The D700 is dead,long live the D700

[TG.]

Worst decision I ever made was to sell my D700.

It was a decision I was forced into)

Same here James, fortunately i still have one left, i aim to get another one in the future when i can afford it, fortunately their are quite a few on eBay, and i can't see them diminishing anytime soon, i guess for those who have upgraded to the D800 and love it, makes it a win win situation for them, and also for those of us who want to pick up a used D700

 

[straycat]

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.

The D700 doesn't even come into it considering the D3S blew it away at high ISO.

mine must be broken then

 

[straycat]

It seems to me that those who only shoot jpeg think they deserve medals or something

its with my

i dont use flash,dont do much photo shop and i prefer film anyway medals

 

[straycat]

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.

make a pizza gramps,if you double the cheese,double the sauce etc.

it dosent taste as good [i know ive tried it].


you only need what you need,we dont need any extra sauce

 

[twist]

Thing is is the D800 is a very good camera but is it twice as good as a D700? Its about £900 more than a good condition D700 which is almost twice as much cost wise. Thats a lot of money for a slight upgrade and for most hobbyists probably isnt worth it.

 

[simonblue]

It seems to me that those who only shoot jpeg think they deserve medals or something

No we don't what we are a bit tired of is everybody saying oh you must shoot raw

Just had a look in W H Smiths at the photos mags,almost everyone is about pp,with headline like ( why you must shoot raw) ( the secret of photoshop) etc,why because that's how they make their money.

Also it's the same old crap,film better than Digtal or the other way round,Canon are better than Nikon or Nikon better than Canon,oh I love my Canon L lens,it's just a red mark around the Len :bang:,other manufacture produce just as good lens.

To me shoot j peg or raw,shoot Canon or Nikon or L lens or others,its simple whatever suit you,not what others tell you

 

[Laudrup]

The D700 doesn't even come into it considering the D3S blew it away at high ISO.

mine must be broken then

What is broken?

 

[Laudrup]

Thing is is the D800 is a very good camera but is it twice as good as a D700? Its about £900 more than a good condition D700 which is almost twice as much cost wise. Thats a lot of money for a slight upgrade and for most hobbyists probably isnt worth it.

How can you measure if something is twice as good as something else?

 

[twist]

Easy, 2 apples are twice as many/good as 1 apple.

 

[Gary Coyle]

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.

How can it possibly offer me more when i dont use it, have never used it, and have no intention of ever using it in the future, hence it offers me nothing over JPeg

For those who use it then they do so for a reason then granted it offers them something but for sports shooters like me who wire pitchside it offers zip, zilch, nadda, nothing.

 

[boyfalldown]

Easy, 2 apples are twice as many/good as 1 apple.

not if you're allergic to apples

 

[twist]

Luckily Im not, but I see your predicament.

 

[scottthehat]

Its not fact at all, it may offer you more but certainally not me, in fact RAW offers me zilch above Jpeg

It might not offer you anything gary, but the fact remains that raw does offer more and despite how much you say it or think it doesnt raw offers more than jpeg can.

 

[Laudrup]

Easy, 2 apples are twice as many/good as 1 apple.

That's not being twice as good, that's having twice as many. It's not something you can measure so being twice as good as it is twice the price doesn't come into it.

 

[Gary Coyle]

despite how much you say it or think it doesnt raw offers more than jpeg can.

Not to me it doesnt, how many times do i need to spell it out

RAW OFFER ME NOTHING OVER JPEG, GET IT, GOT IT, GOOD.

 

[AshleyC]

Its not fact at all, it may offer you more but certainally not me, in fact RAW offers me zilch above Jpeg

It offers you more, you just choose to ignore that offer. I think people are forgetting what the word offer means.

 

[twist]

That's not being twice as good, that's having twice as many. It's not something you can measure so being twice as good as it is twice the price doesn't come into it.

Okay, is it built a lot better to justify the extra cost, does it have much better hi ISO performance that justifies the price, does it have much better AF to justify double the price? IMO, no. IYO, seems so. As a hobbyist I cant justify paying twice the amount for an incremental upgrade when in reality unless I pixel peep or shoot crazy hi iso, Id rather spend the £900 on a very good lens which I will definitely see results from.

I see from your posts you think the D800 is miles better, Im glad youre happy with it.

 

[scottthehat]

Not to me it doesnt, how many times do i need to spell it out

RAW OFFER ME NOTHING OVER JPEG, GET IT, GOT IT, GOOD.

,

gary you was the one thats said people were moaning about the size of files and said you can lower the resolution to get smaller files(not a raw file., now why buy a camera with 35mp if you want smaller files, buy a camera with lower res in the first place.

put your dummy back in man.

 

[straycat]

:bang::bang::bang:

:bonk::bonk::bonk:

right i am of to shoot a wedding in jpeg basic,with a point and shoot,no insurance and no spare camera.
ive never done it before,i will be doing it for free.
most likely i will do a terrible job and give all wedding photographers a bad name.
this undercuts all the pros living near me.

now argue

 

[scottthehat]

It offers you more, you just choose to ignore that offer. I think people are forgetting what the word offer means.

Well Said.

 

[Gary Coyle]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Gary Coyle]

,

gary you was the one thats said people were moaning about the size of files and said you can lower the resolution to get smaller files(not a raw file., now why buy a camera with 35mp if you want smaller files, buy a camera with lower res in the first place.

put your dummy back in man.

I said people moan, i didnt say i moaned, you really need to read what people say before trying to trip them up :bonk:

Nor did i ever actually say i wanted smaller files, i actually need the larger 36mp resolution for certain things i shoot, hence the sale of my beloved D700, again read what i actually say before making the wrong assumption

 

[straycat]

What is broken?

my D3s does not blow away my D700

 

[straycat]

It might not offer you anything gary, but the fact remains that raw does offer more and despite how much you say it or think it doesnt raw offers more than jpeg can.

i went to look at your photos willing to change my mind

i can not tell if this is raw or jpeg becuase they look the same ,i have jpegs look the same as this.

why is is it so difficult to understand?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=437268

 

[scottthehat]

thats a jpeg, you cant see raw files on the tinterweb:bonk:

And yes it was originally shot in jpeg as i love using jpeg when i can, as i do alot of editing from studio and wedding works so its nice not to have to, But i will always use raw when i know ist important(when im working its raw) and for most other stuff its jpeg.

Did you see my other shots of bring back raws from 4 stops underexposure, could you do it as well with jpeg.

 

[Nod]

It seems to me that those who only shoot jpeg think they deserve medals or something

What gives you that impression? On more than one occasion where I've explained what and why I do shoot JPEG only, I've deliberately added that it's merely the way I prefer to shoot, NOT the right or only way to shoot, just the way I choose to!

I can see that if your camera's meter isn't that good and clever at analysing scenes to give you a decent exposure, raw files allow more lattitude for saving them and the perennial problem of a bride's white dress and a groom's dark suit is obviously easier to solve using raw files than JPEGs - each to his/her own.

Should anyone wish to give me a medal, of course, I'll accept it gracefully but I'll then donate it to a worthy cause!

 

[Gary Coyle]

Did you see my other shots of bring back raws from 4 stops underexposure, could you do it as well with jpeg.

I couldnt do it, but then again i'd have got it right to start with and not underexposed it to start with.

Seriously, theres no point in arguing, its an age old debate and no one ever wins, you buy a camera to suit your needs and i do the same.

 

[Laudrup]

my D3s does not blow away my D700

The D3S looks about 1.5 stops better from most tests I've seen. The D700 isn't as good as the D3S at high ISO and the D800 resampled looks better to me than the D3S. That's why the D700 doesn't really figure for me at high ISO vs the D800.

 

[Nod]

It offers you more, you just choose to ignore that offer. I think people are forgetting what the word offer means.

Best explained by the following verse...

She offered her honour,

He honoured her offer

and all night long, it was honour and offer!

 

[Gary Coyle]

The D3S looks about 1.5 stops better from most tests I've seen. The D700 isn't as good as the D3S at high ISO

Owned both models for 2 years and the above is correct based on my experience on shooting them side by side at the same time in the same environment

 

[scottthehat]

I couldnt do it, but then again i'd have got it right to start with and not underexposed it to start with.

Seriously, theres no point in arguing, its an age old debate and no one ever wins, you buy a camera to suit your needs and i do the same.

never had a flash not go off and give an underexposed picture gary you wish you could of got as you know it was a keeper,

Any way raw, jpeg each to there own as long as its paying the bills who cars

 

[Cagey75]

What gives you that impression? On more than one occasion where I've explained what and why I do shoot JPEG only, I've deliberately added that it's merely the way I prefer to shoot, NOT the right or only way to shoot, just the way I choose to!

I can see that if your camera's meter isn't that good and clever at analysing scenes to give you a decent exposure, raw files allow more lattitude for saving them and the perennial problem of a bride's white dress and a groom's dark suit is obviously easier to solve using raw files than JPEGs - each to his/her own.

Should anyone wish to give me a medal, of course, I'll accept it gracefully but I'll then donate it to a worthy cause!

What gives me that impression? Maybe the 1000s of groups on Flickrand across other sites and forums shouting about "SOOC" like it's some brilliant achievement. Shooting Jpeg is no different than shooting RAW, only you're skipping the process step and letting the camera do it for you. Don't take it personal, I am talking in general. This is the first time I've seen people go on about shooting one way or the other here, which is good, because end of the day who cares? Neither way is right or wrong.

 

[straycat]

no becuase i would expose it correct from the start

JPEGS low res photobucket jpegs
no one at springwatch or rspb ask if they are raw.
they look stunning when i print them high res on canon paper,so whats the problem?

i dont call a 50mm lens a nifty fifty or say my cameras gripped either
nor list all the equipment ive got.i just go out despite my physical difficulties and take photos.

in hi res you can see everything in this frogs eye its a JPEG yes a jpeg

 

[Laudrup]

I can see the point shooting jpeg for newspapers and deadlines, but to do it in your own free time seems a waste.

 

[scottthehat]

Im not saying jpegs aint no good i use them alot, but for important stuff i use raw and thats the way it will always be for me.

Oh and that eagle looks soft.

 

[Nod]

Oh and that eagle looks soft.

That "eagle" looks like a red kite to my eyes!

 

[straycat]

What gives me that impression? Maybe the 1000s of groups on Flickrand across other sites and forums shouting about "SOOC" like it's some brilliant achievement. Shooting Jpeg is no different than shooting RAW, only you're skipping the process step and letting the camera do it for you. Don't take it personal, I am talking in general. This is the first time I've seen people go on about shooting one way or the other here, which is good, because end of the day who cares? Neither way is right or wrong.

WRONG AGAIN

i process every photo individualy

i have set my JPEG settings with everything of or to the lowest settings i can.

i adjust the contrast,highlights,darkness,sharpening etc. myself and i never batch

 

[scottthehat]

That "eagle" looks like a red kite to my eyes!

really what the bald eagle.

 

[scottthehat]

WRONG AGAIN

i process every photo individualy

i have set my JPEG settings with everything of or to the lowest settings i can.

i adjust the contrast,highlights,darkness,sharpening etc. myself and i never batch

I thought you get it right in camera

 

[straycat]

do you understand the principles of photography at all?