I was sceptical about changing from the D200 to the D300 as I couldn’t really see any major benefits, especially as my D200 was only around 4 months old at the time.
I was glad I waited. The D700 is a revelation! I had a look at it in the shop and was impressed with the way it handled. I was pleased to see most of the features, menus and buttons in the same place – that’s one of the attractions of Nikon; once you get used to one you can pick up any of them.
It felt well built and robust, nice in the hand and not as cumbersome as the D3 which I had coveted previously.
I took a few shots in test mode inside the shop at ISO 5600 and had a look on the screen (also much improved) and I was, to be honest, blown away and sold at the moment. I know that what you see on the screen is a jpeg rendition and doesn’t compare to the output of a RAW file on a big monitor or print but I figured if that was the jpeg preview then I really wanted to see the final RAW!
Unfortunately, owing to the appauling weather we are having in northern Scotland this morning I can’t show you some real "in the field" examples so I have done the next best thing and set up a still life.
To really test the sensor I picked a black clay buddha’s head, a couple of coins, some glass bottles (two colours) with labels and a lens chart. This little set up was lit entirely by two large windows at 90degree angles to eachother and thus around 45degrees to the still life on either side.
If the weather doesn’t pick up (not much sign of that happening) then I will be shooting some still lifes inside with the D700 acting as a remote commander unit to the SB800 flash unit this afternoon.
All the images were shot with the camera placed on a Manfrotto tripod, using the same Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 lens with settings matched shot for shot.
The results are as follows (Note that the originals were shot as RAW files and the only processing done was to resize and save them for the web):
Of course, the D700 actually goes even higher than this to a staggering 25600 which is almost complete darkness by all accounts.
It would be realistic to use upto 1600 for almost any purpose and 6400 for pre-monochrome conversions would also work well whereas with the D200 I was never really satisfied with anything above 400. So, it’s a vast improvement.
Having the full frame sensor does alter the image proportions slightly. When scaled to 600pixels along the horizontal the height of the D200 image is 402 pixels whereas the D700 image becomes 399. File sizes are considerably bigger and I am going to order yet another external hard drive as I can see my existing resources being engulfed fairly soon. The average file generated by my D200 was between 16MB and 22MB whereas I am getting consistantly 32-35MB for the RAW files of the D700 and I am not even shooting at 14-bit yet!
I hope that this report provides a little insight into the range of the D700. It’s only my initial impression and more reports will follow. Thanks for reading.
Coming up…
Is the Nikon 24-120mm really that bad? A comparison between the Nikon 12-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR and the Sigma 24-60mm 1:2.8
First in the field: a report on a days shooting with the Nikon D700 “in the field”
Hi Jan
Thank you very much for your comments regarding D200 to D 700. As you, I was in the same “hole/mist” and did not know what to do. I bougt the D700 and love it.
It is just a pity that the DX lens can no longer be used. But it is also good to change everything in life sometimes.
The D700 is also compared to the D3 much lighter and easier to handle. I dont regret the buy and thank to your explicit report it “pushed” me to buy the D700.
Best regards and thank you
Kurt
Thanks for your comment. Glad to have been some help.
I really doubt that the d700 RAW-only file size is that big. The file size when using a 14bit NEF and the default setting of lossless compreseed is a mere ~14mb, though the manual states 16.8mb. I don’t see why you would want uncompressed as the processing engine is quite fast.
This is based from a d700 user. Many others would agree with me too.
Dear Jan,
Thanks for your D200 vs D700 comparison. It was one of the reasons I upgraded my Nikon body.
I did not realise however that the lenses I use on my D200 body are not compatible with the D700 body.
(the DX lens gets a cropped image on the D700 and I lose my 28mm, my analog 100mm (which was 150mm on the DX) now is back to being a normal 100mm.
This is of course my own fault, but in your review you stated that for the “buddha example” pictures you used the same sigmalens 24-60mm on both bodies. How did that work, the pictures shot with the D700 should have been a) much smaller in size (smaller than a medium format pic on a D200) and b) the image would have been cropped or you took a step backward taking the picture. Can you plse explain how you managed the same picture on both bodies with the same lens??
Could you perhaps mention somewhere in the article that the DX lenses used on the D200 are not compatible with D700 so I am the only dummy not realizing this vital thing. Thanks!
Best regards,
Thessa
The Sigma lens used is a full frame compatible lens and therefore acts as a true 24-60 on full frame and behaves as a 36-90 on a DX cropped sensor. I do not (generally) use DX lenses but I do know that they compatible with FX and DX cameras BUT you get a crop on the FX sensor to resemble a DX camera.
As you can see the 24-60 is a zoom, so I simply would have moved back, or zoomed, or (most like) just cropped the image so they appear the same size on the blog.
I don’t know why you cannot use your 28mm on the FX and cannot comment on individual lenses without knowing the specific models and makes involved.
But, I will say again. ALL DX lenses can be used on FX cameras BUT they will have a cropped format and not make the most of the full FX sensor. If you are having issues with this statement I suggest you contact Nikon, or the manufacturer of the lens.
I have only ever bought full frame (35mm and FX) compatible lenses because I always knew that I would get an FX camera once Nikon made them. I still use the D200 for wildlife as the 1.5x crop is very usefull with my 200mm lens as it makes it 300mm without any loss of the 2.8 aperture.
What sort of coparison is this? Sure they both look great..in fact some higher end compacts would look as good as the d700 output downsized 10 times as well.