The D700 is dead,long live the D700

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gary Coyle said:
Currently the camera can be set to the following resulutions in full FX mode, 5520 x 3680 pixels on the "M" resolution setting and 3680 x 2456 pixels on the "S" resolution settling
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that only works when shooting jpeg. No such thing as S or M RAW on the D800.

That's makes it utterly useless to me. Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Some people just dont grasp the notion that the D800 isnt only a 36mp FX camera, its also a 20mp FX camera and a 9mp FX camera, neither do you have to use the DX crop modes to reduce the resulution

Currently the camera can be set to the following resulutions in full FX mode, 5520 x 3680 pixels on the "M" resolution setting and 3680 x 2456 pixels on the "S" resolution setting

So theres absolutly no need to not consider buying the camera based on the view that "36mp is too much for me"

If it has what you need be that ergonomics, video, larger form than the D600, better AF than the D600/700 but you were being put off my the file size then buy the bleeding thing, just because a Ferrari can do 180mph doesnt mean you will ever take it over 100mph, its how it gets to 100mph that matters.
Click to expand...

If that were true I'd definitely go for the D800, but from my research I think that Chris is right on this one, hence my D600/700/800 dillema...

Aled
 
iamchrisphoto said:
I think you'll find that only works when shooting jpeg. No such thing as S or M RAW on the D800.

That's makes it utterly useless to me. Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?
Click to expand...
Well ive got 2 x £3,500 and 1 x £1600 cameras and have never shot a single RAW in my life, i dont need to or want to, i get the shot right in the first place.
 
But you do get lossless compressed and compressed whixh makes the filea not much larger than a 5dmk3 file from what i hear.

Ive also seen lots of talk on many canon forums that canon mRAW and sRAW are not proper raw files, (more a raw/jpeg mix) and can not be pushed as far a the full raw files in post before they degrade.
 
Aledafis said:
If that were true I'd definitely go for the D800, but from my research I think that Chris is right on this one, hence my D600/700/800 dillema...

Aled
Click to expand...
If you need or want to shoot RAW and what Chris says is right then i suppose its not an option if the resolution/file size is too big for your liking.

Could a firmware update not make it happen though, just guessing on my part.
 
pmac said:
But you do get lossless compressed and compressed whixh makes the filea not much larger than a 5dmk3 file from what i hear.

Ive also seen lots of talk on many canon forums that canon mRAW and sRAW are not proper raw files, (more a raw/jpeg mix) and can not be pushed as far a the full raw files in post before they degrade.
Click to expand...

not sure how big 5dmk3 files are, but shooting 14 bit lossless compressed RAW on a d800 produces a RAW between 42-52 mb (depending on ISO). TBH I'm not sure what the issue is. If you want or need 36mp then buy it. If you don't buy a d700 if you can get one. Different horses for different jobs. Each as advantages over the other, but have disadvantages as well
 
Last edited:
iamchrisphoto said:
I think you'll find that only works when shooting jpeg. No such thing as S or M RAW on the D800.

That's makes it utterly useless to me. Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?
Click to expand...

plenty of sports photographers like Gary will, less hassle when having to send to agency/desks quickly during/immediately after a game and I imagine press photographers and paps too, raw isn't perfect for everyone, nor necessarily needed. I say that as someone that only uses raw btw, my work means I have the time to make the most of it.


I still think the argument is moot btw....and will make those funny canon types laugh at us :bat: :p
 
iamchrisphoto said:
That's makes it utterly useless to me. Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?
Click to expand...

Why? because I far prefer being out and about with a camera than sitting in front of a monitor tweaking a photo that the camera can do for me, leaving a file that can be printed SOOC with NO PP. Of course, I occasionally have to level a horizon or remove somebody/thing from a shot but levels etc can be checked so easily while on location and if necessary can be reshot straight away.

I have experimented with raw and Nikon's own conversion software and compared it with a JPEG shot immediately before or after and was hard pushed to better the JPEG in any way. It's not as if I print small, either - an increasing number of shots are getting printed up to A3+ for minute examination and possible display on the walls.

Oh, my current DSLR is a Nikon D700, well up into the thousand pound bracket. It just provides me with such good JPEGS (even at high ISOs) that raw (for me) is a complete waste of time. It meters extremely accurately and just seems to work perfectly.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
I think you'll find that only works when shooting jpeg. No such thing as S or M RAW on the D800.

That's makes it utterly useless to me. Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?
Click to expand...

Why would you buy a £2k camera and shoot jpeg?



why ever not i shoot JPEG with my D3s all day every day :)
 
As said if you shoot jpeg then its fine(I shoot alot of jpegs) but raws is a must for weddings and stuff that just cant be wrong(once in a life time stuff)
and no matter how good a jpeg is a raw processed properly will always look better, But it takes time.

Im no saying the d800 is bad because its not and it would make alovely studio camera.
I will wait for the price to drop, Bring on the d400.
 
scottthehat said:
As said if you shoot jpeg then its fine(I shoot alot of jpegs) but raws is a must for weddings and stuff that just cant be wrong(once in a life time stuff)
and no matter how good a jpeg is a raw processed properly will always look better, But it takes time.

Im no saying the d800 is bad because its not and it would make alovely studio camera.
I will wait for the price to drop, Bring on the d400.
Click to expand...

yes,i often over hear people walking along my photo exhibition.
a typical conversation goes "he must have shot that one in raw its so good i dont like that one it must be a JPEG"
sometimes its "you can tell he uses nikon and not canon" :lol:

or do they just look at the photos and see what they like :thinking:
 
I never shoot jpeg. I like processing, and may as well have the best file possible. Nothing wrong with shooting Jpeg though, you just gotta nail it on cam. What I don't get are people who shoot jpeg and still hit lightroom after. You may as well use RAW.
 
I have a 7D and my i7 laptop is slow to load some of the files...maybe I need a SSD in there.
:)
however, I think the market isn't for 36MP files, but for better images.
MP is not everything.
I'd rather buy an 18MP sensor which has a lower pixel density and amazing low-light performance (including focusing).
surely that's possible?
what do we want? less electron migration
how do we want it? with lower MP sensors for better sensitivity at lower currents.!!!
okay..it's not catchy but...
 
i was looking at a box brownie in a charity shop yesterday [true]
 
straycat said:
yes,i often over hear people walking along my photo exhibition.
a typical conversation goes "he must have shot that one in raw its so good i dont like that one it must be a JPEG"
sometimes its "you can tell he uses nikon and not canon" :lol:

or do they just look at the photos and see what they like :thinking:
Click to expand...
Not saying jpeg dont look great, but if you take a photo in raw and jpeg(dont look at the jpeg on the computer, now edit the raw untill your finished and happy, then save it and compare(you will go the raw looks better) now try and process the jpeg to look as good and it just cant happen(and if your gonna edit a jpeg why not shoot raw), the camera jpeg engine is great but not as good as proper software and a computer.

Alot more can be recovered from raws, as has been shown in a thread recently on here.

Try a wedding in jpeg and tell me you where 100% happy with the photos:thumbs:

But Im not saying jpegs are bad because they can look great and there hadny for speed(just dont look at the raw edit of it, and alls good)
 
DizMatt said:
I have a 7D and my i7 laptop is slow to load some of the files...maybe I need a SSD in there.
:)
however, I think the market isn't for 36MP files, but for better images.
MP is not everything.
I'd rather buy an 18MP sensor which has a lower pixel density and amazing low-light performance (including focusing).
surely that's possible?
what do we want? less electron migration
how do we want it? with lower MP sensors for better sensitivity at lower currents.!!!
okay..it's not catchy but...
Click to expand...

Must be something up with your laptop then! Does it have a good graphic chip? Mine has both Intel 4000 & an Nvidia 640M - not the greatest card for gaming, but I have it set to kick in when I run certain programs, like photoshop. It never so much as stutters, even with a good bunch of RAWs from the D800.

As for the rest: The D800 has amazing low light performance, considering that packed sensor. I've shot a gig with it and got great results through the range from ISO 2000 to 10,159! It never failed to lock on focus the whole night. And you won't get better image quality from any other dslr with good lighting.
 
scottthehat said:
Not saying jpeg dont look great, but if you take a photo in raw and jpeg(dont look at the jpeg on the computer, now edit the raw untill your finished and happy, then save it and compare(you will go the raw looks better) now try and process the jpeg to look as good and it just cant happen(and if your gonna edit a jpeg why not shoot raw), the camera jpeg engine is great but not as good as proper software and a computer.

Alot more can be recovered from raws, as has been shown in a thread recently on here.

Try a wedding in jpeg and tell me you where 100% happy with the photos:thumbs:

But Im not saying jpegs are bad because they can look great and there hadny for speed(just dont look at the raw edit of it, and alls good)
Click to expand...

please not this nonsense again.
my jpegs are good enough i only need to edit a small amount,i dont like HDR and i dont need raw,end of.:shake:
 
Worst decision I ever made was to sell my D700.

It was a decision I was forced into, but one that has bothered me ever since.

I cannot wait until I can afford the Nikon pro glass again, and as soon as I can, D700 here I come again (for a bargain price too!!)
 
i was being won over to the 800 untill i saw someone desperate to sell theirs yesterday.

i even phoned nikon on their behalf,who told me to update the firmware and only use elaxar and sandisk cards.
they also said there should be no focussing problems,clearly some are having probs though.
 
straycat said:
please not this nonsense again.
my jpegs are good enough i only need to edit a small amount,i dont like HDR and i dont need raw,end of.:shake:
Click to expand...

Oh im sorry am i not allowed an opion, Its not nonsence its fact(raw offers more than jpeg can).

If your happy shooting jpeg thats great(im not saying dont and imnot sayingjpegs are bad they can look amazing), I love shooting jpeg for the speed, But if im doing a wedding or a studio shoot, then i shoot raw(as i know 100% i cant get better results and recover something if i misshap happen say flash not going off(causing under exposed picture)
 
i am not going to debate this foolishness again its up there with wedding threads.

all i would say is i check my settings over and over again and unlike film i can look at the back of the camera to check instant whats happening.

i mean how easy can digital photography be,we would bracket with film if we where unsure and still get the pic.
and as i process and printed the same each time i used the same settings and paper grades each times as well.

digital photography is easy,very,very easy. :lol:
 
i had a 5d mkii and spent years envying the prefection of the d700 - and it looks like canon inc did too - the 5d Mkiii seems to get most of it's inspiration from the d700 - and rightly so
 
All these threads about the new Nikon FX cameras comparing them to the D700/300 I have come to one conclusion. Want a camera that does all you want looks like you'll have to make your own! Nikon must spend thousands on market research so I doubt there going to churn out cameras people don't want. If they don't tickle your fancy and your current camera is fine stop moaning get out there and shoot. The next release might be the camera for you!
 
I loved my D700, I made the jump from Canon to Nikon just for that camera and it was well worth it. Sadly it died and I had a D800 coming through as a replacement from the insurance company. At first I wasn't happy as I wanted another D700, in the end I decided to sell the D800 and bought a D3 in the meantime. A few days ago the D800 came through and I decided to try it out a little. Thanks to my lovely wife I now have a D3 and D800 and am selling my D300.

My view so far: The low light performance is on par with the D700 until you view 100%, then I think the D700 edges it. The AF is very good and does seem to work better in lower light than the D700, and I don't have the left focus issue. The file handling is fine (but I do have a very good PC already). The dynamic range is amazing, I cannot believe how much shadow detail can be recovered. The handling between the two is very similar, there are some things I prefer on the D800, some that I don't.

The D700 is still an awesome camera but would I change the D800 to a D700 now? No.
Would I have bought a D800 if I still had the D700? No.
 
Last edited:
willing to accept it could be me.

i dont like hdr or hd tvs i prefer things to look real and not over processed.

same as i love old film grain,old mechanical watches and records on a stereo.

imho you can have to much detail,spotty 16 year olds face anyone? :lol:
 
It seems to me that those who only shoot jpeg think they deserve medals or something :D
 
I've seen the D3S and D800 resampled to match each other and up to ISO 12800 I thought the D800 image looked better. The biggest problem I'm finding is what lenses do justice to it.
 
Laudrup said:
I've seen the D3S and D800 resampled to match each other and up to ISO 12800 I thought the D800 image looked better. The biggest problem I'm finding is what lenses do justice to it.
Click to expand...

Surely 'chalk & cheese' - the D800 is aimed more at studio/landscape type photography whereas the D3S is aimed more at photojournalists/sports etc.
 
The D3S was widely recognised for its high ISO capability and the D800 all things being equal looks better to me at high ISO, that's quite an achievement. The D700 doesn't even come into it considering the D3S blew it away at high ISO. I shoot in the best quality possible with the best lenses possible, 10fps in jpeg is of no use to me.
 
Laudrup said:
The D3S was widely recognised for its high ISO capability and the D800 all things being equal looks better to me at high ISO, that's quite an achievement. The D700 doesn't even come into it considering the D3S blew it away at high ISO. I shoot in the best quality possible with the best lenses possible, 10fps in jpeg is of no use to me.
Click to expand...

Have you got the comparison pics.
 
Laudrup said:
I shoot in the best quality possible with the best lenses possible, 10fps in jpeg is of no use to me.
Click to expand...

Therefore your argumentation is based on your individual requirements rather than on the specification differences or otherwise of the cameras.

My D3S's can give me 9 fps in 14-bit RAW at ISO 128,000 if I choose to use it, but I wouldn't expect that to be of the slightest interest to a landscape photographer.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Its not fact at all, it may offer you more but certainally not me, in fact RAW offers me zilch above Jpeg
Click to expand...

Now come on Gary it is fact :) ... jpeg is a 'loss' file format and so RAW will always offer more. The difference again comes down to individual use/preferences, i.e. whether or not you want the extra that RAW gives.
 
gramps said:
Therefore your argumentation is based on your individual requirements rather than on the specification differences or otherwise of the cameras.

My D3S's can give me 9 fps in 14-bit RAW at ISO 128,000 if I choose to use it, but I wouldn't expect that to be of the slightest interest to a landscape photographer.
Click to expand...

You're right, ISO 128,000 is of no interest to me, but up to ISO 12,800 might be and it looks better than the D3S to me under test conditions which is impressive when you consider it blows any DSLR away at low ISO. The D700 really is outshone by the D800.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top