Link:
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d700-hands-on-review---the-second-coming-3269-article.html


"....Internally, the D700 is very much identical to the Nikon D3 with the exact same 12.1 megapixels CMOS full frame sensor. Needless to say, it very much duplicates the same success of producing the beautiful low noise images that the D3 has been known for. Like the D3 and D300, the D700 also showcases a 51 point autofocus system with 3D tracking available locking focus to moving subjects. However, we found it rather sluggish in comparison and would only place it on par with Canon's 40D. In fact, we felt that the autofocus might even be a bit slower than the Canon 5D.....

Kind regards,
Cayzi

It's difficult to understand how anyone who knows what they are doing could find a D700 to be significantly worse in AF performance than both D3 and D300.

I'll be waiting for one of the respected reviewers to post some findings after more than one day's inspection

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>It's difficult to understand how anyone who knows what they
>are doing could find a D700 to be significantly worse in AF
>performance than both D3 and D300.
>
>I'll be waiting for one of the respected reviewers to post
>some findings after more than one day's inspection

Agree. But this is not the only person who found this thing on D700

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>Agree. But this is not the only person who found this thing on D700

It's the only one I have seen.

For the D700 to have worse AF than the Canon 5D, it would also have to be worse than the D300, which is universally accepted to have a more capable AF system than the 5D. That's just not credible.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

It looks like that you always have to be right.

Never mind, delete this post, AF on D700 is the faster ever.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

It's nothing to do with whether I am right or not, and everything to do with the credibility of the reviewer. I'm not questioning you, just the source you chose to post.

Here's a quote from the initial testing by Bjorn Rorslett ("initial testing" in his case meaning about two weeks of hands-on experience):

I can detect no difference in AF performance from the D3. If there *is* a difference, it could well be on an academic level.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Then I really don't know who doesn't know how to test a camera.

If Bjorn says so then it must be something true on it.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>Then I really don't know who doesn't know how to test a camera.

Bjorn isn't infallible, but he does have a great track-record of detailed and objective equipment tests built up over many years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but DigitalRev seems to be primarily a web retailer that posts quick impressions of selected new cameras, without naming their reviewer(s) or describing their testing methods.

I know where my money would go...!

As our friend Len Shepherd is fond of saying, we should learn how to "review the reviewer"

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

As far as reviewing the reviewer, let me make a couple of points.

After Bjorn made the statement Brian quotes, he also said he is just starting his field testing, so he can't predict what surprises may be in store. Second, while I love his photography and his reviews, Bjorn does not, as far as I know, use his camera with a wide-angle lens on a lot of close, poorly lit moving subjects like a wedding or event photographer might. This seems to be the most challenging test of the D3 and D300 AF system.

In the tables comparing the D3 AND D700 I have yet to see anyone ask about the CPU - and I would bet this is probably the source of the biggest performance differences between the two cameras. I asked a question in this forum a while back about live histogram. The D700 manual answered that - there is no live histogram on the D700. I don't think this can be fixed with firmware - I think it is a CPU speed (i.e. hardware) problem. Here's why I think this: I don't have a D3, but Thom Hogan thinks that the D3 AF tracks better than the D300. Both these functions - live histogram, and AF predictive focus - require an extremely fast CPU. Based on information from his Nikon sources, Thom thinks that a faster CPU is the reason why the D3 is able to support live histogram and faster AF tracking than the D300. It seems apparent from the lack of a live histogram that the D700 does not have the D3 CPU, so it may well follow that the D700 will not match the D3's AF tracking performance.

In fact, if the D700 has the D300 CPU, it would be plausible that AF tracking (predictive focus) performance UNDER DIFFICULT CONDITIONS would suffer, since the CPU would have to process information for a larger imaging sensor using information from an AF sensor array that covers proportionally much less of the image area.

So my points are: Bjorn's (or anyone's) opinions on AF performance are limited by their test conditions. I would like to hear from some wedding and event shooters who try the D700 under the conditions I described. The other point is, it is not unplausible that D700 AF would be slower than the D300. Does anyone know what CPU the D700 uses?

I'll probably end up getting a D700 for landscape (wide-angle) work and for its low-light capabilities, but since it seems that more of my bread and butter comes from events these days, I may not be in such a hurry until I find out more about the AF.

(Edited to reflect what I learned by reading through the D3 manual. This is all very theoretical, but it's a good exercise that helps me understand my own equipment and alternatives better).

PEACE,
Steve

Good points, Steve - thanks for posting

Looking back on this, I think my disquiet with the review originally linked to was based on two factors...

Firstly, no information was provided about test conditions, subject matter, camera AF settings, lens(es) used, or indeed much else of value - just the bald "AF was found to be sluggish" statement.

Secondly, the thing that really raised warning flags in my mind was their view that the D700's AF may even be slower than a 5D. It doesn't bother me that a Nikon might (shock, horror...!) be slower than a Canon, but since the D300 is widely acknowledged (and not just amongst Nikon users) to have a more powerful AF system than the 5D, it is difficult to understand how the D700 could perform so much worse than the D300 for their conclusion to be true.

I have no problem with anyone concluding that the D700 has slightly slower AF tracking and/or acquisition than the D3 or D300, for the reasons you explained, so long as they can explain what testing was done

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>about live histogram. The D700 manual answered that - there
>is no live histogram on the D700. I don't think this can be
>fixed with firmware

right. most people look at 40d and say "but that one has live histogram, why?"

could be a simple answer but i didn't see a reviewer say this. as Steve said it's about cpu power but also about display size. d300/d700 lcd has 922.000 dots, not 230.000 on 40d models. think about that, it's a lot more data you have to display on live view. to get live histogram you'd have to count the pixels while displaying the video at the same fps the display is updating. probably in order to keep the price low nikon didn't use exactly the same parts as on d3 for d300/d700. i also don't think it's a firmware fix unless there is also some change in the way it works. you know like with the virtual horizon that is now an overlay on live view but it wasn't before the firmware update.

Hi Steve

I used the D700 yesterday for a sport's shoot, and found little or no difference in AF performance compared to my D3. The loaned D700 was used with the 70-200, and a 400 mm 2.8 Nikkor. Shots were taken using continous servo with 9 of the available 51 sensors.

Hope this helps.

Mark.

--------------------------------------------------------

Mark (Prowicz)

South Wales, United Kingdom based NIKONIAN

It is not unusual for a new camera's AF to be tweaked. For example, Thom Hogan commented on the recent firmware upgrade on the D300.

“Indeed, if you've got a D300 you should probably already have noted that there appear to be two unannounced differences with the latest firmware for that camera... Second, there seem to be improvements to autofocus tracking of some motions; I notice this especially in 51-point."

Best Regards

Jim

I don't see anyone else commenting who is actually using one. I have been using the D700 most of the day and I haven't noticed any difference in focusing speed than my D300. Of course, I didn't do any systematic testing... but I certainly didn't notice that it was slower.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

that website did the wrong test. it's also very common to post all sorts of "interesting" information to attract visitors. ken does it everyday.

the AF on d300 is similar to 1d mkIII according to a reviews website. i don't have the bookmark but search the web and find the test. it was with a man running towards the camera and they checked how many images were in focus. sure that simple test was done to match 1d's tracking. they didn't test for color tracking or other nikon features for easy to understand reasons.

let's get back to this review.
d300 has a longer lag when starting Auto-area AF than D3 or other cameras like 40d. it could be power related like with fps and the grip. once AF is operational you get full speed for tracking. this was also mentioned on imaging-resource d300 review but not exactly detailed as what exactly is slower and what is faster. the conclusion was almost identical to digital-rev's that d300 is the worst possible on the planet (now you know how that reviewer get that idea ). the lag if i remeber was longer by .1-.2 seconds or something like that, not exactly end of the world. thom hogan noted that while the start-up lag is longer than on d3 the tracking is similar.

the different lag than on d3 has also been mentioned on some image doctors podcast.
take care with reviewers and use thom's suggestion for d300 " Get in the habit of starting focus early and you'll be fine."

edit: here is that page
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/75077-nikon-nikon-d300-camera-camera-interactive-review-new-autofocus-king-those-budget.html?garpg=2

thoughts about prophoto's "tests"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=27948479

funny thing is that if you believe prophoto's tests are ok then you'd have to believe that 40d is far behind d300 and so with d700

I've had chance to have a quick play with one, but only a very quick play.

With older AF lenses, AF seems a shade slower than the D3, with AFS lenses, they seem about the same.

I'd guess that the D3 employs a more powerful motor for screw-driven AF lenses.

Gary Wolstenholme
http://inventory-photo.co.uk
http://inventoryphoto.wordpress.com/

Two days ago when I took few test shots in the store, I felt a slight difference in focusing speed with my 20-35 which is a screw driven lens. But as I've said in the other post, D700 (with ENEL-3e) being a low voltage body that's understandable.

As for that review .....after having a look at the pictures I'm sure that the camera would have been 'focusing' on the reviewer instead of focusing on the subject!

Sorry couldn't help it!

Regards
Dinil



Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Photography & Beyond

Just my observation from using the D700 all day on Saturday.
I was using the D700, D300 and F6 mostly with primes 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and a 17-35 2.8.
The 85 to me is a slow focusing lens and it always seemed that the F6 focused it faster than the D300 for some reason, it just seems to have more torque, who knows.
The D700 seemed to focus this lens faster than the other two cameras, especially when snapping over to a subject and having it lock on.
Now the D300 does seem to be a little better now with the firmware upgrade, not sure if they made some changes, but it does seem to have made some kind of change for the better to it's speed.
So from what I saw this weekend for whatever the technical reason is, it did seem to perform slightly better than the D300.
Hope this made sense.

F6, D300, F3/T, FM2N

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Absolutely correct! It's a lens issue, not a camera issue (unless the reviewer quoted by the OP had turned on every conceivable focus tracking feature and managed to find himself the most difficult to track subject he could dig up whle using a slow, cheap consumer-grade lens). With any sort of decent lens, my D700 focuses slightly faster than the already quick D200 and D300 and just as fast as my D3.

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to do cross-brand focus speed testing, but in a side-by-side test shooting the same subject, my D300+17-35mm f/2.8 was as fast or faster than my shooting partner's Canon 5D+16-35mm f/2.8 and his 40D+16-35mm f/2.8 during a mine-is-better-than-yours debate last winter. Basically, all three cameras proved to be really fast and the only reason either of us ever lost a shot on our most recent shoot was because we were too deep in conversation or too busy fiddling with controls instead of concentrating on shooting.

My D700 is as fast as my D3, which means they're state-of-the-art at this point for this form factor. Add a lousy lens to the equation and your results will be slower.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

The D300 AF can be a little slower than the D3, primarily because the 3 times more expensive D3 has a more powerful CPU.
The D3 and D300 AF modules apart from the distance between sensors are close to identical so there is no obvious reason for AF speed to differ - with identical CPU's.
Nikon's D700 brochure claims the D700 is extensively based on the D300. Bearing in mind the D700 is twice the price of the D300 there is no reason to expect a less powerful processor than in the D300.
Digressing to Canon - those with hands on experience of Canon would fall over laughing at the implication in the review the D40 has slower AF than the 5D
This "review" (which is the opposite of a review) has all the hallmarks of garbage

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

To me the reviewer's statement reads as though he turned on 51-point + 3D tracking and then compared focus acquisition speed to that of a 5D or 40D (neither of which have anything close to 51-point + 3D tracking focus options). In that situation, of course the D700 might show a slower focus lock. But if my interpretation of the review is correct, it means the reviewer's focus speed comment is foolish.

I just compared my son's 40D focus lock speed to my D700's. I put a 16-35L f/2.8 on the 40D and a 17-35 f/2.8 on my D700, both cameras on tripods side-by-side shooting our backyard bird house, both cameras in Program mode, 9-point focus mode for the 40D, 21-point focus mode for the D700. The D700 won at most apertures and every focal length.

Last month I did a focus speed and time to first shot test with my D300 (just traded for my D700) pitted against my shooting partner's 5D during a shoot in London. The D300 (using the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor against my partner's own 16-35L f/2.8 fave) beat the 5D every time, but not by as big a margin as the D700 just edged the 40D. We're talking small fractions of a second in every win/loss. I think, based on my non-scientific 'street' tests, that focus acquisition speed shouldn't be a deciding factor in any D700 purchase decision. It's measurably faster than the already fast enough 5D and the certainly fast 40D, but the difference is too small to merit more than a glance.

Dare I point out that all four cameras are terrifically quick to acquire focus, all things considered, and that the only reason my son and I (and my shooting partner and I) have ever missed shots is because we're too busy yakking or fiddling with gear - nothing to do with focus acquisition speed. Ever.

I agree with Len . . . the quote review isn't much of a review in any sense of the term.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

As for the previous discussions about the CPU capabilities of the D700, although I don't have any definitive information about it, or the D3/D300 CPUs for that matter, the following seems logical to me:

Since the D300 has a maximum frame rate of 2.5fps for 14 bit RAW/NEF,

the D3 has a maximum frame rate of 9 to 11 fps for 14 bit RAW/NEF,

and the D700 has a maximum frame rate of 5 fps w/o grip, 8 with grip for 14 bit RAW/NEF,

there are three possibilities.

1) The D700 CPU is the same as the D300 and it has far more computing capability than is utilized in the D300, or,

2) The D700 CPU is the same as the D3 and has not been optimally utilized due to marketing issues to differentiate bodies,

3) The D700 CPU is different than both the D300 and the D3 and has more capability than the former and less capability than the latter.

4) All three bodies have the same CPU and are simply set to different levels of optimization.

While it's possible #1 and #4 are the answer, those really don't make economic sense, so I'll put my money on #2 or #3, but between these two, I'll call it a toss-up!

OldPhotos
"If everyone possesses some measure of this intangible quality called creativity, photography is unprecedented as an outlet for its expression." - Ansel Adams

but d300's cmos isn't developed by nikon like d3/d700. it's a sony and people say it's the cause of fps drop when using 14bit.

Check out my D700 vs D300 thread here:

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=149&topic_id=134588&mesg_id=134588&page=

My last post may shed some light on the matter of slow focusing, mainly because over a period of two hours last night my D700 slowly developed autofocus problems. It gradually became unresponsive to the AF-On button - sometimes requiring several button presses in quick succession to activate autofocus. I changed lenses (from a 24-70 f/2.8 to a 50mm f/1.4), but at first the D700 wouldn't focus at all. After turning the camera on & off a couple of times, autofocus suddenly came alive again. I then tried my 70-200 VR, but a similar thing happened - first nothing, then after a minute or so autofocus came alive. Tried all three lenses on my D3 and everything worked perfectly (and blazingly fast).

My D700 is going back to the store (Henry's in Pickering, Ontario, Canada) this morning for exchange. I should be at the store around noon today (Juy 29) if anybody local wants to meet to discuss the issue.

I checked for clean lens contacts (on the lenses and the body), found the same autofocus problem using the shutter button, reset the firmware (which seemed to momentarily solve the problem, but it quickly returned - within a minute), checked autofocus selector switch positions on the body, checked M/MA switch positions and tried several lenses, etc. The battery was fully charged and I tried a fully charged spare - no help - and I also checked the battery contacts (in the camera's battery well also). Could the reviewer quoted by the OP have been saddled with a flaky
D700 similar to mine?

This is the first time in over 35 years that I've had a problem with a new Nikon purchase of any kind.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Interesting. Is it possible that the D700 may have the same lens/body contact issue the D300 displayed? I have a 60mm nikkor lens I use with a D300 for medical photography. When first used, I had problems getting consistent contact between the lens and body, causing problems with focus and shutter activation. I've had no problems with other Nikon bodies I've used (F5,D70,D80).

I shot a three hour job yesterday side by side with the D300 and never had any issue at all. The D700 performed flawlessly and the files are beautiful. I did some backlit stuff as well which always challenges the AF and ad no problem.

Melanie

Hi,

I've had my D700 since July 25th and I must say I am very impressed with the focus speed.

Enjoy!

Randy

I did the exchange just before noon today and the replacement D700 is flawless. I posted here, earlier, or in another thread about autofocus acquisition speed and how my first D700 seemed very fast (before the autofocus died obviously). Well the replacement is scary fast, so I'm a happy camper once again.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I asked a Senior Nikon rep at a Nikon day B&H event on Monday about this issue and he said "I can tell you unequivocally that the AF system in the D700 is the same as in the D3. Identical. Not different. The same."

> In fact, we felt that the autofocus might even be a bit slower than the Canon 5D.....


What a laugh!

As the (former) owner of half a dozen EOS 5D's and most of the current Canon L lenses, I can't imagine *any* current DSLR having a slower (or less reliable) AF system than the 5D.

Clearly the reviewer who made that comment either never actually tested the D700, or simply had no idea how to operate the camera. Mine happily sings along at 8 FPS in continuous AF with my 200-400 VR (not the world's fastest focusing lens) without missing a shot.

Cliff

A Calgary Nikonian
www.imageswest.ca

From one day of moderate use with the D700 I can categorically state that the AF is fast and snappy

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

FWIW I just bought the D700 with the 24-70. That thing focuses crazy fast. From something very clost to the far side of the room- it seems instantaneous.

The person who wrote this review is an idiot. The focus is the SAME as the D3.

Maybe you should pic up a Canon MKIII, I heard it great for auto focus. Your profile does state you are unhappy with your gear.

I hate to inject a note of objectivity into this interesting discussion, but tests of AF speed have been done on all of these cameras. You might not agree with everything Pop Photo does, but they do have nice equipment and can measure AF speed, and they report specific numbers vs. vague, feelings and impressions. Check it out:

D3
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5047/camera-test-nikon-d3-vital-statistics-page3.html

D300
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4911/camera-test-nikon-d300-vital-statistics-test-results-page3.html

D700
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5484/nikon-d700-camera-test-smaller-but-still-tough-page2.html

From the above you can conclude that the D3 and D300 are pretty close. The D700 is close only in good light, and falls behind in dimmer light.

Dave Harris
Life is short, death is long, there is no perfection in life, only in death; perfect stillness. Enjoy life!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for posting that comparison. I do, however, question the variences in the times, and other factors that could influence thsi test. Can we be certain that Pop Photo had the exact same camera settings on all 3 cameras? Also, look at the horizontal scale measuring EV light levels; on the D3 and D300 the scale stops at -3; on the D700 it goes one stop beyond -3. If you compare all 3 cameras at -3 (not just using the right side of the chart) they are nearly identical at .97 for the D3, .98 for the D300, .95 for the D700. Reading the chart carefully, it appears the three may be the same within a margin of error; if you want to readt it literally, the D700 is the fastest at -3. Remember look for the -3 vertical axis, not the right of the chart since the D700 measurement goes past -3 on the right.

Also remember at -3, some cameras won't autofocus at all without assistance!

MarkF

D800
I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Also remember at -3, some cameras won't autofocus at all
>without assistance!

at -3, I might not even see what I want the AF to focus on.

>Also remember at -3, some cameras won't autofocus at all
>without assistance!

Good point, Mark!

I don't know about the D700, but the D3 and D300 AF systems are intended to operate only down to -1 EV.

I would have a lot more faith in the Pop Photo numbers if they described how the cameras are set up and what methodology is used. It's very difficult to reduce a complex AF system like Multi-CAM 3500 to a single set of numbers. I will continue to trust our members' reports of very good real-world AF in the D700, and not worry about any apparent slight differences under test conditions

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I agree. Maybe PopPhoto has documented their testing methodology somewhere, but I haven't seen it. I suspect it involves some kind of standard AF target and starting point, which is unlikely to tell us much about real-world performance.

Particularly suspect is that the D3 and D300 show almost identical numbers, but sports shooters who have use both have noted a distinct improvement in the D3's performance over the D300.

There are many characteristics of camera and lens performance that can be measured definitively on a test bench. I don't think AF performance is one of them.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

The only vague article I found on PopPhoto describing their camera testing procedures (using Google's site search) is How to Read a Camera Test written in 2005.

Their "Certified Tests" are certified by whom? Apparently by their own staff.

As someone has already pointed out, if you read the charts the D700 is just as fast as the others. They just extended the chart on the D700, possibly because it could actually focus at -5 EV if I read the chart correctly.

Brad

I always want the next model up!

Uhh, sorry guys, but take a closer look at the D700 chart. The only difference is that the EV number scale is not properly aligned with the graph. -3 is the far right on all of the graphs. Also check placement of data points on the graphs - they are all in the same place (if you align the scale properly). We all love Nikon, but lets not lose our objectivity. However, I do agree that test conditions and real world conditions are two different things. For example, I would think that a real-world target with lots of high-contrast edges might give better results than whatever test target they used.
So what do I learn from the graphs? For the first time for me at least, I see why it's hard to track fast moving objects in poor light - for any of the three cameras. A person dancing toward or away from the camera is probably not going to be still enough for the .8 or .9 sec necessary to lock focus and start tracking. Even more difficult if you're close and can't catch a contrasty edge.
My conclusion: not enough difference in performance between the cameras on paper to expect much of a difference in the real world. Same conclusion regarding the noise.
So I'll keep my D300 for events and hope I can afford a 20+MP FX for landscapes. If not, I'll get the D700 when the price drops.

PEACE,
Steve

>>The only difference is that the EV number scale is not
>properly aligned with the graph.

OK, then the graph is in error, and I now suspect the accuracy of the others.

I believe what real-world D700 owners have been telling us; the D700 is as fast as the D3, likely laster than the D300 in some conditions.

Thanks Steve.

Mark F.

MarkF

D800
I still own an F100; do you think film will make a comeback?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Somebody has thin skin here. Anyway, so far (one day of use) I don't notice any difference in AF speed with the D700 under normal condtions, any focusing mode and area, using Nikon 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8/ 85/1.4 and 24-70/2.8. If there is one, it has to be in the order of milliseconds, and then who cares?

Hammam

The D700's graph's horizontal scale seems to be over-extended compared to the D3 and the D300, making the D700 appear as faster or faster than the others. But, I think the error is in the extension of the graph and not in the measures themselves. If one assumes that the 10 points measured are the same for all cameras, which seems reasonable, you get the following chart:

Point AF speed

D700 D3 D300
1 .35 .29 .32
2 .36 .31 .33
3 .36 .38 .41
4 .61 .49 .51
5 .70 .61 .67
6 .78 .75 .78
7 .79 .70 .90
8 .95 .81 .93
9 .97 .85 .85
10 1.25 .91 .98

From this you can see that the D700 is a bit slower,but not hugely so, .1 sec. at most, until you get down to the lowest EVs, where it falls down by .3 secs. .1 is pretty small, but could make a difference for fast objects like flying birds, and action sports.

Also, I sent an email to PopPhoto asking what was up with the graph. Maybe they'll write back or correct it - we'll see.

Dave Harris
Life is short, death is long, there is no perfection in life, only in death; perfect stillness. Enjoy life!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Strange also that if you compare the noise tests results you can see that D700 has less noise than the D3 @ ISO 400, 800, 3200 but more @ 200, 1600 & 25600. The D300 has less noise @ 800 than both D3 & D700, and less than D700 @ 1600? Margin of error? What do these numbers represent?

ISO D700 D3 D300
---------------------
100 .9 - -
200 .9 .75 1.1
---------------------
400 1.1 1.12 1.2
800 1.3 1.4 1.1
---------------------
1600 1.5 .93 1.4
3200 1.3 1.53 1.95
---------------------
6400 2 2.23 2.83

Note: save the image & view @ 125 or 150% to see the details better.



Did they test AF-S or AF-C, 3-D tracking, how many AF points? How do they measure these hundredth of a seconds differences? Do they start off focus @ infinite, with which lens (screw or Silent Wave), on what target? What is their margin of error?

Attachment #1, (gif file)

maybe they had a bad sample, the tester I mean, not the camera

I can't talk to the AF tests, but unfortunately, the noise tests for the D3 and D300 were made in jpeg mode with noise reduction enabled, and the D300 noise reduction (which reduces detail) kicks in at a lower ISO than on othe D700 or D3. To make matters more confusing, they used a different NR setting on the D3 than the D300, but the D700 results were made in raw mode at an undefined setting, but probably processed in NX (my guess).

As an owner of all three cameras, the D3 and D700 seem to perform identically in terms of noise (not surprising), with the D300 definitely not in the same league (not bad, though). I haven't seen a noticeable difference in AF speed with the D700, but it's not something I can easily measure. Since it seems to work just fine, I'm not inclined to try to measure it, either.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here