I do a lot of landscape photography. It is my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that the D3 is more of a sports-oriented/low-light camera, and that this will be true for the D700 as well. I currently use a D70 and D200 for my photography and am very happy with the images I print, mostly 8.5" x 11", rarely 13" x 19". At these print sizes do you think I would be able to notice a difference between images made with the D700 and say the D200, given that at 8.5" x 11" I don't seem to be able to see any difference between images from the D70 and D200 in terms of sharpness?
#1. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 0
12mp is 12mp. The print resolution of a D3, D2x, D300, and D700 should identical since you have the exact same dpi for prints. You may have to change FL, or move in/out at the same FL, to get the same composition but print resolution is the same.
Differences in the 6mp D70 vs 10/12mp bodies only become significant in large prints or cropped images. Remember, you are printing at 200-300 dpi but on your monitor you are viewing the image at 96 ppi. I have printed 13 x 19" prints with my D70 which are very sharp. If depends on the amount of detail in the original.
A D200 vs D700 should have little difference, about 10% resolution since the long end of the sensor is 3872 pixels vs 4288 pixels. It is unlikely you would notice any difference in print resolution.
Albert J Valentino Nikonian Moderator Emeritus Vantage Point Images Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography
#2. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 0 Tue 01-Jul-08 07:16 PM by DrJay32
Colorado Springs, US
The difference will be in noise at higher ISOs. Not needed for landscapes? Well, there are some instances where fast shutter speeds help, even if you're on a tripod. For example, on breezy days you can freeze motion.
#8. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 7
Hi There All, I am so excited about the new FF Nikon ! I will pre order mine and once again, my wides will be wide again !! Hallelujah, Glory be. My portrait 85mm lens will again be 85 and my 135mm DC lens will again be 135mm. I'm pleased. I was hoping for a body similar to the D3, and now with this wonderful news, I even get the identical same sensor, (identical !) live view, the identical same autofocus autocam engine 3500, the HDMI connector(different end on it), GPS, same eyepoint, higher magnification, and lighter weight and 2 grand less dollars. Sign me up !!
I just purchased one of the new Nikon 24mm f3.5 TCE shift/tilt lenses and I just love it. I have only tested it a few times and have a roll of film in my F100 to finish with that lens, and now, I will be able to get digital shots full frame with that new gem. My 17-35 will again be 17-35. I'm so pleased I could dance.
I am very happy. I will be pre ordering mine once I decide who to order from, Thank you, Debra
#10. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 0
Fort Erie, CA
There have been a few comments made that I don't strictly agree with, but I share the overall sentament that moving to the D700 for landscapes would bring minimal returns considering the outlay involved. To begin with it is not true that all pixels are created equal even when you don't need higher ISO's. However if you stick with good quality lenses you will indeed be hard pressed to see a difference in most situations. The second is that FX format is better for you if you want to use wide angles. It's true that a given focal length of lens will give you a wider view on an FX format camera than a DX format camera but that's only half the story. You can buy a wide angle lens that is only compatible with DX for much less than a lens that could be used on an FX format camera to give equivalent results.
#12. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 0
Colorado Springs, US
Comments that you occasionally read about the D3 not being a landscape camera are just plain silly. It works exceptionally well in that capacity. If you haven't used a D3, it's hard to appreciate some of the rule-breaking aspects of its sensor. First, because it has such a low noise level, you can apply slightly different capture sharpening to bring out fine detail (higher intensity, lower radius, lower threshold) without creating a problem in the shadows. Second, as already mentioned by Jason, low ISO with this sensor is ISO 1000 and below. It's hard to get used to the idea of shooting landscapes or macro shots at ISO 1000, but you get beautifully clear and colorful images at that ISO. That can help a lot with moving subjects, especially if you're also using polarizers and/or grad filters. I think most landscape photographers benefit more from having increased options at the wide end rather than the long end, and lenses like 14-24mm certainly expand the range of options that are available. Ditto with the extremely nice 24mm 3.5 PC-E and 85mm PC-E, both of which I greatly prefer using on an FX body.
In addition to the above items that are more landscape oriented, don't ignore the benefits of the D3/D700 sensor for general photography. For everything except some types of wildlife photography (birds and small mammals), the sensor is great. It's liberating being able to shoot available light at ISO 3200 with excellent color and detail. After having used the D3 and D300 since they were introduced, I find myself using the D3 90% of the time, with the D300 getting used primarily because of its smaller size, and not so much because of the format. Those figures are based on my shooting preferences, so yours are likely to be different, but if I end up with a D700, the percentage of shots made on DX bodies is likely to plummet.
#13. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 12
Thanks for your response. This is exactly the type of answer I was looking for.
As the origial poster perhaps I should clarify some things. Landscape photography is only one of the types of photography I enjoy. I'm also heavily into macro photography and when I get the chance wildlife photography (where I live there isn't much wildlife). I have been using Nikon cameras since the introduction of the F4 and have several lenses that I feel are more suited to the larger sensor in the D700 than that of the D200 I own. I have decided that for me I will buy a D700 and use those lenses rather than buy more lenses to use with the D200 (although I have bought a few DX lenses). My plan is to use D200 as my wildlife camera and the D700 for everything else.
#15. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 14
The PodcastMaster, Rick, has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head with his assessment of the D200 and D700 being ideal stablemates.
Having a D2Xs and two D300's, my primary "focus" is on long telephotos for wildlife photography...my passion...for which the DX format excels.
By the end of July, I was planning on springing for a D3 but, now, with this news, the D700 should be just what I need for "general" photography...whatever that all entails...
On the wide angle front, the relatively new Tokina DX 11-16 f/2.8 is looking to be very interesting stopped down to f/4 and beyond, and it makes me wonder whether an FX body really is necessary...for all intents and purposes.
The "anal-ysts" suggest you need to have full frame based on the numbers, however, I'm not sure an 8.5x11 or 13x19 print would agree. I mean in prints of that size, can the viewer really "see" the difference? Or, is the benefit, or improvement essentially invisible to the human eye? I don't know but I have a hunch my soon to be 64 y.o. eyes would be hard pressed to see any differences or improvements of FX over DX...Dynamic Range notwithstanding...
Well, just some rambling thoughts I wanted to share and ALL best wishes to ALL for a GREAT 4th of July weekend...
Dick The Long Ranger A Telephoto Lovin' Nikonian
"There are none so blind as those who would not see..."
#18. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 17 Fri 04-Jul-08 01:11 AM by danamc
As one who shoots primarily landscapes, using different filters, I need the ability to shoot at higher ISOs early and late in the day. If the D700 has the ISO capabilities of the D3, this D700 is a winner for landscapers. And as a previous poster has said, my trusty 17-35 is now the go-to lens it was with the F5.
#19. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 5
>>>In that front my D200 beats my D300 hands down<<< HUH? I have both and that is not my experience at all. My D300 performs superbly at LO 1.0 with the ability to pull detail out of shadow one can only dream of with the D200. Yes, I need to keep a close eye on the highlights so I do find myself using LO 0.5 sometimes. At LO 0.5 I have nearly a full stop of highlight recovery available.
#20. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 1
>12mp is 12mp. The print resolution of a D3, D2x, D300, and >D700 should identical since you have the exact same dpi for >prints. You may have to change FL, or move in/out at the same >FL, to get the same composition but print resolution is the >same. > >Differences in the 6mp D70 vs 10/12mp bodies only become >significant in large prints or cropped images. Remember, you >are printing at 200-300 dpi but on your monitor you are >viewing the image at 96 ppi. I have printed 13 x 19" >prints with my D70 which are very sharp. If depends on the >amount of detail in the original. > >A D200 vs D700 should have little difference, about 10% >resolution since the long end of the sensor is 3872 pixels vs >4288 pixels. It is unlikely you would notice any difference in >print resolution.
I disagree, a 12mp P&S camera is going to be nowere near as detailed and sharp for landscape as a 12MP MF camera or even full frame 12MP 35mm at larger print sizes, otherwise I would just buy a small 12-14MP P&S camera. the larger sensor requires less enlargement of the captured image as a result, and just as in the film days bigger is usually better, nothing has changed with the laws of physics, yah there are differences in some areas with digital but no one has proven to me that 12MP D3 images are no better than a smaller 12MP sensor. there maybe less of a difference between a D200 and D3 but it will be there, otherwise theres not much point buying a D700 over a D300 except for extreme wide angle. One of the reasons 6MP D50 seemed to be sharper than a 10MP was partly due to the fact the 6MP image was not emlarged as much, putting less stress on lenses and other factors inc DOF. obviously the high ISO of the larger sensor will be much better, except in medium format for some reason.
If someone can convince me that other than high ISO I will not see any difference in quality between the D300 and D700 I will be glad as than I won't have to spend any more money.I don't need to go any wider then the 12-24 lens offers. I would like better High ISO though, but if thats it than I won't update for some time.
#21. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 18 Thu 17-Jul-08 09:53 AM by yyD70S
Sorry to hijack a little, RWCooper, but since I am sharing the same concern...
Upgrading from a D70S, would you consider the coming D700 FX an overkill (or otherwise) for landscape and cityscape photography? 6MP to 12MP is indeed a big jump... as is the better dynamic range. But would the FX sensor render "distant landscapes" with better details (micro-contrast, resolution) vis-a-vis a 6MP DX ?
While there's no dispute that both formats have its place here, there's also the worry (in me) that those "lenses of yesteryears" do not take so kindly to the FX sensor; unless one is talking about the AFS 14-24mm & AFS 24-70mm.
I have the AFS 17-35mm & AF 85mm. They were my workhorse. Although they do well in their film days, I have doubts of their performance (wide open with regard to light fall-offs and softness) on FX.
Can someone who has actually tried the combo of D3+17-35mm f2.8 &/or D3+85mm f1.4 share some light?
P.S. Not shooting brick walls... not pixel peeping (i.e. I'm not looking for it)... but real life landscapes, cityscapes, seascapes shooting. Thank you.
#23. "RE: Landscape Photography" In response to Reply # 12
Your points are very well taken... However, if "long glass" were a major part of your shooting regime, I believe you'd find yourself gravitating to the DX format rather than FX for all the obvious reasons.
When using my 200-400 or 600, I'll go with my D300 or D2Xs, any time, anywhere or for any reason. FX is great but for "long range" applications DX is better...IMHO, anyway...
But, to each his own...I guess...
Dick The Long Ranger A Telephoto Lovin' Nikonian
"There are none so blind as those who would not see..."