Old vs New Nikon DSLR - Will there be a difference on the WEB?

C

CSB 5858

Member
Local time
9:35 PM
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
15
I have an old Nikon D70. I am looking at the new Nikon D700.

Most of my shots are for the web. The files are usually in the 100 to 200 kb range.

Will there be much of a difference between the old and new Nikons for web images?

Thanks in Advance,

Alex
 
If your file sizes aren't exceeding 500-600 pixels on the longest side, I wouldn't say so.

The D700 is an amazing camera, but it will be put to best use at larger print sizes and higher ISO speeds. From personal experience, I can tell you that 1600 on this camera looks like 400 on any other. It has to be seen to be believed.

However, for web size images, I would say your D70 would serve you just fine.
 
I have a D70 as well as a Kodak 14n. The 14n is a full-frame 14 megapixel camera that uses Nikon lenses. I see a difference in prints 8x10 and larger and no difference in smaller prints or web-sized images. I suspect that the D700 vs D70 comparison will turn out similarly. If you don't print, save your money.
 
My D3 takes far better pictures than my old D70. Can I see the difference in the small images I post to Flickr? Probably. Does the lens matter more than the camera? At this level, yes.

If you're thinking of upgrading, consider one of the newer Nikons, such as the D80, D90, D200 or D300, all of which can be had at a decent price used. FX format is nice, but only important if you're shooting wide much of the time.

Personally, I'd suggest investing in good lenses. You can get some excellent AI-S lenses for far less than newer auto-focus lenses.

Properly used, flashes, reflectors, diffusers and other lighting tools will also aid the quality of your images.
 
Are y'all kidding? The high iso capabilities of the D700 and D3 will certainly show in web sized photos. I used to use my D100 for night shooting at ISO 3200, and then displayed many of those photos on the web (in addition to printing them.) I switched to Delta 3200 film to get better grain.

I've seen stuff from the newer Nikons that has no apparent noise in websize at all!
 
Yes. No doubt. Colour and dynamic range have come on leaps and bounds at low sensitivities and stick around right up to the high iso's. These things will be apparent at any size.

You also have far more control over jpg's straight from camera if that is your thing.

Although, as with everything, if you're not unhappy now, why change?
 
It's unlikely you are going to see much difference. Perhaps if you are shooting stuff utilizing the extremes of the camera's capability; but, for most photos, your D70 should be fine. I second the idea to buy a really good lens if you just want to spend some money. :)
 
CSB 5858 said:
I have an old Nikon D70. I am looking at the new Nikon D700.

Most of my shots are for the web. The files are usually in the 100 to 200 kb range.

Will there be much of a difference between the old and new Nikons for web images?

Thanks in Advance,

Alex
Click to expand...
I have an old car. I am looking at a new pick-up truck.

Most of my drives are to the mall. The load is usually 1 or 2 bags.

Will there be much of a difference between the old and the new car for shopping?

:eek:

Sorry, couldn't resist. If your files are 100-200kB and your shots are properly exposed, there's no way you'll see any appreciable difference.
 
Normally I wouldn't dream of going in all guns ablazin like this, I am aware of my limits when it comes to knowing stuff. But seriously, everyone seems to be under the impression that final file size is the only thing that modern DSLR's offer! Eh?

You can take photos with the D700 that would simply couldn't happen with the D70, no question. The majority of replies to this thread seem to have forgotten this. It covers the whole deal, colour, control, detail. Colour - better and better at high ISO, Control - selective focus (larger format) depth of field (high ISO gives smaller apertures at minimum required shutter speed) Simple ability to take photos in light levels that you couldn't before. Detail - lots of pixels, range that allows detail in highlights and shadows.

Surely this is basics?
 
if all you need is photos for the web, a dSLR is already overkill.

i used to love my D70s but was still aware of it's limitations. and those limitations are addressed in the D700. but those features (already described by others) are also available with the D90. maybe that would be a better option?
 
@ roger hicks - given your past distrust of opinions by folks who have not used a particular equipment, it begs to be asked whether your opinion above is based on actual experience with a D700?
 
Just to give an example of what those of us in the "of course there's a difference" camp are saying, here's a shot taken with the D700 this afternoon in town - this is a straight Jpeg with no processing except a small S curve and a resize. No noise reduction, nothing done to the levels, no photoshoppery. Shot at, get this, ISO6400! I wouldn't have been to get this shots at all with my old D70 because the noise at 1600, let alone 6400, was horrible, it would have been underexposed by the camera's meter, and the white balance would have been out. I had to shoot everything in RAW with my D70 to get decent results - now I don't bother with RAW most of the time because the Jpegs are so good. It really isn't just about resolution.

102615572.jpg
 
Thanks to all.

Has anyone here made such a comparison with side by side images? I only care about the final visible image quality on the web.

Nikon must have improved the sensor and software quality from the D70 to today's Nikon DSLRs. Is that difference visible in web image applications?

Alex
 
CSB 5858 said:
Thanks to all.

Has anyone here made such a comparison with side by side images? I only care about the final visible image quality on the web.

Nikon must have improved the sensor and software quality from the D70 to today's Nikon DSLRs. Is that difference visible in web image applications?

Alex
Click to expand...

:bang:

Take a shot at ISO 6400, handheld, in a dark chapel with a D700 - result as above. Take the same shot with a D70 at its maximum ISO (1600 if I remember), push two stops in PP. Either (i) leave as is (a horrible, sludgy noise ridden mess), or (ii) smooth to death in Neat Image/other noise reduction software (still a mess, no fine detail). Yes, you will see the difference at web sizes :rolleyes:.

Comparing the D700 with the D70 is like comparing a Ferrari to a Fiat Punto. But they'll both take exactly the same time to get you from A to B, in a straight line, at 60 mph.
 
infrequent said:
@ roger hicks - given your past distrust of opinions by folks who have not used a particular equipment, it begs to be asked whether your opinion above is based on actual experience with a D700?
Click to expand...

Fair comment.

No.

But with an image maybe 550 to 750 pixels high, and based on trying a modest number of other digital cameras, I'd suggest that a hell of a lot more will depend on the lens than on the camera.

In all fairness I was assuming modest ISO settings.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Fair comment.

No.

But with an image maybe 550 to 750 pixels high, and based on trying a modest number of other digital cameras, I'd suggest that a hell of a lot more will depend on the lens than on the camera.

In all fairness I was assuming modest ISO settings.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Roger - lens quality is probably the most important thing (a simple truth that took me longer than it should have to figure out). Cameras like the D700 really are a bit of a paradigm shift though - I don't get anything like the tactile or auditory pleasure using the D700 I did from the M6 I had to sell to pay for it, but I'm increasingly in awe of the things it can do, in low light particularly. The progress in image quality since the D100/D70 generation of cameras is astonishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom