Will I see an image quality improvement? I shoot landscape, flowers, architectual-historical, macro and general travel and fine art mostly.

How do images compare at the base ISO for decent light outdoor shots?

How do images compare at ISO 800 and 1600 for decent light outdoor shots?

How do images compare at IS) 800 nd 1600 for outdoor low light and/or night shots (I also do some outdoor light painting.)?

I guess, should I spend the $2600 USD? I know that only I can really answer this last one. But you opinions will aid my decision making. My wife has already approved the purchase - she is a D300 shooter also.

Jerry R

I've been asking myself the very question and one thing for sure is I do landscape as well so the full frame is obviously a big factor but one feature I just read about that would benefit my landscape shot and your architecture shots is that the D700 has a virtual horizon, which the D300 does not, so that may be another feature. It is quite a bit more money so you have to decide do you full frame, some other features like higher ISO or less noisier images at higher ISO. You must go try both, I did and it was pretty much hands down even with the cost just the amount of image you see through the D700 viewfinder, it was simply beautiful.

Go and look at both and see what you like they are very similar is size but not in weight, the D700 feels heavier but also feels a bit sturdier, the D700 has different chassis material and its thicker, more durable.

Either one is nice.

I already shoot with the D300, and a D200 as well. I realize the higher ISO advantage of the D700, just wondering if the D700 has enough more to offer in image quality to justify the cost, particularly for outdoor shooting. I do not shoot sports or theater/concert pictures, but am kind of interested for outdoor night shots. I could justify the cost if the daylight images were improved by a decent factor.

Jerry

Ah gotcha, experienced Nikon user.

Jerry

From what I've seen posted on the net the D700 picture quality is better than the D300. There seems to be better dynamic range and better colour. This is very subjective and only you can decide if it's worth the extra cash. I currently own a D2Hs and a D200. After seeing some comparison shots I'm ready to get a D700. This link http://stevesheppardphotography.wordpress.com/category/carlisle/ was posted in the D700 forum I think they convincingly answer your question.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks, Hedley. I trace ancestery back to Wales, but several generations back in Virginia and Tennessee before getting across the pond. Now in California.

Jerry

The link posted above says "Photos shot with a Canon Mark IIN and an Olympus E-3." How does that relate to the D700?




Lou Korell
http://www.LouKorell.com

Ignore the first 5 shots. 'The Crucible' are D700 shots.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I just saw the link coming into my blog and yes just look at The Crucible.
I shot those with the D700. The most recent blog post to the category of Carlisle was shot with the Olympus E-3. At the time, I only had the Nikon 35 F2 and got a 135mm from a friend to shoot The Crucible.

I ordered and received the 85 1.4 yesterday and have shot a couple of things with it since then. To be very honest, I am shocked by the detail at 1600 through 6400 with the D700. I'm still in the process of switching from Canon. It only took shooting The Crucible to make me decide to make the change.

I ordered an SB-800 today. I have a long ways to go before I have everything I need. I haven't sold any of the Canon stuff yet, so as sell I will pick up other equipment. I'm keeping my Olympus equipment because I can do things with it that I can't do otherwise.

The bottom line is that I have been shooting digital since I purchased a Kodak DSC -something (can't remember but it was like 640 pixels wide), and had a lot of cameras since. So far the D700, is the best camera I have every used.

I really try to use a new camera for a month before I depend on it for a paid shoot. I already have confidence in the D700 and have only had it for a little over a week.

Shep
http://stevesheppardphotography.wordpress.com/

I can't speak for the D300 but I also own a D200 and I am taking pictures with the D700 that would be impossible with the D200, especially at night. Take alook at the 15 or so images at the top of my gallery (not the albums) so see some examples under extreme conditions.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

I have the D700 and the D300 but only use the D300 now for wildlife when the extra reach is needed and as a back-up body.

As landscape/nature photography is my main interest, I really appreciate the low noise (high ISO) ability of the D700. DR and color rendition is real close to my eyes but what I will tell you for sure is that, in my experience (I've had the D700 since it first came out) that I don't want to shoot with anything else!

You're the only one that can weigh your needs against the cost but I cannot recommend the D700 enough.

All the best,
Phil

Phil I assume by "reach" you are really talking pixels on image as there is no extra "reach" in the sense of a focal length change on the D300 compared to the d700 only a crop of the field of view. I kept my D200 but really haven't picked it up since I got the D700, and I am shooting wildlife. I have found that I can shoot at higher shutter speeds and higher ISo's with the D700 compared to the D200 and therefore can get images that I would not get with the D200.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>I have the D700 and the D300 but only use the D300 now for
>wildlife when the extra reach is needed and as a back-up
>body.

Without re-starting the debate about what "reach" means , that is exactly what I plan to do now that I have my "ideal combination" of D300 and D700. For wildlife (typically, small animals and birds), the fact that the D300 has 12MP within the DX frame area rather than the D700's 5MP means that I can print larger and/or crop more with the same subject and same lens

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

That is exactly what I meant...thank you Brian!

I guess I should be careful how I use the "R" word around here.

Phil

Brian I agree that if you are shooting in a DX crop it would be better to use a D300 or even a D200 instead of a D700 as long as the light available allows you to shoot at required shutter speeds and low noise ISO's. That is why I did not sell my D200. I was extremely happy with my D200 except when the above conditions were violated. That is why I bought the D700. I am sure I will get back to shooting with the D200 soon, but right now I am too busy finding out what the D700 can do in wildlife situations.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>I have the D700 and the D300 but only use the D300 now for
>wildlife when the extra reach is needed and as a back-up
>body.

My understanding is that DX does NOT provide any "extra reach".
It does have a narrower field of view which users interpret as a "longer" zoon.

>My understanding is that DX does NOT provide any "extra reach".
>It does have a narrower field of view which users interpret as
>a "longer" zoon.

OK - let's get into it once more, because there is much confusion about this topic...

What exactly is meant by "reach"? Without defining the term, no-one can say whether reach is greater, less or the same with DX compared to FX.

In pre-digital days, "reach" was pretty universally thought of as what you got by using a longer focal length lens. Keeping the same subject and the same camera-to-subject distance, a 300mm lens made your subject fill more of the frame than a 200mm lens. This was considered to be a good thing for wildlife and suchlike, because it allowed a bigger enlargement without losing image definition. Changing to a smaller film format while keeping the same lens (if such a thing had been possible) would not give you more reach; you just got a more heavily-cropped negative but no greater enlargement capability.

With today's computer-based post-processing, enlargement ability has translated to the potential print size. But with digital capture, we have an additional variable which is critical to print size: the number of pixels, which is more important than the physical frame size. So, if we understand that the number of pixels the subject covers governs how large we can print, we now have two ways of increasing our "reach". We can - as in the past - use a longer lens, OR we can switch to a camera which has more densely-packed pixels. A DX camera with 12 MP puts more pixels on your subject than an FX camera with 12 MP. So does an FX camera with 24 MP. Both, in these terms, have more reach. BUT... a DX camera with 5 MP has the same reach as an FX camera with 12 MP.

Note: this of course ignores other factors affecting image quality like noise and DR, but that's OK for this comparison because the film equivalents of grain and exposure latitude were also ignored when considering reach.

In summary, whilst DX always gives you a narrower angle of view compared to FX (the "crop effect"), DX doesn't automatically increase reach; greater pixel density (or a longer lens) does that

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brian one small correction to your interpretation:

"A DX camera with 12 MP puts more pixels on your subject than an FX camera with 12 MP. So does an FX camera with 24 MP. Both, in these terms, have more reach. BUT... a DX camera with 5 MP has the same reach as an FX camera with 12 MP."

I think you meant to say "...A DX camera with 12 MP puts more pixels on your subject than an FX camera with 12 MP in DX crop mode. So does an FX camera with 24 MP in DX crop mode. More Pixels on image allow for greater print sizes in post processing thus providing the same effect as using a longer lens, although the focal of the lens and thus "reach" remains the same on both DX and FX bodies."

I think this change clearly states what is happening, and explains why a DX body or a D3X body might be better for wildlife. It really has nothing to do with crop factor or reach as it is a post processing advantage that may or may not include further processing.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Actually, Bob, I meant exactly what I said

An FX camera with 24 MP puts more pixels on the subject than an FX camera with 12 MP, whether you engage DX crop mode on the 24 MP camera or not. Engaging DX Crop Mode on a camera which offers it makes no difference to "pixels on subject" and hence (using my definition) makes no difference to "reach".

Just to reiterate, before anyone talks about this topic, it's necessary to define what they mean by the term "reach". In the digital world, what I mean is "pixels on subject", which I feel is the most useful definition in practical terms, since it directly affects the possible print/viewing options. Without wishing to labour the point too far, I'm not sure I've yet understood what your definition is. At first I thought you meant "filling more of the frame with the subject", since that is what a longer lens does. But then any DX camera would increase reach, and as we have both said, we don't believe that is accurate.

Anyway, thanks for your continued efforts to reduce the confusion surrounding this topic

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brian I appreciate your efforts to clarify your meaning and also reduce confusion. I think we seek the same goal. I have no argument with a 24 mp FX camera putting more pixels on image than a 12 MP FX camera. What I was trying to do with my edit of your words was refine your definition of "pixels on image" between the FX camera and the DX camera. Because the format is different between FX and DX if you say that at 12 mp a DX camera puts more pixels on image than an FX camera, this is clearly not true because they are both 12 MP images, but the 12 MP of the FX camera are spread over a wider area. But if you restrict the image to the DX crop area of an FX camera you are then comparing apples to apples and then except for the D3X you clearly put more pixels on image in the DX area with a DX camera. As far as what I have considered the definition of reach, I have not considered it to mean "filling the frame with the subject" which is the definition that most people who argue that a DX camera gives you more "reach" use. I always looked at it as if I have a target image that was far away I could bring that image "closer", think size of the subject on the, by using a longer lens. So now if i take the same lens and put it on a FX or DX camera and measure the size of the subject in the resultant frame, it can be a subject that does not fill the frame, the subject will be exactly the same size in both images. That is exactly why I have always objected to the idea of increased "reach". But I also understand your point of pixels on image, as now in post processing, taking quality into consideration, I can blow up the size of the subject in the DX image more than I can in the FX image if they have the same overall MP count and I will not degrade the image as much because there is more pixel density in the DX area of the image, so I am doing a "digital zoom" which would give me the same result as putting a longer lens on the FX camera. So I am trying to say I do agree that as long as you are restricted as to the length of the lens that you have, and are using any other Nikon digital camera than a D3X you do get a benefit from a DX camera in wildlife images that lets you create the benefit of a longer lens in post processing. Again as in your definition we ignore any issues like dynamic range and ISO sensitivity. So in summary I think the DX advantage should be defined as a "pixel density" advantage rather than "reach".

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

"My wife has already approved the purchase - she is a D300 shooter also."

I wouldn't wait if you got the approval, seems like you got the hardest part done already!

I shoot a lot of high ISO stuff around the house...don't be afraid to crank up the ISO past 1600 on the D700. I've gone up to 6400 and the prints look great still.

Dave
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I had the D200, then went to D300 and just got the D700. The upgrade from the D200 to the D300 was noticeable, but not extremely significant. The move from the D300 to D700 was "WOW!" after the first few shots. Everything just jumped out at me without changing the factory settings.

DXomark has just completed some pretty comprehensive testing. Numbers one and two were no surprise, the D3 and the D700. The big surprise was how poorly the D300 was rated. My personal experience was the same as yours and the D700 was built in Sendai. A huge plus for me.

I think it unlikely, I have checked quite a few and tried on several occassions but the D300 still performs more consistently and of course for long telephoto work the quality is definitely with the DX camera.

Not sure about wide angle, though the DX system comes up a bit short in terms of choice, at least with Nikkor lenses, so hard to tell.

Michael

Looks like the biggest advantage of the D700 over the D300 is in the ISO range of over 400. Other advantages seem to be mininal for a person that does most of his/her shooting at base ISO. I am leaning toward diverting my money toward acquiring pro glass which would work on the D300 and position me for an eventual FX move. I have held off on pro zooms as I hate the weight and bulk.

If I hold off on the FX now, I will just have to tolerate a little more noise when doing night shooting. Night shooting is actually a very small percentage of my total image making, but light painting is fun.

I am still interested in more opinions as the final decision is yet to be made

Jerry

Don't forget the dynamic range advantage. If you are happy with the performance of your D300 there is no reason not to do what you suggest i.e. invest in better glass. You glass will hold its value long after the D700's value has depreciated because the next D?00 has come out with better performance and features. The key is if you plan to move to FX any time in the near future, only buy glass that can be used on both formats. With my DX body, a D200, I only had problems when I pushed the camera to its limits and sometimes even then I still got good images. The D700 just makes it easier for me to take pictures in those environments.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Bob, how much difference in dynamic range do you see? There never seems to be enough.

Jerry

I haven't done any scientific tests but others have. When I look at my D700 images they look like they have captures a wide tonal range, but since I don't have a D300 to compare to, I can't say how much. I am sure if you Googled it you would find the exact data. The numbers I have seen range from 9 to 12.2 stops dynamic range depending on whether they used jpeg or RAW to make the determination.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>Looks like the biggest advantage of the D700 over the D300 is in the ISO range of over 400.

Depends. For me, the biggest advantage is being able to use wide-angle full frame lenses like the 14-24mm and 24mm pc-e with their full field of view.

If you shoot architecture, the 24mm pc-e is indispensable. Not wide enough on DX but perfect on FX.

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76158145@N00/sets/

>>Looks like the biggest advantage of the D700 over the
>D300 is in the ISO range of over 400.
>
>Depends. For me, the biggest advantage is being able to use
>wide-angle full frame lenses like the 14-24mm and 24mm pc-e
>with their full field of view.
>
>If you shoot architecture, the 24mm pc-e is indispensable. Not
>wide enough on DX but perfect on FX.


For me, the biggest advantage of "FX" over "DX" is that after a lifetime of taking photos on 35 mm film with rangefinder and then SLR film cameras, my mind's eye has certain visual expectations for lenses. I expect a 24mm lens to have a certain field of view, a 105mm to have a certain field of view, and a 200mm to have a certain field of view.

While I loved my D200, I could never get used to the field of view narrowing caused by the sensor. I sold my D200, bought a D700, and now...what I see in my mind and what I expect to see with a certain lens match up again.

Does this make sense to anyone else? :>)

>For me, the biggest advantage of "FX" over
>"DX" is that after a lifetime of taking photos on 35
>mm film with rangefinder and then SLR film cameras, my mind's
>eye has certain visual expectations for lenses.

Having "gone DX" in 2004 after many years using 35mm film, I thought I had got used to the different angle of view afforded by the smaller sensor, but I must admit to being secretly pleased to get back to the original view now that I have a D700. It's all in the subconscious, I guess...

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Very much so.

>While I loved my D200, I could never get used to the field of
>view narrowing caused by the sensor. I sold my D200, bought a
>D700, and now...what I see in my mind and what I expect to see
>with a certain lens match up again.
>
>Does this make sense to anyone else? :>)

I hear what you are saying, although I did adjust to the crop view after shooting digital SLR for seven years now. Interestingly, I still adjust in my mind with crop factor math. When I shoot at 18mm, for example, in my mind I recalculate to think 27mm, etc. When my eye says I need a 50mm lens, I do a quick think and set the lens to 35mm, etc.

My mind, I guess, is more flexible than this 75 year old body. Hopefully I can adjust to having a D200, D300 and a full frame at the same time. What ever I do I will keep at least one DX for telephoto use and maybe the other for IR.

Jerry

Jerry, I did a series of comparative shots of the D300 and D700. You can find them as well as some other shots with the D700 in low light at http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9/d700300_comparisons.

Check the first three shots and the ISO level. This is why you buy a D700. Not outdoor shots, of course.

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

Jerry,

I hate to be the odd man out, but I have both the 300, and 700. After using the 700 for awhile I really prefer the 300, and now wish that I had used the money to put towards a 500, or 600 f4 vr. I really don't see any difference in the images in normal shooting, and I don't have that much call for high ISO, or super wide angle shots. The things I miss with the 700 is when using my 300 f4 being able to fill the frame with a flower, being able to control the back ground view by shifting a few inches to the right, left, up, or down. I carry the right angle finder with me religiously when using the 300. It can be snapped on in 2 sec or less, and removed just as easily. Its really nice to be able to take eye level shots of children, animals, and flowers etc without crawling around on the ground. I also have the DR 5 for the 700, but is such a hassle to use that it just sits and collects dust. I shot film for 4 decades before going to digital, and FX format had that certain appeal me. Now that I have an FX size sensor I have found that the 35 mm format isn't really that important after all.

Mike

the issue is how big do you blow it up.

8x10 no difference, 11 x14 should be no difference, 16 x 20 and beyound should be seeing a difference.

I can not do these tests my self and I have only shot 12 image outside with the D700 and the high ISO is very good.

but when I was shooting he D70 - my friend let me use his program "blow-up" and it made probably as much difference as going from the D70 to the D300.

ledmun

Ledmun,

I appreciate your information on print size. I rarely do a 16 x 20, but I do make 11 x14, 12 x 16 and 13 x 19 from cropped images which may be a 16 x 20 if not cropped. GenuineFractals helps with keeping the ppi up on my crops which I had done at these sizes and cropping from D70 images in the past. I am leaning toward staying with the D200/D300 combination for now.

Jerry

Mike,

I too use the right angle finder quite regularly with the D200 and D300. Your comments on using the D700 right angle finder is good information for me. I also do a lot of flower pictures with my macro. Your shooting history is similar to mine. I would like the D700 for night shooting at higher ISO, but I continue to lean toward staying with the D300 and toloerating a little more noise. That money burning a hole in my pocket with have to go for lenses or maybe an extra photo shoot trip. Thanks

Jerry

Mike I guess thats why Nikon continues to make two formats so we can choose what we like best. Me i took the easy way out, kept my d200 when I bought my D700 so I have the advantages of both, but i do appreciate the FX frame and the high ISO sensitivity of my D700.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

I use a right angle finder regularly on my D200 (DR6). I bought an adapter to use it on my D700. Why do you find using your Dr5 such a hassele, because you have to screw it in? I actually like the idea that it is more secure on my D700 as I often dropped it on my D200 because it just slips on. If you added a 1.4 TC on your 300 mm f/4 you would be close to filling the FX screen with your flower.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>I use a right angle finder regularly on my D200/D300 (DR6). I
>bought an adapter to use it on my D700.

Bo

What is the stock number of the adapter to take the DR6 to the D700 viewfinder?

Jerry

jerry although i think it is actually an old Nikon part because it is so nicely made (metal) it is sold on eBay through a Hong Kong Dealer. I am away from home, but if you do an author search in this forum for robsb, my post on the adaper will show up with all the details.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Thanks, Bob

Jerry

Bob,

There are several reasons. The first is of course the hassle, and risk of continuously switching back and forth between the DR-5, and the standard eye piece. The treads are plastic, very fine, and the tread depth is only 1/8" or so. Thats ok when shooting in a studio on a tripod leaving the DR-5 for the session. I like to use it out in the field switching between waist level viewing, and eye level viewing as needed. What really worries me is how easily it could be damaged if accidently bumped by something when walking around. In the case of the D300, I always just remove it and stick it in my pocket. If I forget then the worst that would happen is that it would get knocked off the camera. On the D700 it is very likely that the plastic housing, or at least the treads would be damaged rendering the camera useless, and in need of some expensive repairs. I first got the DR-5 to use on my D2XS, however after awhile I just became to nervous about leaving it on the camera for fear of damaging something either carrying with a shoulder strap, or in the camera bag that I just quit using it.

Mike