Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon D700 in-depth review
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:47 am    Post subject: Nikon D700 in-depth review Reply with quote
for my friends Nikoneers:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100701nikond700review.asp


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
on p28 the raw comparison show that the D700 cannot match the 3 year old 5D Shocked


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shocked

I will never sell my 5D, not even for a 5D Mk XXXVI


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
on p28 the raw comparison show that the D700 cannot match the 3 year old 5D Shocked



See pg 29: "Both cameras improve sharpness and per-pixel detail by shooting in RAW but differences at base ISO are truly marginal and most likely down to the fact that the images have been taken with different lenses. The D700 handles the highlight roll-off on the paper clips in a slightly more pleasing manner" Wink

The 5D does match the D700 at low iso's (and having a thinner filter is arguably a tad sharper at base ISO) compare the two mid-to-high and you get a different picture...

For a more thorough comparison:



http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
on p28 the raw comparison show that the D700 cannot match the 3 year old 5D Shocked


and on p.30 the D700 readily wipes the floor with the 5D.

I wish DPreview would use the best RAW converter for each camera, instead of using ACR for everything regardless of how well the camera is supported. I'd also prefer that they only use JPEG when testing that feature,and use RAW -> TIFF for actual quality evaluations.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
and on p.30 the D700 readily wipes the floor with the 5D.


Question
Aside from the D700 offering two stops more, I don't see big practical differences in the common ISOs, in the landscape parts, except that the 5D photos are noticeably overexposed. In the flat black part the higher noise of the 5D shows, but how often do you photograph flat black paper?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
poilu wrote:
on p28 the raw comparison show that the D700 cannot match the 3 year old 5D Shocked


and on p.30 the D700 readily wipes the floor with the 5D.

I wish DPreview would use the best RAW converter for each camera, instead of using ACR for everything regardless of how well the camera is supported. I'd also prefer that they only use JPEG when testing that feature,and use RAW -> TIFF for actual quality evaluations.


I agree - Canon shines with DPP, Nikon shines with NX2.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
and on p.30 the D700 readily wipes the floor with the 5D.


Question
Aside from the D700 offering two stops more,


I'm referring to the image quality, not the figures.

Orio wrote:
I don't see big practical differences in the common ISOs, in the landscape parts, except that the 5D photos are noticeably overexposed.


Overexposed, or loosing saturation and clarity due to the high chroma noise. What's a 'common ISO'?

Orio wrote:
In the flat black part the higher noise of the 5D shows, but how often do you photograph flat black paper?


Flat black paper not that often. Troubled by noise in shadow areas, often.

Anyway, the point of my interjection was to encourage a more nuanced comparison rather than a single flat 'its rubbish, only Canon and Zeiss are any good' one-liner. A review such as this, and a camera as good as this, merits a little more.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon 5D left, Nikon D700 right.




The Nikon is clearly holding saturation better at the high ISO.
To really give the Canon an chance, I am comparing the Nikon with a two-stop disadvantage. Upper pair: Canon@1600, Nikon@6400. Lower, Canon@3200, Nikon@Hi1 ~= 25600.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris, in my opinion it's simpler than what you make it.
No need of handicap comparisons, just take the two 3200 ISO samples.
In my opinion most of the perceived differences depend on the brightness and saturation levels of the 5D sample, which are excessive.

So what I did is to take it into Photoshop and with the use of Power Retouche Pro plugins ("Exposure" and "Saturation"), I have made the 5D sample as close as possible to the values of exposure and saturation of the D700:



As you can see, with the two samples at the approx. same exposure and saturation levels, the D700 still has a slight edge over the 5D in the flat black area, where, on the other hand, the 5D is sharper, which could well explain the difference (=stronger AA filter in the D700 camera). While in the landscape parts, the two performances are, in my opinion, very very close. Actually, I even think that the 5D shows slightly less chroma noise in the blue mountains of the background.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Orio, thats helpful.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1