D700 or D800

Above f8? OK....

@f11
NMwgLHh.jpg


100% crop
1Z4K4aQ.jpg



I've no idea why you're limiting such a great camera to such a restrictive set of parameters, but you're very blatantly very wrong on all counts... sorry.
 
It's not to do with the iso performance, but the DR. Its only at its best between 100-400iso over this amd the dr drops. The higher you go and it drops to the same levels as any other camera I.e d700/5dmk3.
 
Yeah, id agree with that. The dr is staggering at low ISO but falls off significantly towards 1600. Its dr is no match for the d4 at higher iso to my eyes.
 
decigallen said:
Yeah, id agree with that. The dr is staggering at low ISO but falls off significantly towards 1600. Its dr is no match for the d4 at higher iso to my eyes.
Click to expand...
Plus 1, DR is the very best at ISO 400 or under, above that and its very, very easy to see the drop off and falls into line with other top end cameras.
 
Pookeyhead, I didn't say the D800 is a bad camera outside those parameters - on the contrary. Even outside these parameters it is still among the best. I'm only saying, if you want to get that extra magic the D800 has as compared to (as far as I know) all other FF cameras, then you should use it within these parameters. Which is of course a very theoretical thing to say - a photographer may have many valid reasons for using it outside these parameters, and (s)he will still get great IQ from the D800.
 
pmac said:
It's not to do with the iso performance, but the DR. Its only at its best between 100-400iso over this and the dr drops. .
Click to expand...


What is the recent obsession with dynamic range? There are many threads like this, on many forums when discussing the D800 for some reason. It rarely seems to happen with other cameras. I have this feeling that there are D800 owners out there who only shoot at ISO100, at f5.6, on a tripod, with a remote release and mirror lock up. It's ridiculous Just use the damned thing as a camera instead of some delicate scientific measuring tool.

It's nice to know you've got 14 stops of dynamic range if you want it, and yes, it's something worth considering when deciding what camera to buy, and sometimes, it has actually been useful to me, but to suggest that once you start to use smaller apertures or higher ISOs it suddenly changes into this decidedly average camera is patently ridiculous.

"Oh no... I need ISO800.... my dynamic range will only be the same as other mere mortal cameras now.. I can't possibly take the shot!... the shame of it!!... I'd rather miss the shot of the alien ship beaming up 10 Downing Street" :)

Seriously... is this how we measure what makes a great camera these days? The D800 is only great at ISO200 and at f5.6? Whatever limitations higher ISO place upon the camera, other cameras also suffer the same issues diminishing returns if you plot DR against ISO. You've still got around 1 stop of DR over the 5D MkIII at 12800... so what? If you're worrying about DR at ISO12800 then you're really missing the point of what photography is about if you ask me.

There's no practical difference between ISO100, 200 or 400. Apparently.. your DR will drop from 14 to 13 stops ... well big fat so what? You'll never actually see the difference between images shot at 100, 200 and 400 even if you print at A2 so far as noise is concerned (and that's what actually matters) unless you are shooting in outrageously contrasty conditions. At ISO800 you're pretty much in the same league as a 5D MkIII ... which is terrible or something? LOL

I disagree that it's "very, very easy" to see this drop off at all. It's very, very easy to see it on a chart... but in reality?

Reading this thread you'd be forgiven for thinking the D800 is only worth buying if you shoot below ISO200 on a tripod at f5.6... and if you don't, you may as well buy anything else as there's no advantage in owning one.

You don't get these discussion about the D610, which has almost identical DR characteristics as the D800... in fact, at the very top end, out-performs the D800.
 
Last edited:
I think you are the one that seem's to be missing the point. I know your one of the d800 hardcore fan boys but bar resolution and DR its no better than any of the other cameras similar on the market. What we are saying is that it only has this DR and the fact that you can lift shadows,detail more than an other camera between 100-400/800 iso. Over this and the extra DR is gone and its actually the same or worse than the d3s/d4 and 5dmk3.
Everyone raves about high iso performance and yes its better than the d700, but would say its definitely no better than the 5dmk3 and certainly not the d3s/d4/1dx.
Down sampling the images does help and due to the detail more NR can be added and still retain detail. down sampling losses the one advantage it does have though and thats resolution.

The parameters thats everyone is talking about is where to extract the best from this camera. No one said don't shoot at high iso. I do all the time and i don't mean 3200 in day light to get high shutter speed, but 6400 to get a shutter speed matching the focal length even when using a 1.4/1.8 35/50mm prime wide open. Most the time im happy with the results too but from all the images I've seen its no better than other cameras unless you want to be leave DXO.. the guys that say the d600 high iso beats the d3s/d4in low light.


Anyway back to the topic. Its a hard choice I went to the d800 from the d700 and for the most part have no regrets. I would say that the d800 is less forgiving than the d700 and seems to have a lot more issues especially with the AF, and I don't just mean the left focus issue. There seems to be alot more people having af tune issues compared to any camera I've seen in recent times. Maybe the extra detail is just showing faults already there, but ive had two body's and both had to have alot more af tuning done on every lens i own compared to my d700 and friend d300s.

If you dont have the glass already i would say d700 and glass over the d800. you can always switch to the d800 down the line as the bodys loose value alot quicker. Have you considered the 5DMK3 if your not into alot of high end nikon glass.
 
If someone wants the very best out of their camera files then the D800 up to ISO 400 is untouchable, simple really.
 
Anyone noticed that the OP has got bored and wandered off?

We seem to have started a debate that is dealing with what is essentially a very small difference between the two cameras - they are both superb but one requires more experience to get the best from it than the other.
They will both produce images that are good enough to make you laugh out loud and one probably suits the OP's needs better than the other taking into account cost of bodies and glass and level of experience.

Come back Tim!

cheers, cw
 
Last edited:
That was a joke btw I have owned D700 / 800 / theyre both super cameras. Either choice you make will be great
 
F/1.4 said:
Get neither lol get a 5D mk3 its better than both
Click to expand...

Id be tempted by this simply because you don't get discussions like this for Canon's People seem to have the cheek to buy them and actually use them! And are happy with them! I dont know what it is about the D800 that , since release, every little bit of minutae regarding it has to be picked over before someone presses the shutter button when pointing at the cat.

So yeah, get a canon, there's more chance of it being used :)
 
essexash said:
Id be tempted by this simply because you don't get discussions like this for Canon's People seem to have the cheek to buy them and actually use them! And are happy with them! I dont know what it is about the D800 that , since release, every little bit of minutae regarding it has to be picked over before someone presses the shutter button when pointing at the cat.

So yeah, get a canon, there's more chance of it being used :)
Click to expand...
If my sunk cost in Nikon wasn't so big or I could afford the change then the 5Diii is the D700 mark ii I want. Well ish, more than the D800 is. But I still stand by my "the D700 is a great camera" statement from earlier, certainly better than I am anyway.
 
I liked the D700 so much after using a lot of other FF cameras that Ive just bought another.

If you have the money get the D800 but with that you have larger files to process, its a heck of a lot more money and the AF is slower.
 
Last edited:
maninsuitcase said:
. But I still stand by my "the D700 is a great camera" statement from earlier, certainly better than I am anyway.
Click to expand...

And youd be right, its a fab camera. they both are. Its just the amount of nit picking the D800 has generated since release. Its like the whole low light thing, the first question people seem to ask is "is it good in low light" as if the only photography people do is in the back of a cave with just the light of a glowing fag end to illuminate things (of which the d800 will be awesome btw ;) ( as will the d700 ))

Anyway, if you got the money , get one, or the other. The D900s will be out by the time some people decide ;) The one rumoured about by the cleaner of someone a mate knows down the pub.

Think of them as Land Rovers, the D700 is the old army diesel type, it does it all and does it very well and will never let you down but you are sitting on a plank of wood. The D800 is the Landrover Discovery, equally well but you got leather seats. Which would you buy if you had the money.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Anyone noticed that the OP has got bored and wandered off?

We seem to have started a debate that is dealing with what is essentially a very small difference between the two cameras - they are both superb but one requires more experience to get the best from it than the other.
They will both produce images that are good enough to make you laugh out loud and one probably suits the OP's needs better than the other taking into account cost of bodies and glass and level of experience.

Come back Tim!

cheers, cw
Click to expand...


Haha, I'm here. I've been reading with interest, even though some of it has gone over my head. I've decided to go with the d700 so I can have extra cash to buy some more glass. Do i dare to ask what galss people would recommend up to £550
 
Badger8 said:
Haha, I'm here. I've been reading with interest, even though some of it has gone over my head. I've decided to go with the d700 so I can have extra cash to buy some more glass. Do i dare to ask what galss people would recommend up to £550
Click to expand...
What do you shoot
 
Gary Coyle said:
No he didn't, he asked if the fps rate of the D800 was good enough for sports, he didn't say that was his main intended use for the camera
Click to expand...

By asking if it's fast enough for sports and not mentioning any other use one could assume he wanted to use it for sport.

OP, are your portraits mostly studio/posed stuff?
 
Last edited:
Badger8 said:
Landscape and portrait mostly.
Click to expand...
For portraits a nice prime like the 85mm f/1.8 and for general purpose/landscape stuff something like a 24-85mm or if you need something wider then an 18-35mm, the prime and 1 of those zooms will be manageable on £550

Thats omly my opinion and im sure others will be along with more balanced views as i dont shoot much of either of those subjects and just based those lenses on fitting into your budget, they are good lenses as well, theres also the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which is amazing on the D700, one just went for £160 on here, if you want just one lens to cover all bases then £550 will get you the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with Vibration Control
 
Gary Coyle said:
For portraits a nice prime like the 85mm f/1.8 and for general purpose/landscape stuff something like a 24-85mm or if you need something wider then an 18-35mm, the prime and 1 of those zooms will be manageable on £550

Thats omly my opinion and im sure others will be along with more balanced views as i dont shoot much of either of those subjects and just based those lenses on fitting into your budget, they are good lenses as well, theres also the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which is amazing on the D700, one just went for £160 on here, if you want just one lens to cover all bases then £550 will get you the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with Vibration Control
Click to expand...

Thank you so much. i really do appreciate everyones time.
 
Badger8 said:
Sorry, I admit I didn't make it very clear. A bit of both actually.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, tough one, the d700 has better AF but you say you may use it for sport eventually. In the meantime though for intended use the d800 is probably the better camera in my opinion. The d800 is a lot of money but it seems like you're in it for the long haul so probably not a bad buy as long as you can afford a couple half decent primes. What's your total budget?
 
You'll love the D800/E ................ I do.
 
twist said:
Hmmm, tough one, the d700 has better AF but you say you may use it for sport eventually. In the meantime though for intended use the d800 is probably the better camera in my opinion. The d800 is a lot of money but it seems like you're in it for the long haul so probably not a bad buy as long as you can afford a couple half decent primes. What's your total budget?
Click to expand...

About £1500. :(
 
Then it's simple, get what you can afford. You can't really afford the d800 and any lenses. 1500 is a lot of money and the d700 is no slouch, you'll get a couple decent lenses with the 700ish change.
 
pmac said:
I think you are the one that seem's to be missing the point. I know your one of the d800 hardcore fan boys
Click to expand...

I recommended he get a D700 back on page 1 actually.

Sorry if it makes me sound a fanboy, but saying things like it's a superb camera up to ISO400 is just hugely misleading.

The same can be said for any camera.. All camera's DR will be higher at lower ISO. Why make a big deal of it for the D800?
 
Last edited:
Haven't you (David) recently ditched the D800 anyway? IIRC you have a couple of D610s now.

Let's face it, other than the potential oil issues on the D600, ANY of the FF Nikons would be a good choice for the OP. Given his total budget, I would go for a 2nd hand D700 and a 50/80 pair of primes. The older f/1.8s are possibly better made than the later ones and should deliver razor sharp portraits (not that sharpness is always a good thing for them!)
 
Good man, great camera, end of.

Enjoy.
 
For subjects other than sports/action and low light (high ISO) I would pick the D800. For action/sports/low light I would pick the D700. IMHO, the D800 does "as well" at high ISO and you shouldn't really "need" more than 6fps... But when you use the D800 at less than it's optimal settings you are just recording very large files for very similar results. And even when used optimally, the results are not "that much" better than the D700/D3/D3s/D4. Where the D800 really shines is in detail and very large prints.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Got to disagree. Why only up to ISO400? It's probably amongst the best low light performers out there, and ISO400 is indistinguishable from ISO100 if files are handled correctly. So above ISO200 it's only on a par with other cameras? Really?

ISO6400
Gf7I8HJ.jpg


Up to ISO800 there's practically no difference between 100 and 800. 1600 is utterly superb, and 3200 and 6400 are class leading.
Click to expand...

You won't get results anything like that if you're using high ISO's due to an actual lack of light. In low light situations at high ISO's I would put the D800 about even with the D700 at the same print size, and below the D700 at 100% crops (but different print sizes).
There is a significant difference between taking a "snippet" of a heavy stream of light (bright situation) as opposed to trying to capture a random sprinkling of light (low light).
 
sk66 said:
You won't get results anything like that if you're using high ISO's due to an actual lack of light. In low light situations at high ISO's I would put the D800 about even with the D700 at the same print size, and below the D700 at 100% crops (but different print sizes).
There is a significant difference between taking a "snippet" of a heavy stream of light (bright situation) as opposed to trying to capture a random sprinkling of light (low light).
Click to expand...

It was 1/8th @ ISO6400 f8. It was pretty dark. Even at f2.8 I'd only have been at 1/60th. In other words, the kind of light you'd probably be shooting in if you needed ISO6400 to hand hold with a fast zoom lens. A fairly common scenario, and an ideal test for high ISO... which is why I did it, and why it's utterly relevant. I've no idea why you jumped to that conclusion without EXIF.


Nod said:
Haven't you (David) recently ditched the D800 anyway? IIRC you have a couple of D610s now.
Click to expand...

nah... got a D800E and a D610. Not much to separate them in terms of the images they produce if I'm honest. Unless you let me look at them really close or printed them massive, I'd probably not be able to tell them apart. All this putting the D800 on a pedestal is silly.... but then again all this advice that will end up having everyone shooting at ISO100, f5.6, on a pod, with mirror lock up etc just to make the most of the D800ness of the camera is equally as silly. You'll just compromise your images. You use what settings the scene before you needs... whatever camera you use.

Just use the bloody thing like any other camera. Sometimes you'll need F16 and you'll get less sharp images. Hardly a newsflash is it. Sometimes you'll need ISO3200 and not get the same great DR... Shock! Horror!



Nod said:
I would go for a 2nd hand D700
Click to expand...

Looks like that's exactly what he decided... unless he changed his mind. Right choice IMO if on a budget. Lenses matter more, and the D700 is a fine camera.
 
Last edited:
I know people complain about the d600 AF. And rightly so - I found it poor in low light and backlight - but what annoyed me the most was that nikon removed the ability to view 100% preview of focus point using the centre button. What was the logic or reason in this? Surely it's simple firmware/software. Either it was incompetence or deliberate. Either way, it sucks.
 
I just laugh every time the same people post the same BS, this D800 only good to ISO 400, we've been over time and again As David has proven, it's one of the better cameras out there to push ISO with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top