Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

The 'FX' Effect.

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 12:37 AM

Folks. Everywhere it's discussed, the gurus say, 'Hah! everything's the same but the VF is bigger and the lenses are dearer.
OK, the 700 does a bit better at high ISO and that is your lot as far as 'better' is concerned!

I just got a D700 and I could not agree LESS!

The 700 has yet to take a bad pic. I gave it to my daughter ( no photo enthusiast) she gave it back and said 'This is too easy, can it take a bad pic?.

Can some knowledgable Nikonian put his (or her) into explaining why FX is so hot?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Fri 04-Mar-11 11:48 PM | edited Fri 04-Mar-11 11:50 PM by musical

I'm not quite sure of your comparison, but yes I love the d700. The camera is beguiling or enchanting. It sounds like you're having great fun.
You should talk about your lenses. You're having a great time; I can tell for sure.
"...content, mood, light; there has to be a moment there." photographer Sam Abell.1>

Floridian

Tallahassee, Florida, US
2937 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007
Fri 04-Mar-11 11:55 PM

>Can some knowledgable Nikonian put his (or her) into
>explaining why FX is so hot?

It's not FX, it's the D700. I can't explain it either, but from looking over the forums here, the D700 is clearly the most loved camera by a wide margin. (I don't have one. Maybe if I did, I'd have an explanation.)

I'm pretty sure the D3s is a better camera than the D700 based on the specs, but not on owner approval. Look at the D3 forum and you'll find D3 owners with various issues and complaints. The same is true of every other camera and every other forum... except the D700. Everyone who has one loves it, and claims it is the most amazing camera ever. No D700 owner has ever said anything bad about the camera. Visit that forum and see for yourself!

Your post is but one more example.

Randy

Wingman

Kimberley, CA
1651 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 2

Wingman Silver Member Awarded for sharing his excellent work and continued contribution to the forums, most notably at the Aviation forum. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2002
Sat 05-Mar-11 03:39 AM

We'll see -- I have a D3 and absolutely adore the thing, and this is after 30 years of film and working my way through D200, D2X and D300. I love my D3 so much that I just ordered a D700 to keep it company. I'll let you know if I like the D700 even more...

And there IS something special about FX. It took 2 years of trying to talk myself out of it before I finally made the jump, and one afternoon of shooting to know I'd finally made the right decision...

Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: In reality" | In response to Reply # 0

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Sat 05-Mar-11 04:21 AM | edited Sat 05-Mar-11 04:23 AM by Len Shepherd

>OK, the 700 does a bit better at high ISO and that is your lot as far as 'better' is concerned!
In reality - that is "about your lot"
Better for what?
It can be better for fast aperture wide angle work, and it is better when you want minimum depth of field.
It is not better when you want the faster shutter speed for specific depth of field, the best corner quality from many FX lenses when used wide open, maximum depth of field, maximum working distant, maximum screen coverage for AF or the highest current Nikon resolution at the price point

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

MEMcD

US
31278 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

MEMcD Moderator In depth knowledge in various areas Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007
Sat 05-Mar-11 04:36 AM

Hi Simon,

Congratulations on your new D700!
It is an outstanding body, just like the D3, D300, and D3S.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

blw

Richmond, US
28560 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#6. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Sat 05-Mar-11 05:10 AM

If you are taking no bad pictures, clearly you are a superior photographer. I can certainly take many, many very bad photographs with any camera, no matter how good it is. In fact, most of my shutter cycles are failures. On the other hand, my impression is that this is not different than most professionals.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 6

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 01:34 PM | edited Sat 05-Mar-11 01:44 PM by Shy Talk

Hello again Brian.

'Superior'. moi?

No way! I was just having a very gentle probe at this FX/DX thing.

Let's get one thing clear. Whatever the question is, I'm not the one to answer it.

As you know, I just allied my 300 with a new 700. I've not picked the 300 up since, but I will be using it a lot this year for telephoto stuff. The real wonder tho, is the 700.
Now, it might not be the FX effect, it might be the 700 itself, but there is something about the 700 pix that is so relaxed and natural looking.

I'm not clever enough to even put into words what I'm thinking, so best just to pipe down really.

There's more to FX than the spec sheet states, I think.

I'm looking forward to 2011s' photo opportunities more than ever. I'll use both DX and FX this year but really, the 700 must be the best bang-for-buck camera body ever.

And, in my case, almost a freebie-paid for by flogging yards of OM stuff.
I'm like a dog with two tails!


Edit to add: Musical. I bought the old. OLD, 24-120 D 'Streetsweeper' to try out. It's not been off!
I've got the 16-35VR- it's not been on!

Wingman: I agree, perhaps you are more eloquent than me. Fancy trying to put it into words?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Wingman

Kimberley, CA
1651 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 7

Wingman Silver Member Awarded for sharing his excellent work and continued contribution to the forums, most notably at the Aviation forum. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2002
Sat 05-Mar-11 02:35 PM

Actually I think "relaxed and natural looking" states it rather well.

Every time I say what I see and feel, Len points out that technically there is no difference, LOL...

To me there is just some sort of buttery smoothness with the FX images that goes along with the sharpness and clarity that I expect from either DX or FX. I almost never shoot anything above about ISO 800 or so with either format and am usually close to the native resolution of the cameras so that advantage of FX doesn't matter much to me, but I'm still addicted to FX just because I still go "Wow" every time I use the D3...

Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#9. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 8

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Sat 05-Mar-11 02:59 PM

Hi Neal.

Thanks for sharing your views. I am vastly more impressed with shots from my D700 (and D3s) than I am with those from my D200, D300, D2x. I use them all in all kinds of lighting situations but most often I opt for FX. I find the autofocus to be sufficiently superior that I even use FX for birding and surfers even though I lose a little on 'pixels on the subject'.

As you, and others, have indicated there seem to be some intangible qualities involved in preferring FX over DX but those qualities are there nonetheless. The imnportant thing is that we each find what works the best for us.

JIM

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 9

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 03:25 PM

Jim
I do a lot of telephoto work. Aircraft. I'll keep the 300s and Bigma for that.

From now on, I'm into FX for everything else. Firm.

If I could explain why, I would. The pix are much more 'lovely' from the 700, at least to me.

Simples: Use a camera that makes pictures that you like.

Just baffled as to why?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#11. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 10

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Sat 05-Mar-11 03:43 PM

Hi Simon.

I have heard explanations regarding photosite size where larger photosites (and their associated microlenses) not only allow improved high ISO performance but also allow beter image quality. The jump from DX to FX regarding photosite size seems to be similar to the jump from point and shoots to DX.

JIM

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 11

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 05-Mar-11 04:09 PM

>The jump from DX to FX regarding photosite size
>seems to be similar to the jump from point and shoots to DX.

I'm afraid that is simply not true.

A DX camera has a sensor that is around 10 times the area of a typical 1/1.8 sensor P&S camera; an FX sensor is only 2.3 times the area of DX.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 12

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 04:21 PM | edited Sat 05-Mar-11 04:39 PM by Shy Talk

Brian,
Well, for sure you are correct.

So, what IS going on here?
Is it 'FX snobbery', compete pish-talking, or is there actually truth in the very widespread love of the 700 and it's images?

I think we should be told!

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#14. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 12

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Sat 05-Mar-11 04:25 PM | edited Sat 05-Mar-11 04:27 PM by jgould2

Hi Brian.

I did not say the jump in photosite size, I said the jump regarding photosite size (meaning the increase in high ISO capability and in image quality). My apologies for poor phrasing.

JIM

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 14

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 05-Mar-11 05:00 PM

Either way, my point is that the difference in capability between a typical P&S sensor and a DX sensor is MUCH greater than the difference between a DX sensor and an FX sensor, when all three have a similar pixel count.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 13

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 05-Mar-11 05:04 PM

It's probably a bit of everything...

If an FX camera and a DX camera have the same pixel count and similar technology, the FX camera is likely to provide less noise and somewhat greater dynamic range. As an owner of D300 and D700, I don't see the "magic ingredient" that some assign to the D700.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#17. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 14

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 05:41 PM

The pixels are bigger & take in light at a faster rate.

personal disclaimer; that's what I read once. I'm not scientifically qualified to say beyond that.
and what is "effect." Also, that suggests a theory, if it is even true, to explain dx to fx, but not why, if this is true at all, the 700 owners seem to have more unabashed praise for their d700 camera.
There could be a secret gas released as the box opens but goodness gracious is it ever a nice camera, for indoors & nighttime.

re: "the fx effect" or image quality

Floridian

Tallahassee, Florida, US
2937 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#18. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 6

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007
Sat 05-Mar-11 05:56 PM

>... I can certainly take many, many very bad
>photographs with any camera, no matter how good it is...

Yes, Brian, but you don't have a D700!

Randy

Wingman

Kimberley, CA
1651 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#19. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 18

Wingman Silver Member Awarded for sharing his excellent work and continued contribution to the forums, most notably at the Aviation forum. Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2002
Sat 05-Mar-11 06:28 PM

Brian Tilley's comment about dynamic range might actually have something to do with it. I'm hugely addicted to rich open shadows in my prints -- I learned a lot of my photography from the old Ansel Adams series of books and shot a lot of black and white in my early days. I'm a very heavy user of curves, the shadow/highlight tool and its analogs in NX2 and ACR to pull out and accentuate shadow detail -- and I've never seen anything like the D3 for this kind of work...

Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

blw

Richmond, US
28560 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#20. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 18

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Sat 05-Mar-11 07:27 PM

No, but I can screw up just as easily with a D3, which is just as FX and in fact uses the same sensor.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#21. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 17

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Sat 05-Mar-11 09:44 PM

>take in light at a faster rate.

Because of the pixel size, the camera can absorb more of whatever is there in the way of photons at a given ISO, shutter speed and aperture, but as far as I know, the D700 has no effect on the speed of light.

""

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#22. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 21

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 10:04 PM

Sometimes the d700 is so cool that it seems to defy the very laws of physics.
There is downside though; "post-partum d700 depression."/>
Let's call it PPDD.
When I miss a picture I have no excuse any more.

>>take in light at a faster rate.
>no effect on the speed of light.


"...content, mood, light; there has to be a moment there." photographer Sam Abell.1>

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#23. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 22

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 10:31 PM

If a halfwit like me can see the FX effect, straightaway, then plainly it's completely obvious and therefore, quantifiable.

I'm very happy and I suppose that's all a consumer product can hope to achieve; to make its owner happy.

Has anyone, anywhere, got a bad word to say about the 700?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#24. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 23

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Sat 05-Mar-11 11:50 PM | edited Sun 06-Mar-11 12:07 AM by musical

My dear sir, yes, yes, but qualifi-able not quantifiable;
you and I have no Units of Measurement, we just Love it.
If we love it extremely more than any other, ok, that's semi-quantitative.
(I'm totally kidding around) have a very wonderful evening.

>the FX effect, straightaway,
>then plainly it's completely obvious and therefore,
>quantifiable.


"...content, mood, light; there has to be a moment there." photographer Sam Abell.1>

Floridian

Tallahassee, Florida, US
2937 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#25. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 20

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007
Sun 06-Mar-11 01:59 AM

>...I can screw up just as easily with a D3, which is
>just as FX and in fact uses the same sensor...

I would have thought the same thing, Brian, but look at the two forums and you'll see the difference. In the D3 forum users have some issues with the camera, have little problems, and don't always get ideal results. Now read the D700 forum and you'll see that nobody ever registers a complaint, has one bad thing to say about the camera, or ever gets bad shots with it. The original post in this thread is but one example.

All the evidence points the other way. You can screw up with a D3, but apparently not with a D700.

Randy

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#26. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 23

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Sun 06-Mar-11 02:54 AM

>got a bad word to say about the 700?

Um, the grips are known to peel off, just like other high dollar Nikons.

""

robsb

San Jose, US
14830 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#27. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 25

robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Donor Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006
Sun 06-Mar-11 06:31 AM

I think I am with Brian here, operator error can really give you bad D700 images,as I know from experience, but when I pay attention to what I am doing I am in awe of the camera, but I moved to it from a D200 where the difference is large.

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!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#28. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 25

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 06-Mar-11 07:24 AM

I presume your post was "tongue-in-cheek", Randy.

For anyone to claim that a D700 cannot take a bad shot would be simply ridiculous.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#29. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 23

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 06-Mar-11 07:29 AM

>If a halfwit like me can see the FX effect

Once more - there is no "FX effect".

The problem with threads like this is that they take the undoubted strengths of the D700 and by generalising, turn them into something that does not exist.

As has been stated many times, a 5MP DX camera using the same technology as the D700 - if it existed - would give the same "effect" as the D700 used in DX crop mode.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#30. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 29

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Sun 06-Mar-11 07:48 AM

>>If a halfwit like me can see the FX effect
>
>Once more - there is no "FX effect".
>
>The problem with threads like this is that they take the
>undoubted strengths of the D700 and by generalising, turn them
>into something that does not exist.
>
>As has been stated many times, a 5MP DX camera using the same
>technology as the D700 - if it existed - would give the same
>"effect" as the D700 used in DX crop mode.

Brian if you are serious about this then could you explain why you bought a d700 and not another d300? Was you expecting more from the d700 and then became disillusioned. The "problem" with buying a d700 is that inevitably you have to also buy FX lenses which means that if you can't differentiate between a d300 and a d700 it becomes an expensive"mistake"


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

ajdooley

Waterloo, US
3321 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#31. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 28

ajdooley Gold Member Nikonian since 25th May 2006
Sun 06-Mar-11 10:33 AM | edited Sun 06-Mar-11 01:54 PM by ajdooley

Maybe it can't... but I sure can!

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

rhulbert

North Vancouver, CA
586 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#33. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

rhulbert Team Member Winner of the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded for his limitless enthusiasm and extraordinarily genial nature consistently in support of Nikonians Writer Ribbon awarded for his generous and valuable contributions to the Nikonians Articles (Resources) section. Charter Member
Sun 06-Mar-11 12:30 PM

>The 700 has yet to take a bad pic. I gave it to my daughter
>... she gave it back and said 'This is too
>easy, can it take a bad pic?.

Dear Simon,

I think it is so cool that you (and your daughter) feel so empowered by the D700.
If it gives you more confidence, then that is just great!
There are Baseball Players and Hockey Players that have their "bats" and "sticks" of choice.
I am a D700 user and I have experienced all of Nikon's higher end Digital Cameras both FX and DX and I am here to tell you that it is indeed possible to take a "bad" picture with a D700.

What this means is that I am also suggesting that you and your daughter should both take more personal credit for being pleased with your own photos. If the D700 camera gives you a good feeling about your images, that is wonderful. While it can be argued that it is the photographer and not the quality of the equipment that matters, it is still nice to feel that lift in confidence when you find equipment that you love to work with.

Heck...I name my bodies and lenses and tuck them in at night!

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
https://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#34. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 31

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Sun 06-Mar-11 12:31 PM | edited Sun 06-Mar-11 09:08 PM by musical

Where this thread may have a notable weakness is in glorifying the camera too much. I'm trying to see both sides. Trying. Further obfuscation is added when I joke. In this way I am all too guilty.
My signature line, way the bottom of each of my posts, says something about me on a deeper level. Yet I am in love with the camera itself and I too have named my camera, Lucy.
If anyone personified not glorifying equipment it was Sam Abell in his writings about photography. In that line of thinking it is so much more the person's reactions to a scene. I am bit more confessional when I confess that my wife was annoyed at my procurement of the d700 (it was a gift). She feels that "my pictures are my pictures," that they are not too much changed. Nothing external transformed me-- the camera didn't.
I have a long way to go in photography and the d700 didn't give me a magic edge. Frankly, I'm just an ok photographer with or without the exceedingly lovely, most amazing d700.
I'm in love with an expensive tool; it's well designed and I am not quite midway in learning it. So much is in the mind with photography. At least that is the mood of this reply of mine w/o my usual humor. I do kind of know what the OP is saying, though, about its magical sort of feeling in FX.

"...content, mood, light; there has to be a moment there." photographer Sam Abell.1>

Floridian

Tallahassee, Florida, US
2937 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#35. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 28

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007
Sun 06-Mar-11 05:51 PM | edited Sun 06-Mar-11 06:07 PM by Floridian

>I presume your post was "tongue-in-cheek", Randy.
>
>For anyone to claim that a D700 cannot take a bad shot would
>be simply ridiculous.

Yes, mostly "tongue-in-cheek," Brian. Nobody could make a serious claim that a D700 is a more capable camera than a D3. However, the D700 is universally praised in this forum by its owners for taking wonderful photographs, while users in every other forum have various complaints, note problems with exposure, focus, softness in images, etc. If you just look at the evidence on Nikonians forums, it appears the D700 is about as close to a perfect camera as has ever been made. There is never a negative comment about the camera in this forum. Apparently, a D700 cannot take a bad picture!

My serious take-away from this is that I'm pretty sure D700 owners have higher owner-satisfaction than owners of any other camera. Their praise for their cameras is constant; criticisms or comments on shortcomings nonexistent. You can't say that for any other camera, from the D3 on down.

What I find really amazing about the D700 is its level of owner satisfaction.

Randy

mmm55

Bloomsburg, US
176 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#36. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 29

mmm55 Registered since 19th Mar 2009
Sun 06-Mar-11 06:14 PM

>The problem with threads like this is that they take the undoubted strengths of the D700 and by generalising, turn them into something that does not exist.

There is no "problem with threads like this." It's merely a group of like-minded folks having a pleasant discussion about something they enjoy. Sometimes it's technical, sometimes it's not. Being overly cautious to never, ever type a single comment that isn't quantifiable takes all the fun out of it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#37. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 29

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Sun 06-Mar-11 06:43 PM

Hi Brian.

"Once more - there is no "FX effect"."

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I and many others consider photos from the D700 and D3s to be far superior to those taken with the D300, D2x, amd D200.

Isn't it lucky we are all entitled to our opinions?


JIM

nicbet

CA
18 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#38. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 35

nicbet Registered since 02nd Feb 2011
Mon 07-Mar-11 05:38 AM | edited Tue 08-Mar-11 05:03 PM by briantilley

Well, to me personally the D700 is just the first camera body I have nothing, let me repeat: nothing, that I do not like or find annoying. Having used many of the lower and higher end models of different manufacturers (Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, everything between XTi and D3s), there was always something amiss: missing feature, stupid button placement, ridiculous menu system, weight, size, feel, image quality, price - you name it. Then I found the D700 and all the stars aligned! I can only imagine that many other owners might have had a similar moment and our deep love and happiness roots in a perceived mental state of equilibrium; or in other words: every time we pick up the D700 it puts a smile on our face

CPP

Lexington S.C. ( just moved f, US
152 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#39. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 33

CPP Registered since 22nd Jun 2004
Mon 07-Mar-11 11:14 AM | edited Mon 07-Mar-11 01:55 PM by CPP

I just wish people would realize it's not the camera that takes a good or bad picture, it's the thing behind the camera. The camera is tool manipulated by the person behind it.

If you remember film days before there was a trash button or Photoshop, you had one real chance to get it right which means we all took the time to compose the shot before hitting that shutter button.

I've seen great photographers take some amazing pictures with P&S, simple SLR, DSLR's (FX & DX), They just don’t show their bad photos online. But at times they will during workshops for the sake of education. I have been in a few workshops where the well known photographer just smiled as they hit the delete key during critique time and I must say these people were well known published photographers.

A few quotes from these workshops I attended:

Everyone takes bad photos, they have to, otherwise we would all just repeat the “greatest hits” of photography over and over.

The interpretation differs from viewer to viewer of what is good or what is bad.


But in the end Ansel Adams said it best,
"You don’t take a photograph, you make it."

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Drbee

Naperville, US
5927 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#40. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

Drbee Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Aug 2004
Mon 07-Mar-11 02:18 PM

I moved from the D200/D2Hs to the D700. I still have the D2Hs. I like it because of it's small file size, pleasing out of the camera images, fast focusing speed, fast frame rate and the placement of some of the AF sensors at the edge of the frame. I use it for children portraiture (mostly my grandkids) and when I want to take advantage of the DX "crop". IMO the D2Hs, D200 and D700 take very acceptable and nearly comparable images at base ISO and in hazy/filtered natural lighting. The D2Hs did extend my ISO range a bit over the D200, but does not compete in that category with the D300.

The D700 has extended my photography "range" even further with it's high-ISO low-noise performance. The less than 100% VF, while not a big deal for me, can be annoying and I do sometimes miss the crop because of the extra little bit that appears on the image. I can see the image quality difference(mostly in the form of dynamic range) and so can people who routinely view my images. For me the working layout of controls and ergonomics isn't that much different than the D2Hs/F6 and it's what I would (and did) expect from Nikon in that price range.

I'm still tweaking, but I have yet to fully replicate straight-from-the camera files like I came to enjoy with the D2Hs. I'm very close on that note. While I find shooting almost exclusively RAW, I occasionally want to switch to jpg and I find highlight control troublesome on the D700. Regardless of camera I do a lot of post processing in either LR3 or CS5.

The D700 is the best photographic tool I've had, but I'm still post processing. I typically find that when I decide to extend my photographic horizons, especially with a new "technique" that there is still a learning curve. Along that curve there are "bad" pics.

I would never recommend the D700 to someone solely on the basis that it can't take a bad picture. It's far too heavy of a camera to be clubbed with.

It's a great tool, but I guarantee you that there is no universal setting that allows perfect pics in my hands.

Best Regards,
Roger

daffyduke

CA
140 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#41. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 39

daffyduke Registered since 14th Jul 2009
Mon 07-Mar-11 03:01 PM

>I just wish people would realize it's not the camera that
>takes a good or bad picture, it's the thing behind the camera.
> The camera is tool manipulated by the person behind it.

This comic strip says it all.

Regards, Peter


Click on image to view larger version


Attachment#1 (jpg file)

Peter
Canada

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

GiantTristan

Stamford, US
2670 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#42. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 40

GiantTristan Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Jan 2006
Mon 07-Mar-11 04:29 PM

>I would never recommend the D700 to someone solely on the
>basis that it can't take a bad picture. It's far too heavy of
>a camera to be clubbed with.
>
>It's a great tool, but I guarantee you that there is no
>universal setting that allows perfect pics in my hands.

"A good camera does not make you a better photographer" - this is an obvious truism. However, I contend that good equipment improves your chances to come up with a good capture - at least in my case. When I compare the D700 to my D200, there are a few points that improve my odds for getting a good picture:

The higher dynamic range makes it easier to recapture blown highlights.
The high iso capability permits me to use 1/(2f) instead of 1/(1.5) for minimum shutter speed which improves sharpness when hand holding.
The shallower dof allows me to get better bokeh and focus isolation.
The greater tonal and color ranges produce better and more pleasing colors, even at base iso.


Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

robsb

San Jose, US
14830 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#43. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 38

robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Donor Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006
Mon 07-Mar-11 04:58 PM

OK am going to spoil the record and say what I don't like about my D700.

1. I wish it still had a bracket button like my D200, a minor annoyance I agree as i can assign another button to do that and have.

2. While the 95% viewfinder is not a really big deal, i wish it had a 100% viewfinder anyway.

3. While none of the high end digital Nikons have it, I wish the FX cameras had the ability to interchange viewfinders like my old F3. Live View is great, but would be better if we could articulate the monitor, then i would not miss the ability of the waist level finder that the old F3 gave me, like holding the camera over my head and still seeing what I was shooting or holding the camera way low and still seeing what I was shooting.

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!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#44. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 42

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Mon 07-Mar-11 05:05 PM

Quote

The higher dynamic range makes it easier to recapture blown highlights.

Unquote

It is my understanding that dynamic range is the range between 1 and 255 so if you have blown highlights - beyond 255 - how does it help

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#45. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 43

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Mon 07-Mar-11 05:16 PM

Hi Bob.

Sounds like you're going to have to spring for a D3s

The D3s has both a 100% viewfinder and a dedicated bracket button. Perhaps the D4 will have an articulating screen.

JIM

Drbee

Naperville, US
5927 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#46. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 45

Drbee Silver Member Nikonian since 05th Aug 2004
Mon 07-Mar-11 05:44 PM

Jim,

Sometimes it's hard for me to remember all the underlying considerations and balances/compromises that lead me to my choices. Your comment on the D3s reminds me of two very important aspects that led me to the D700. The most important was the price point, far below that of the D3/D3s with almost a D3 light feature set (reminds me of the old F5/F6 vrs F100 discussions). The other was the smaller size of the D700 over the D3/D3s. I prefer the ergonomics of my D2Hs, but it's become an about home camera while my D700 has been my travel/walk-about choice. Size/weight plays a very important part of that choice.

Best Regards,
Roger

jgould2

Fort Pierce, US
4583 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#47. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 46

jgould2 Gold Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 13th Oct 2007
Mon 07-Mar-11 07:27 PM | edited Mon 07-Mar-11 07:29 PM by jgould2

Hi Roger.

I was perfectly happy with my D700 and still am (I still use it lots). Just needed that little bit of extra high ISO capability for shooting bands in dark bars.

JIM

GiantTristan

Stamford, US
2670 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#48. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 44

GiantTristan Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Jan 2006
Mon 07-Mar-11 07:31 PM

There is a difference between "captured" and "displayed" dynamic range.
According to DxO, the D200 has a DR=11.5 stops and the D700 a DR=12.2 stops at base iso. This means in both cases the "raw file" contains more information than most monitors are able to display. In PP you can recover some of the not displayed data, about 2/3 stops more in the case of the D700.

If you are interested in a lot more detail, you might want to have a look in: www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

Tristan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#49. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 44

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Mon 07-Mar-11 09:09 PM

>It is my understanding that dynamic range is the range between 1 and 255

DR is expressed in EV or number of stops, each stop doubling or halving the amount of light.

The "1 to 255" scaling you mention is an arbitrary classification that is a linear distribution of luminance values in programs like Photoshop.

""

gregors

CA
6 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#50. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

gregors Registered since 08th Mar 2011
Tue 08-Mar-11 04:31 AM

It's the low light capability that amazes me- I used a D80 for three years before getting a D700 last fall. I haven't shot once with the D80 since then. I did have to buy new fast glass as well and I am VERY happy with my kit now. The D700 is the sweetest camera I've ever used- the novelty is growing not wearing off...

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#51. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 49

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Tue 08-Mar-11 07:12 AM | edited Tue 08-Mar-11 07:14 AM by Baaker

>>It is my understanding that dynamic range is the range
>between 1 and 255
>
>DR is expressed in EV or number of stops, each stop doubling
>or halving the amount of light.
>
>The "1 to 255" scaling you mention is an arbitrary
>classification that is a linear distribution of luminance
>values in programs like Photoshop.

The DR falls within pure black and pure white regardless of how many stops of EV there is. The scaling I mentioned is universally accepted as a way of defining the blacks and whites. If an area of an image is blown then there isn't any information to recover? If it is blown in all three channels then it is gone. If only one channel then information can be taken from the other two channels. The information will be taken from the lightest areas of the two remaining channels so I don't see where DR comes into the equation.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#52. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 48

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Tue 08-Mar-11 07:18 AM

>There is a difference between "captured" and
>"displayed" dynamic range.
>According to DxO, the D200 has a DR=11.5 stops and the D700 a
>DR=12.2 stops at base iso. This means in both cases the
>"raw file" contains more information than most
>monitors are able to display. In PP you can recover some of
>the not displayed data, about 2/3 stops more in the case of
>the D700.
>
>If you are interested in a lot more detail, you might want to
>have a look in:
>www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

Ironically when I posted recently quoting the same information with respect to DxO I was informed that it was the only source that quoted 12.2 stops and Thom Hogan was reporting 9 stops. Seems the jury is out on this.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#53. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 52

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Tue 08-Mar-11 09:13 AM

>>There is a difference between "captured" and
>>"displayed" dynamic range.
>>According to DxO, the D200 has a DR=11.5 stops and the
>D700 a
>>DR=12.2 stops at base iso. This means in both cases the
>>"raw file" contains more information than most
>>monitors are able to display. In PP you can recover some
>of
>>the not displayed data, about 2/3 stops more in the case
>of
>>the D700.
>>
>>If you are interested in a lot more detail, you might want
>to
>>have a look in:
>>www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm
>

The 12.2 stops quoted by DxO is measured at base iso??? but the cambridge colour site states:

Quote

Technical Note: In some digital cameras, there is an extended low ISO setting which produces less noise, but also decreases dynamic range.

Unquote

Why would DxO test at base iso if this is true? The chart at DXO doesn't state it is tested at base iso and I think that testing at base iso wouldn't give a true test result.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#54. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 51

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Tue 08-Mar-11 11:24 AM

>The scaling I mentioned is universally accepted as a way of defining the blacks and whites.

That's what I said as well, though I referred to it as luminance values.

However, that has nothing to do with actual dynamic range of sensors or film, it is just an abitrary measurement.

In fact, it is possible to have far more DR in an image than will fit the scale, (ie, such as what one might obtain with an HDR). In that case, the DR is compressed and tone mapped to fit to the 0-255 scale.



""

elec164

US
2575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#55. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 53

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Tue 08-Mar-11 12:16 PM | edited Tue 08-Mar-11 12:48 PM by elec164

>The 12.2 stops quoted by DxO is measured at base iso??? but
>the cambridge colour site states:
>
>Quote
>
>Technical Note: In some digital cameras, there is an extended
>low ISO setting which produces less noise, but also decreases
>dynamic range.
>
>Unquote
>
>Why would DxO test at base iso if this is true? The chart at
>DXO doesn't state it is tested at base iso and I think that
>testing at base iso wouldn't give a true test result.
>

This is quite a complex subject that unless you are really interested can be difficult to comprehend(I know it makes my eyes glaze over an turns my brain to mush when I start to read about this stuff!!! ) My limited understanding is that it mainly comes down to full well capacity and read noise. As to the low ISO figures, if you check Dxomark’s measured ISO against the manufacture reported ISO you will discover that the measured ISO of the low setting is the same as the base ISO figure. For instance the D700 has a base ISO of 200 which Dxomark measures at 162, and the measured ISO of the Lo ISO equivalent of the manufacturer reported 100 is also measured at 162 (the Lo setting is achieved through data manipulation not sensor gain). And when you look at the dynamic range chart they do not include the Lo setting.

There also appears to be no one standard when doing these evaluations and depending on your tolerance to noise it can alter the numbers. I believe Dxomark gives technical engineering limitations where as others give what they determine as practical every day use numbers(less tolerance to noise in the shadows).

For a good read on sensor performance you may wish to check out Dr Clark’s article.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary


Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

balmiesgirl

Colorado City, US
157 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#56. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 35

balmiesgirl Registered since 09th Apr 2008
Tue 08-Mar-11 12:48 PM

Did you ever think maybe the D3 users have a higher level of expectation.... they paid more and expect more from their equipment than the average d700 user maybe?


Never tire in doing good.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#57. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 30

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Tue 08-Mar-11 04:54 PM | edited Tue 08-Mar-11 05:05 PM by briantilley

Sorry for the late reply - I've been away at the Focus on Imaging show for a coupl of days

Yes, I'm quite serious that there is no generic "FX Effect".

But... I think my posts on this subject may have been misinterpreted, either accidentally or deliberately. I will try once more to explain where I'm coming from.

I bought a D700 because it offered better noise performance than any other Nikon camera that I could afford. Its 1+ stop advantage over the D300 at high ISO's allows me to get more usable (i.e. saleable) shots of stage performances. The D700 is a remarkable camera, with an excellent balance of specification and performance that suits much of my work to a "T". Note that the D300 does a great job too, and at lower ISO settings I still don't see too much difference between them.

However, the fact that the D700 is an FX camera was (and is) is not relevant to my purchase decision. Because it's FX, I have had to alter which focal lengths I use to get the desired angles of view, and I still prefer the greater effective DoF of the D300 (for the same aperture and framing). If the "D400" (or whatever the next high-end DX camera turns out to be) can offer D700 levels of noise at ISO 6400 or so, it will be - FOR ME - an even better option. At that point, I could be shooting a "D400" for the longer shots and the D700 for wider full-stage views. With further improvements in technology, I might well switch fully back to DX.

I hope I've countered any impression that I don't rate the D700 very highly, but equally, I must emphasise one last time that the big improvements which the D700 offers over earlier DX cameras like the D200 and D2X are not all down to the format. An equally (arguably, more) important factor is that the D700 employs a newer generation of sensor and firmware. And that's what I mean by there being no "FX Effect". The D700 is great, but not (or not only) because it is FX

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#58. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 57

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Wed 09-Mar-11 12:00 AM | edited Wed 09-Mar-11 12:04 AM by MstrBones

>Because it's FX, I have had to alter which focal lengths I use to get the desired angles of view

Brian,

If, like myself, you shot 35mmm for decades, how could this even be an issue? Just wondering

>Yes, I'm quite serious that there is no generic "FX Effect".

You just acknowledged one, in your first comment above that I quoted. Perhaps that is a negative FX effect, but it is one, just the same.

I tend to sort of disagree with you, however, that there is no FX effect, (I know that sounds a bit wishywashy). Its like saying there is no 35mm effect, or that there is no medium format effect.

The format effects the final image appearance, (putting all the high ISO mumbo-jumbo-magic stuff aside).

""

robsb

San Jose, US
14830 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#59. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 45

robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Donor Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006
Wed 09-Mar-11 06:15 AM

Not if i want to stay married. I actually would not want a D3s to big and heavy for me. I prefer the d700 size and price. I was just showing that although I love my D700 it is not perfect except as a perfect compromise performance vs price.

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!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.

richardd300

Dyserth, UK
4505 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#60. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 50

richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009
Wed 09-Mar-11 07:11 AM

I own both the D700 and D7000 and could write reams about the differences. I think anybody who knows their D700 will agree that good as the D7K is, comparisons are pointless. I agree with most here that the D700 is a "special" Nikon and in my view the best camera I have ever owned. I am surprised anyone who knows their Nikons would ask such a question about comparisons between the two.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

jrp

San Pedro Garza García, MX
38666 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#61. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

jrp Administrator JRP is one of the co-founders, has in-depth knowledge in various areas. Awarded for his contributions for the Resources Charter Member
Wed 09-Mar-11 07:53 AM | edited Wed 09-Mar-11 11:00 PM by jrp

Independently of technical, measurable characteristic virtues, there is definitely some magic in this body.
I went to check it out at a store .... could not leave without it.
It is a hard to describe joy to use it, despite the imbalance it created in my bank balance.

It reminds me of the effect the F4s had on me. And that pleasure was translated into much better images than before.

Magic is of course not understood -not even accepted- by one of my dearest friends and yet he remains my friend and relishes my pictures.

If I try to explain it with numbers he will have very knowledgeable technical counter arguments.

But we both laughed at this impasse; more so when I asked him if he married his wife with his brain and for her brain only.

"Oh," he said, "that is what you call magic!"
Not wanting to enter into another set of arguments, I simply said: "If you felt it, you tell me; I know you did and still do."

Is this applicable to inanimate magnesium casted bodies, plastic, leatherette and electronics? You bet! They are the dear instruments to express my love for life and my family.

Have a great time :-)
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade.
Check our workshops at the Nikonians Academy and the Nikonians Photo Pro Shop

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#62. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 56

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Wed 09-Mar-11 08:46 AM

>Did you ever think maybe the D3 users have a higher level of expectation.... they paid more and expect more from their equipment than the average d700 user maybe?<

My thought exactly! I also think the placebo effect is rampant.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#63. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 58

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 09-Mar-11 10:03 AM

That's an interesting point about a "medium format" effect, and it got me thinking...

With digital capture, I don't see the differences in format have the same effect as we had with film. Since we had basically the same choice of film emulsions for both 35mm and medium format, there was a clear and measurable difference in things like resolution simply because of the greater real estate of the larger negative. Not so with digital - we also need to consider the pixel count and the generation of technology. Whilst I don't think there is an "FX Effect", I do agree with most in this thread that there is a "D700 Effect"

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

twolabs

US
403 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#64. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 61

twolabs Registered since 26th Mar 2009
Thu 10-Mar-11 12:05 AM

>They are the dear instruments to express my love for life and my family.

So very well said, JRP. I do believe you have the heart of a poet.

Stephen

my Nikonians gallery

August

Milwaukee, US
204 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#65. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 35

August Registered since 05th Aug 2002
Thu 10-Mar-11 04:13 AM

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I touch on something already said.

Could it be that for a broad swath of users the D700's 12mp is the optimal resolution for thier lens sets and technique. In other words, beyond 12mp the lens becomes the limiting factor, and technique becomes that much more critical. Perhaps these characteristics coupled with the generous DR, low noise and broad ISO capabiities really put the D700 in a unique sweet spot.

A Wisconsin Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#66. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 61

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Thu 10-Mar-11 11:31 AM

Wonderful sentiment & I agree, sir.
Wisdom/>

>Magic is of course not understood -not even accepted...>>


"Close Your Eyes and See With Your Heart." />a quote by Canadian writer Kerri MacDonald.

MstrBones

AW
8238 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#67. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 63

MstrBones Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2005
Fri 11-Mar-11 12:15 AM

Brian,

I was thinking in my comment about how the differing focal lengths at equivalent aspect ratios change DOF appearance. That is definitely one of the differences between APS, 35mm, and MF.

I think some of the rest of this thread is BS by enthusiastic owners of D700s, (I think a lot of these folks never shot 35mm), but thats just my perspective.

""

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#68. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 67

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Fri 11-Mar-11 07:15 AM

>I was thinking in my comment about how the differing focal
>lengths at equivalent aspect ratios change DOF appearance.
>That is definitely one of the differences between APS, 35mm,
>and MF.

Yes, you're quite right

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Ed911

US
222 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#69. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 66

Ed911 Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2007
Tue 15-Mar-11 10:11 PM

Magic...you guys are making me want to buy some magic. I just sold one of my D300's and am waiting on the D700 replacement...hmmm...

Now the earthquake. Decisions, decisions...lol...

Nice to know that there is such a fine camera out there, if I don't like the new alternative.


Thanks for sharing the magic...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

samrat54

US
246 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#70. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 69

samrat54 Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Mar 2003
Sat 19-Mar-11 08:45 PM

The D700 was the body for which I had been looking for about 8-9 years. My first DSLR was a new D100 back in 2001, and even through around a half dozen other Nikon DX bodies, including pro and prosumer, I always missed something. I was always looking for a digital F100. (Sold the F100, kept the F5--go figure.) I finally got it. I really "think in 35mm/FX". (Some people can "think in B/W". I've tried, but I'm not there yet.) The D700 "fit" me so much, that I bought a second body--the first time I EVER did that! Sometimes something just feels like "it was made for you". That's the way the D700 is for me. It's an intangible.

I drive rental cars several times a month. A couple of months ago, I got in a rental that had "that feel"--like it was "just made for me". The next time I look for a car, I'll probably look closely at that brand and model. Sometimes manufacturers get it right. Nikon nailed it with the D700. That's why I really don't care about its successor. I expect to keep the D700 twins and have shutters replaced when needed. They're that good--for me and my needs. Your mileage may vary.

Sam

A Georgia Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

grillij

Piedmont,Qc, CA
253 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#71. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 70

grillij Silver Member Nikonian since 13th Aug 2008
Sun 20-Mar-11 12:00 PM

The D700 was the body for which I had been looking since they started making digital camera. As a matter of fact I was hoping that they would make a digital camera back for the F5. I remember seeing an article about a digital back for the F5 but my wish never came trough.
And suddenly, only a few months after I purchased the D300, the D700 came out. I went to my Camera store and without any hesitation, I bought the D700. Finally I had the digital F5 replacement. I still have the F5, I take it out a few times a year, just for the fun of holding it. I have the same feeling for the D700 plus all my lenses are FX.



Jacques G

pjr

Manotick, CA
2246 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#72. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

pjr Registered since 26th Dec 2005
Sun 20-Mar-11 01:12 PM

Every time I read this forum, which is every other day, I get the NAS jitters.

I was playing with a D700 the other day in my photo shop and marvelled at it's huge viewfinder (compared to my D300). My photo shop is only a 15 minute drive away...another day of NAS jitters ahead!

Phil
A Canadian Nikonian
My portfolio: www.pjr99.500px.com

Gator Bob

SANTA FE, US
582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#73. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 72

Gator Bob Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Jul 2006
Mon 21-Mar-11 04:38 PM | edited Mon 21-Mar-11 04:40 PM by Gator Bob

What is this tongue-in-cheek debate really about, you pretendy DX die-hards? All this reminds me of Ken Rockwell's endless obsessing about "film is the only 'real RAW'". Typical Rockwell b.s., just to be different, IMHO.

When the D700 price first dropped a little, I sold my DX lenses and my D300, all at a good price and now have only FX lenses. My D700 is a better, more versatile camera than my D300. A little bigger and heavier, a little more expensive and only a 95% viewfinder ... but otherwise an excellent step up. When a D800 arrives I'll buy one, sell my D700 at a good price and move on.

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
My Faves: D800E 14-24 PC-E 85 80-400 VRII & Tamron 90 macro

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#74. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 73

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Mon 21-Mar-11 05:50 PM

>What is this tongue-in-cheek debate really about, you
>pretendy DX die-hards?

Please don't allow this discussion to take on a personal tone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Gator Bob

SANTA FE, US
582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#75. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 74

Gator Bob Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Jul 2006
Mon 21-Mar-11 06:08 PM

Brian, please excuse my not so bright sense of humor. I had no intention of belittling or demeaning anyone, and most certainly not you, Brian.
I have read and benefited from your posts and view you as a very knowledgeable Nikonian. Truly. My bad!

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
My Faves: D800E 14-24 PC-E 85 80-400 VRII & Tamron 90 macro

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#76. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 75

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Mon 21-Mar-11 06:54 PM

No problem, Bob - perhaps I just had a sense of humour failure...

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Chuckv

Lafayette, US
252 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#77. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 70

Chuckv Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 13th Mar 2009
Tue 22-Mar-11 12:57 AM | edited Tue 22-Mar-11 07:12 AM by briantilley


I couldn't have said it better!!! Thanks, Chuck


Visit my Nikonians gallery.

visanic

Freehold, US
273 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#78. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 76

visanic Registered since 20th Mar 2006
Wed 23-Mar-11 06:52 PM

Guys,
Is it me or have all of these forums turned into "this camera vs. that one" or "this lens vs. that one?"

I have seen fantastic images from an iPhone (www.chasejarvis.com) and I've seen terrible images from a D3 (Flickr).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having great tools to do my job (or hobby), but I cannot see how a camera body can make one create better pictures.

If I did this for a living (which I don't), and absolutely required the D700's enormous high ISO capability, then it would be a no-brainer for me.

As a hobbyist though, I tend to concentrate more on my technique and most importantly the LIGHT.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

grillij

Piedmont,Qc, CA
253 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#79. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 78

grillij Silver Member Nikonian since 13th Aug 2008
Wed 23-Mar-11 07:51 PM

>Guys,
>Is it me or have all of these forums turned into "this
>camera vs. that one" or "this lens vs. that
>one?"
>
>I have seen fantastic images from an iPhone
>(www.chasejarvis.com) and I've seen terrible images from a D3
>(Flickr).
>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having great tools to do my
>job (or hobby), but I cannot see how a camera body can make
>one create better pictures.
>
>If I did this for a living (which I don't), and absolutely
>required the D700's enormous high ISO capability, then it
>would be a no-brainer for me.
>
>As a hobbyist though, I tend to concentrate more on my
>technique and most importantly the LIGHT.
>
>
OK what is the point ? We all know that but we also like to talk about our equipment.
Why the sudden morale pitch ?

Jacques G

Chuckv

Lafayette, US
252 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#80. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 79

Chuckv Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 13th Mar 2009
Wed 23-Mar-11 08:03 PM

>>Guys,
>>Is it me or have all of these forums turned into
>"this
>>camera vs. that one" or "this lens vs. that
>>one?"
>>
>>I have seen fantastic images from an iPhone
>>(www.chasejarvis.com) and I've seen terrible images from a
>D3
>>(Flickr).
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having great tools to do
>my
>>job (or hobby), but I cannot see how a camera body can
>make
>>one create better pictures.
>>
>>If I did this for a living (which I don't), and
>absolutely
>>required the D700's enormous high ISO capability, then it
>>would be a no-brainer for me.
>>
>>As a hobbyist though, I tend to concentrate more on my
>>technique and most importantly the LIGHT.
>>
>>
>OK what is the point ? We all know that but we also like to
>talk about our equipment.
>Why the sudden morale pitch ?
>
>Jacques G

Right on target!!!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#81. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 80

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 23-Mar-11 08:06 PM

Guys - there is no need to quote a whole post when replying - it just wastes bandwidth and makes the thread more difficult to read.

Many thanks!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

robsb

San Jose, US
14830 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#82. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 78

robsb Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his expertise in CNX2 and his always amicable and continuous efforts to help members Laureate Ribbon awarded for winning in the Best of Nikonians 2013 images Photo Contest Donor Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006
Thu 24-Mar-11 01:21 AM

May I make a suggestion? I agree that HW forums tend to be about the tools, as especially newbees ask lots of questions about how things function. But we have many other forums where we do discuss technique. Look at a Picture I Took for example you will find many examples of excellent work and discussions on how it was done, the same for other forums like Landscape, Macro or Wildlife. If you consider post processing part of your technique look at the Adobe or Nikon tools forums, many good discussions on how to improve your images go on there.

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!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.

Baaker

Dumbarton, UK
923 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#83. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 82

Baaker Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Aug 2009
Thu 24-Mar-11 07:16 AM

In reply to Visanic.

If he had been a first time poster then troll would have been a thought that would have crossed my mind. If he hasn't got a d700 and only uses an i phone then he is in the wrong forum. The better the tool then the better the chance that a good image can be captured.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

joeysylvester

US
12 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#84. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 3

joeysylvester Registered since 24th Mar 2011
Fri 25-Mar-11 07:13 PM

>We'll see -- I have a D3 and absolutely adore the thing, and
>this is after 30 years of film and working my way through
>D200, D2X and D300. I love my D3 so much that I just ordered a
>D700 to keep it company. I'll let you know if I like the D700
>even more...
>
>And there IS something special about FX. It took 2 years of
>trying to talk myself out of it before I finally made the
>jump, and one afternoon of shooting to know I'd finally made
>the right decision...
>
>Neal Nurmi
>
> ---Wingman Photo---


Couldn't agree more Neal

-Joey
www.JoeySylvester.com
www.twitter.com/joeysylvester

joeysylvester

US
12 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#85. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 16

joeysylvester Registered since 24th Mar 2011
Fri 25-Mar-11 07:18 PM | edited Fri 25-Mar-11 07:24 PM by joeysylvester

>As an owner of D300and D700, I don't see the "magic ingredient" that
>some assign to the D700.


I'm not being rude I promise, but if there's no special ingredient in your d700, you may want to have it serviced or sell it The price difference between the two is quite significant. That, and there is a HUGE reason why professionals industry wide use the FX sensor, for that "special" ingredient.

I'm in no way saying crop frames take bad pictures, in fact they take breathtaking pictures. But under the majority of circumstances the ff sensors will outperform the smaller crop sensors across the board. The magic ingredient is probably the dof, dynamic range, noise performance

-Joey
www.JoeySylvester.com
www.twitter.com/joeysylvester

visanic

Freehold, US
273 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#86. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 83

visanic Registered since 20th Mar 2006
Fri 25-Mar-11 07:34 PM


In retrospect, you guys are absolutely right. This is the "D700" forum, not a forum on technique.

I have to confess, I have D700-envy :---)) and want one badly!

It's just strange to read things like "it can't take a bad picture," but it was all in fun.

Regards;
-Visanic

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#87. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 85

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Fri 25-Mar-11 08:46 PM

Which DX format Nikons have you used?

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

joeysylvester

US
12 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#88. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 87

joeysylvester Registered since 24th Mar 2011
Fri 25-Mar-11 10:04 PM

d40,d90,d300,d300s,rebel xt, rebel xti, 7d, sony a700

out of all those, I enjoyed the sony a700 the best and the majority of images in my gallery were taken with the a700

-Joey
www.JoeySylvester.com
www.twitter.com/joeysylvester

Mike in FL

Jacksonville, US
580 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#89. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

Mike in FL Silver Member Nikonian since 13th Apr 2008
Fri 25-Mar-11 10:47 PM

I really do think that I get better pictures with my D700 than I did with my D300, although to be fair to the DX body I very much appreciated the 100% viewfinder and better AF coverage.

How are my pictures better? On some images taken during the day with my D300 I've noticed that with very bright colors, especially when lit along the rim, the tones seem to merge together in a way that I find difficult to describe. They seem rather cartonish--very saturated, with the transitions in tones or edges of objects smeared together. I've never seen this in one of my D700 shots, and I shoot this type of scene frequently enough that it should have happened by now if there isn't really a difference in the cameras' respective capabilities.

I've also noticed that D700 images with blown highlights (doh!) are so much easier to turn into something usable.

Lastly, the D700 meter seems to deal with backlighting a little better--meaning that I get fewer underexposed backlit subjects.

It's such an awesome picture making machine that I'm totally convinced of one thing: if a picture isn't good, the problem isn't the camera.

Mike

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#90. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 88

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sat 26-Mar-11 08:05 AM

Thanks, Joey.

I suspect we actually have similar views on this - as you said: "...the magic ingredient is probably the dof, dynamic range, noise performance...".

It's quite true that the D700's high-ISO noise performance is clearly better than a D300, and its dynamic range is a little greater in many circumstances. Depth of Field differences are down to the format, not the specific camera design, and of course can help or hinder depending on what effect you want to achieve.

I've just been trying to counteract the view that the D700 has something "magical" that can't be quantified, over and above the technical differences

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

Pagga

Kristiansand, NO
89 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#91. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

Pagga Registered since 23rd Jun 2007
Wed 20-Apr-11 04:19 AM | edited Wed 20-Apr-11 04:22 AM by Pagga

Hello all,

I've been using a (new) 70-200mm 2.8 with a D300 for the last year or so, and have thought it a great combination, both for travelling, portrait and wildlife. I recently bougth a D700 with the full format that the new 70-200 mm was built for, and I must say the difference is quite noticable. Images out of the D700 are much creamier and better lighted, they seem both dynamic and 'full og light'. Sure the D300 gives excellent quality. But the D700 makes the image stand out. I am now about to embark on a longer journey, and I know my D700 + 70-200mm combo will secure some brilliant moments. It will be my first choice in every situation, save a birdshot or two.

Couldn't be more satisfyed with the D700,
Pagga

- PAGGA -
(Yes, those are my initials)

Nikonian galleries: https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/142377

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

wollepopolle

US
77 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#92. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

wollepopolle Registered since 30th Mar 2011
Thu 21-Apr-11 02:54 PM

I don't think that there is a specific "effect." I think the D700 is amazing but I also think that a role of Ilford Pan F Plus is equally amazing or even more amazing.

Back to the topic. I see a clear (read: CLEAR) difference between my old dinosaur D100 and the D700. I am hesitant to ascribe it to the "FX effect" though as the D100 is the only other Nikon digital that I've used. I've never used the state-of-the-art D300 or D7000.

My decision to go back to FX was that I wanted to interchangeably use lenses between my F5 and the D700 without having to worry about the crop factor. With the F5, I had gotten so used to the 35mm projection angle of my lenses that using the D100 never satisfied me in that regard. I never liked that my 50mm became a "75mm." I never got used to the crop factor, I never acquired any DX lenses and I always hoped that at one point there would be a reliable FX sensor.


Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#93. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 92

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Mon 31-Oct-11 09:39 PM | edited Mon 31-Oct-11 09:48 PM by Shy Talk

I used the 700 last week on a tour of RAF Cosford. Mainly shooting inside dimly lit hangars. Popped the ISO up to 1600 and still got nice pix with the 16-35 set to 5.6 and only seing about 1/60th sec. Thank goodness for VR on a short zoom.

I remain absolutely amazed with the D700.

Of couse, it can take a bad photo- or the punter holding it can.

But it can also make a useable, pleasent pic where few other cameras could. How useful is that?

I suppose, it's not faultless and clearly still constrained by the laws of Physics.

But.........is there better?

(in my case I use the 16-35VR on the 700 indoors and the 24-120 VR f4 outdoors. It's a great combo

Edit: Just got GGS screen covers for the 700, 300s and 3100. £20 for the lot! Great value.

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

blw

Richmond, US
28560 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#94. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 93

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Mon 31-Oct-11 10:29 PM

> is there better?

Yes, definitely: D3s. Almost certainly: D3x. And probably, by a whisker: D3. And I'm sure that the new Canon 1D X will be too.

Nobody's claiming that the D700 is a poor camera, or even merely a good one. But the DX bodies are pretty darn good too, and really, for most things, they are either equal or not far behind, especially the latest ones.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#95. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 94

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Tue 01-Nov-11 12:12 AM | edited Tue 01-Nov-11 08:15 PM by Shy Talk

Brian have a look at the pics taken with the 1000milli.

Hard to use, but not quite as hard as I'd expected.

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

bilw

US
5 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#96. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 95

bilw Registered since 13th Nov 2011
Tue 15-Nov-11 01:59 PM

As a D300 user I often wonder about what I'm missing out on when I hear of the "FX effect" and the almost magical images I hear the D700 can produce. I've heard of many a D300 user that acquires a D700 and rarely if ever picks up the D300 again. I believe there was one or two in this thread too.
I realize the D700 really shines at high ISO, and also provides shallower DOF than a DX sensor.
So my question is, if identical images were taken in good natural light at ISO 200, stopped down to f/8 using a good FX lens such as the 24-70mm, would you be able to tell any differnce at all in the images or be able to identify which image was taken with which body?
Bill

KnightPhoto

Alberta, CA
4954 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#97. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 95

KnightPhoto Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006
Tue 15-Nov-11 10:39 PM

I agree with Shytalk here,

The images coming out of the D700 are so malleable and pleasing to work on. I push them, I pull them, I selectively brighten and darken them, I even crop heavily on occasion. All very workable in PP. this is why my D700 is my main camera and my D7000 and D300 play more specific roles.

For me it's the results of the D700 that stand out, and I dont consider the VF a factor and I don't mind the DX FOV. And i prefer the DX AF point spread over FX.

Even the D7000, which is very good in its own right, does not have this same ease in processing. If a DX camera ever matches a D700 in these regards then the story would be different for me because DX also has size and weight and cost advantages as well as macro and wildlife advantages.

One other good advantage I almost never need to do with my D700 is noise reduction. because of all this I plan to convert my kit from two DX and one FX cameras to the other way around.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#98. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 96

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 06:42 AM

Under the conditions you specify - with the addition of "get the exposure right" - I would struggle to see any difference in shots between the D300 and D700 (and I still use both). The D700 shines at higher ISO settings and in recovering shadow detail.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

glxman

South Australia, AU
6651 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#99. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

glxman Moderator Awarded for his high level skills, specially in Wildlife & Landscape Photography Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008
Wed 16-Nov-11 08:23 AM

The "FX Effect" for me would be,
Using my old MF Ai lenses with the D700 and with the addition of its bright view finder,
It "feels" and "operates" like an old Nikon 35mm SLR film camera,

You would have to "morph" from film to a digital SLR to get that experience I think

I did try the D300 but did not get the same experience, viewfinder was less bright and the weight did not appear right, maybe because I did use my motor drive a lot
Regards,
Gary

I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#100. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 99

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 09:33 AM

>I did try the D300 but did not get the same experience,
>viewfinder was less bright...

The D300's viewfinder, although smaller than that in the D700, is actually slightly brighter

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

sunndance

Texarkana, US
131 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#101. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 2

sunndance Registered since 17th Mar 2009
Wed 16-Nov-11 03:45 PM

I own both D700 and D90. I believe owner loyalty is equal on both of these winners. The D7000 and D800? will do well to garner this much respect from their owners 3 years down the road...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Low light is the right light for me...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#102. "RE: Correction" | In response to Reply # 8

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 06:27 PM

>Len points out that technically there is no difference, LOL...
"Len" does not say that
What I say is in a 20 inch wide print from the whole of the picture area using good lenses there is no difference in image quality between a D300 and a D3 other than occasional nit picking with sometimes the D300 winning to 1600 ISO.
That is my experience.
It is also the experience of top world class Nikon specialists like Grays of Westminster.
Pixel peepers at sizes equivalent to a garage door may be able to detect some differences - but in the context of a 20 inch wide print - a good standard for many photographers - I can detect no difference - neither than Grays or as far as I can tell the whole of the UK photographic press.
I do not think anybody is claiming a D700 is superior to a D3

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

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#103. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 85

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 06:33 PM

>The price difference between the two is quite significant. That, and there is a HUGE reason why
>professionals industry wide use the FX sensor, for that "special" ingredient.
Have you any evidence?
In the UK I see more Nikon and Canon pros use crop sensors as well as 24x36 than use only 24x36 - presumably because each format is best for some photographic tasks - and pros tend to try to use the best tool for the task in hand

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

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#104. "RE: ?????" | In response to Reply # 42

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 06:39 PM

> When I compare the D700 to my D200,
In the context of this thread should a D200 inferior high ISO noise by modern standards be compared to the inferior performance of a D2x?

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

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#105. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 42

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Wed 16-Nov-11 06:55 PM

>The higher dynamic range makes it easier to recapture blown highlights.
A good photographer does not "blow" highlights
There is no photographic paper that can accommodate 11 stops DR without compressing some of the tonal detail.
DR exceeding 8 stops is rare in many parts of the world.
A 1000:1 test chart is "only" 10 stops DR
>The high ISO capability permits me to use 1/(2f) instead of 1/(1.5) for minimum shutter speed which improves sharpness
>when hand holding.
Opening up a stop on on DX to get similar depth of field has the same advantage
>The shallower dof allows me to get better bokeh and focus
>isolation.
I doubt is gives better bokeh
Extra subject isolation (only wide open) is offset by extra depth of field of a faster shutter speed similarly useful in macro or BIF is a DX advantage.
>The greater tonal and color ranges produce better and more pleasing colors, even at base iso.
Brian and I find up to much faster than base ISO the greater tonal and colour range you mention is not what we get - in my case in a 20 inch wide print.
Sorry - I find technology has improved so much D3 to D300 do not have the advantage you suggest to about 1600.
Can I start a new flame
Don't compare a D7000 DR and fine detail recording ability to a D700 and expect the D700 to win.

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

T42

Atlanta, US
301 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#106. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 99

T42 Basic Member
Sat 19-Nov-11 11:38 PM | edited Sun 20-Nov-11 12:04 AM by T42

>The "FX Effect" for me would be,
>Using my old MF Ai lenses with the D700 and with the addition
>of its bright view finder, it "feels" and "operates" like an old
>Nikon 35mm SLR film camera, You would have to "morph" from film
>to a digital SLR to get that experience I think.
>I did try the D300 but did not get the same experience,
>viewfinder was less bright and the weight did not appear
>right, maybe because I did use my motor drive a lot
>Regards, Gary

From 1974 to 2009 my "new" Nikon was an F2. I never wanted another 35 after that. Models came and went. I didn't care. Then came digital. All I wanted from digital was a digital film plane on the back of that F2, but it was never to be.

I looked at the early fractional frame F mount digitals (Nikon and Fuji). The viewfinders were like a tunnel, and manual focusing with them was not easy with my old Nikkors. And it was impossible with the wobbly, herky-jerky kit lenses on cameras in the shops. I waited and watched for better alternatives, scanning 35mm negatives in the meanwhile.

Then came the D700. What a delight! Affordable. Full frame. A nice, bright viewfinder. Manual focusing was easy. Amazing low light capability. And all my Nikkors back to the sixties work perfectly, seven of them needing a little attention from John White at aiconversions.com.

I don't know about an "FX Effect." But I did not much like the "DX Effect" that I saw early on, back when I was waiting for an affordable full-frame digital to emerge in Nikon's product line.

My only complaint with the D700 is the fractional viewfinder. But I have learned to live with that minor irritation. I will guess Nikon may have done that to help differentiate the less costly D700 from the "pro" D3.

I cannot say enough good about the D700. I know already that whatever follows it, I will not get rid of the D700. I'm very glad I waited for a digital camera that I really like.

Henry

A Certified Dinosaur
Nikons F, F2, D700, L35AF, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a

FutureLook

Miami, US
598 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#107. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

FutureLook Silver Member Nikonian since 29th Dec 2003
Sun 20-Nov-11 10:33 AM

Iuse both formats depending on the type of picture I want take of course. For wildlife, DX works great but landscape, portrait, street photogography, commercial, FX is the way to go for me. I have a D700, D7000 and a D300. With low light conditions we all know that the D700 takes the edge although I know that I might be challenged by some D7000 owners.
The original question about why FX is so hot? In my case is because it all comes back to having a full format. In my case, I love it but I also love the DX format

Visit my website: http://www.futurelookphotography.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jjm203z

Dupont, US
1685 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#108. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

jjm203z Registered since 17th Dec 2007
Sun 20-Nov-11 10:50 PM | edited Sun 20-Nov-11 10:51 PM by jjm203z

For me the FX, full frame is the key to allowing for noiseless,high iso images especially for the wedding photog during the flashless ceremony.

ALso the fx allows me to make a tighter crop w/o losing any image quality.

a lot of work is now being shown with adding movies to a still image wedding slide show for example. I might be interested in springing for a d700s model.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#109. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 108

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Wed 03-Oct-12 10:18 PM

With the arrival of the D600, and all that entails, I decided to bump up this old thread.

When I started it, the D700 seemed utterly magical compared to my DX cam.

But I struggled to explain why.

A year or two has now gone by and I've learned a lot, changed a few things, but a lot of things have gone unchanged.

For example, I've stopped using the 24-120 VR (or the 24-120D) with the D700. (Anyone want to buy these- nothing wrong with them, but I use the 300s and other lenses for everything else), I've also avoided using the 700 for telephoto work as the DX cam does it so well.

However, the 700 & 16-35 VR combo just continue to amaze me. The camera seems to put more light on the pic than my eye can see.
It's hard to put 'your finger' on it, but the 700 pix are truly different.
FWIW, I think Nikon are on to a winner if they try to bring more folk into FX.
It's clearly better, even if it's hard to say exactly how.

I think the future's bright, and Full Frame.

Brilliant!

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

hillsidekim

Hillside, US
549 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#110. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

hillsidekim Silver Member Nikonian since 31st Jan 2008
Sun 07-Oct-12 07:32 PM

Just read the entire thread and I'm glad you revived it Shy Talk. I picked up a new (to me, only <1400 clicks on it when I got it) a couple of months ago. I haven't shot my D300 since, but have no thoughts or inclinations to get rid of it.It's too great of a camera to even think such a thing. But I do agree that the D700 just seems to draw in more light than I can see with my naked eye. At 66 years of age, I probably will be happy with these two for the rest of my life. They are both excellent pieces of equipment and bring enjoyment to my hobby.
Kim
Western burbs of Chicago

musical

north-central, US
1050 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#111. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 110

musical Registered since 12th Feb 2010
Tue 09-Oct-12 08:22 AM

I agree on the magic idea, however I wanted to be sure of my reply and so I looked up magic on Wiki: the use of incantation, ceremony, ritual that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
incantation: no, guess not. I won't even look that up.
ceremony: totally yes. I have a coffee and charge the battery at 6AM
ritual: probably yes. I do all sorts of funny things like get a coat or look up at the sky or pick two of the lenses.
The last part about supernatural agencies. I think so. The pictures can be so great. Sometimes simply with the 50mm lens. I think this thread was a bit of a conundrum since magic by its very nature is not science and so comparing fx to dx is more normal scientific method than paranormal feelings. For me the d700 was a gift two years ago and it has felt like a ride on a magic carpet. Every once in awhile I get a truly beautiful picture and so I'll happily go along with the magical idea.

"Shadows are the soul of the picture." />rick sammon

TonyJ

Boulder, US
1467 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#112. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 0

TonyJ Silver Member Nikonian since 14th Sep 2004
Tue 09-Oct-12 01:44 PM

I love the higher ISO and dynamic range. Shadow detail and highlight control is amazing... The raw files can really be worked in almost any direction you want to go. It almost feels like every frame is HDR...

Still love the D700...

D800e l D500 l D600 l D700 l Nikon 1 V1 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l 200-500 f/5.6 l TC-14EII l TC-20EIII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
http://tonyjohnsonphotos.com
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

HobokenJoe

Teaneck, US
39 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#113. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 112

HobokenJoe Registered since 20th Jun 2012
Wed 10-Oct-12 03:24 PM

>I love the higher ISO and dynamic range. Shadow detail and
>highlight control is amazing... The raw files can really be
>worked in almost any direction you want to go. It almost
>feels like every frame is HDR...
>
>Still love the D700...


Long Live the D700



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Gator Bob

SANTA FE, US
582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#114. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 113

Gator Bob Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Jul 2006
Wed 10-Oct-12 03:45 PM

>>Still love the D700...

>>Long Live the D700 ...

Well, yes ... but ... you gotta try the D800 or D800E's mind blowing performance.

There is a short but intense learning curve to move up from the D700. Hogan's e-book is superb and it's easy to click to the exact question you need answered. Darrell Young's book also is good but i have the kindle version and answering questions is not quite as easy.


Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS TVC-24L
Nikkors: *14-24 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300
Tamron: * 90mm Macro *

TonyJ

Boulder, US
1467 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#115. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 114

TonyJ Silver Member Nikonian since 14th Sep 2004
Wed 10-Oct-12 04:22 PM

Yeah, I want one... Just can't find the $4K for the body, battery grip, kirk plate, etc. just yet...

D800e l D500 l D600 l D700 l Nikon 1 V1 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l 200-500 f/5.6 l TC-14EII l TC-20EIII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
http://tonyjohnsonphotos.com
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Gator Bob

SANTA FE, US
582 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#116. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 115

Gator Bob Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Jul 2006
Wed 10-Oct-12 06:11 PM

I feel that pain ... i am fortunate that I can manage the $$$$ but when I got the "its-shipped" email it cost me a sleepless night wondering if it was really worth it.

Gator Bob Santa Fe New Mexico
*D800E *D700 *SB800 *RRS TVC-24L
Nikkors: *14-24 *70-200 VRII *T-20E III *50 f/1.8 *PC-E 85 *28-300
Tamron: * 90mm Macro *

Shy Talk

Port Glasgow, UK
652 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#117. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 116

Shy Talk Silver Member Nikonian since 12th Jun 2010
Wed 10-Oct-12 11:03 PM

Bob

Clearly, the 800 is FX too.

For me, the D700 was a first look at FX- an affordable look!

I'm just so pleased at the way the FX gear turns out lovely pics.

Never seen it explained scientifically yet, and I see those who keep saying 'Dang it!, it's all the same!', seem a bit quieter these days.....

On a 700 level, I see nothing at all to improve on.

On a FX level, well- it must be the FX Effect.

Really, we've not got much to complain about, have we?

my webpage is at http://www.scottishops.co.uk

my Nikonians gallery is here. https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/330319

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Photograffiti

LA (Lower Arkansas), US
480 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#118. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 117

Photograffiti Silver Member Nikonian since 03rd Apr 2006
Fri 12-Oct-12 03:46 AM

There's some really good stuff in this thread. And after reading it, I've decided to add my two cents...

I've been shooting Nikon bodies since 1996. I'm sure others have been shooting much longer, and I definitely respect their perspectives. But this is my humble take on the subject.

I was extremely happy with the results from my film cameras. I shot the F3 and N90s mostly, but I also shot a few other bodies. I loved the darkroom experience and the magic created by the camera, film, and lenses I shot. When digital came out, I was reluctant to try it, but eventually caved in. I started with a D70, moved to a D200 and then a D300. I was very happy with these cameras and their renderings but there was something missing that I can't explain.

I bought an Epson R2400 when I had my D200 and began printing my shots. They weren't bad, but I was never happy with them the way I was happy with my film prints. I also didn't like the perspective of my lenses on DX bodies. Nevertheless, I plodded onward...to the D300. Not much difference in output between the D200/D300. I was blissfully ignorant of the possibilities of FX - until the D700 hit the market. So I bought one.

It was as if light came in like a flood - both literally and figuratively. My photos began to "pop" and my prints went from good to spectacular. I wasn't doing anything different, but my results were better. I can't explain it. Perhaps I became a better photographer; perhaps the stars aligned correctly and everything fell into place. I'm not sure of the reason, but I'm sure of the outcome: my photography improved.

Now the next generation of FX cameras have hit the market. While I'm certain that these cameras hold advantages over my antiquated D700, I think I'm gonna stick with what I know best. And I have no interest in upgrading my old printer either. The modest 12MP sensor of the D700 is quite enough for 5x7, 8x10, and 16x20" photos. So when all is said and done, I have to realize that chasing the latest and greatest isn't necessarily the wisest course of action for me. Instead, I'll try to learn more about a camera that exceeds my talent as a photographer.

But of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...

Mark
www.markpricephotography.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Chuckv

Lafayette, US
252 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#119. "RE: The 'FX' Effect." | In response to Reply # 118

Chuckv Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 13th Mar 2009
Fri 12-Oct-12 09:14 AM

I agree with Mark on the effect of going to the FX, but with all due respect, I take exception on the why move up! I still really like shooting my D300, and when I got the D700, well enough said. But, when I broke down and gave in to purchase a D4, the colors and definition pop out even more, and the low light ability knocks the socks off. Some of my pass camera moves such as the D300 to D7000 (which I just sold) didn't carry the changes I had hope for, but the D700 (which I will keep) to the D4 was a solid move up.

Chuck

Chuck Vincent, F100, D100, D300, D700, D4, P7000

Nion Lens- 50 1.8, 18-200, 28-200, 28-105 Macro, 28-300, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

G