nikkors that I get a similar outcome to the one you report - good solid raw files that are sharp but lacking somehow in "zip". But I am not convinced it has anything to do with the physical architecture of the sensor. Rather I think it may be because Nikon does not do much in-camera software processing of the images made with its DSLR cameras. Particularly with raw files. The reason I put it down to this is that I even notice a difference between my D700 files and files that come from cameras like my Panasonic GF1 which allows you to select how the image looks when it is output from the camera (e.g. it has settings for smooth, vibrant and three or four other settings that change the way images look in camera.) I don't get this type of choice with the D700.

As a matter of fact today by coincidence (before having read your post) I started to shoot in jpg with my D700 to see if it produces different outcomes as I suspect that being raw files they are not really processed by the camera and hence need post processing when they are "developed" to get the most out of them. I suspect that even shooting in jpg will not produce major differences as to my knowledge Nikon has never, in its pro grade cameras, embedded software that produces "sexy" images - preferring to leave this to the photographer to do in post processing. Least this is my belief.

It's very hard to describe the difference between the final output of the Nikon sensor compared to the Sigma one Peter .... but it's quite marked IMO and no amount of messing with the Nikon's NEFs can make them them as visually pleasing as the Sigma files. I actually quite liked the look from the D700 to this point but now definitely favour the new squeeze! 😀

 

[Keith]

My point may be irrelevant, but at least you have choice between zippy and zip-less pictures.

... 😀 😀 😀

 

[Peter_Jones]

Rather I think it may be because Nikon does not do much in-camera software processing of the images made with its DSLR cameras. Particularly with raw files...
... as to my knowledge Nikon has never, in its pro grade cameras, embedded software that produces "sexy" images - preferring to leave this to the photographer to do in post processing. Least this is my belief.

I concur fully with your observations - I have always considered Nikons to give a much less processed image than any other DSLR I've used - the best analogy I can apply is like using Fuji Reala compared to Kodak Gold 😎

I used to believe e.g. Canon lenses were inherently contrastier, but now am convinced it's all in the (lack of) in-camera processing.

 

[helen.HH]

Are we Surprised..,😛
That foveon Sensor has spoiled you rotten

 

[Keith]

Are we Surprised..,😛
That foveon Sensor has spoiled you rotten

Nicely put Ms. Hill. 😛

 

[Ronald M]

I continue to be amazed by my Nikon.

You expect too much from auto focus. Buy a D4s to get the latest. Even if the camera can not track long jumps, some point in the expected path can be prefocused.

I do not want Nikon to mess with the raw files. I have Photoshop and know how to use it with presets and across multiple pics with a few clicks. There are camera settings that adjust JPEGs in camera.

Digital is the best thing invented since Ektar 25 color negative which unfortunately had a pretty short run.

Digital provides high ISO settings we only dreamed about years ago.

 

[jsrockit]

Ah come on Keith, you are a very capable photographer... post process some life into those D700 files. 🙂

 

[Keith]

Ah come on Keith, you are a very capable photographer... post process some life into those D700 files. 🙂

Don't get me wrong John .... the D700 files are very good and I have nothing but praise for that camera but I honestly believe the Sigma ones are better.

I'd like to see the files from the latest D4s ... 🙂

 

[Peter_Jones]

To be fair, the Sigma's got a good couple of years on the D700 (might as well be decades the way digi tech continues). I love my D700, despite its age, as it allows me to get the shot in varying situations. It was a leap forward when it was released. I'd like the D700 body with a D4/D4S sensor, no AA filter etc, but I don't think Nikon will ever make it.

Your images from the Sigma, Keith, are particularly good it has to be said. They certainly surprised me when you started posting them, they look like they should be from a more exotic camera.

 

[Dante_Stella]

For a camera that has been out 6 years, the D700 acquits itself very well. If you have small children, the buzzy little p/s cameras don't get the job done.

As to lifeless? I shoot a 50/1.4D most of the time, and there is nothing lifeless about the pictures. The D700 has a very weak AA filter, and you can jack up the color and sharpness at your whim. The standard output in LR actually looks a lot like my M240.

Dante

 

[KM-25]

Seemed to produce some stellar images for me. The photographer brings the photo to life, not any camera...

 

[willie_901]

I agree the D700 AA filter is well-balanced. I see moire every so often in building details.

I recently read a hypothesis that color-array-filter micro lenses have slowly evolved (or devolved) to be less frequency selective.

This good news is they pass more light and generate more signal. The bad news is the demosaicing model no longer maps as well to the data during Bayer reconstruction.

I was revisiting some D200 raw images for a submission and noticed I preferred their default color rendition to D700 raw in LR 5.4. I do not think this has anything to do with the CCD vs CMOS fantasy. I think it is due to differences in the color filter arrays.

 

[David_Manning]

Keith, you've discovered the "proof" in difference between Canon and Nikon images from that era (can we call it an era?). Nikon RAW images were (are?) flat but contain loads of info...they take massaging. Canon RAW files have more zip/curve to them...but were always criticized as too fake and cartoony.

I've had both...D700 and 5DmkII (same era). While I always mumbled about lifeless Nikon RAW files, I always have to dial down saturation in red/orange on the Canon. C'est la vie...

 

[Keith]

I agree that post processng plays a large part in the final result and I've been working with my D700 long enough to know it's characteristics fairly well. That said I often export a file from Sigma Photo Pro as a tif with no changes intending to massage it in ACDSee Pro to get it perfect then realise I really can't improve it and just leave it as is. This never happens with the NEFs from the Nikon!

And KM-25 ... I agree with what you say to a point but photographic skill aside I'm talking more about file quality here which does relate to the camera.