Re: D3 vs D700

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Jan 3, 2009.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:56:06 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2009-01-02 16:59:25 -0800, Stephen Bishop <> said:
    >
    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
    >> deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
    >> on track:
    >>
    >> As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
    >> the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
    >> also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
    >> very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
    >> nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
    >> two is virtually identical.
    >>
    >> The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
    >> is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
    >> images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
    >> or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.
    >>
    >> Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
    >> and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
    >> sensor.
    >>
    >> Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I
    >> want a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you
    >> get essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The
    >> D300 doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its
    >> own quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.
    >> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on
    >> the planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
    >> eavesdropping through his twit filter.) :)

    >
    > For the most part this is a pretty reasonable and accurate comparison.
    >
    > One of the additional D3 features are the two CF slots and the variable
    > programing to feed data to twin CF cards; duplicate cards, serial data
    > writing, consecutive card fill etc.
    > Not essential for me, but something an actual "pro" could find useful.
    >
    > I too was tempted by the D3/D700 FF Siren, for now I am happy to stick
    > with my D300.
    >
    > Regards,
    > 'duck



    Did you ever see sa 16x20 print (some cropping) of the same photo from
    both a D700, a D300 and a Canon 5Dmkii? I would expect to see a
    difference in image quality from all three. The difference in the D300
    and D700 coming from the quality of the pixels and the Canon coming from
    both the quality and quantity of the mp.
    measekite, Jan 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:50:35 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2009-01-03 10:02:17 -0800, measekite <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:56:06 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2009-01-02 16:59:25 -0800, Stephen Bishop <> said:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
    >>>> deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
    >>>> on track:
    >>>>
    >>>> As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
    >>>> the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
    >>>> also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
    >>>> very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
    >>>> nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
    >>>> two is virtually identical.
    >>>>
    >>>> The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
    >>>> is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
    >>>> images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
    >>>> or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.
    >>>>
    >>>> Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
    >>>> and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
    >>>> sensor.
    >>>>
    >>>> Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I
    >>>> want a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you
    >>>> get essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The
    >>>> D300 doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its
    >>>> own quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.
    >>>> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on
    >>>> the planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
    >>>> eavesdropping through his twit filter.) :)
    >>>
    >>> For the most part this is a pretty reasonable and accurate comparison.
    >>>
    >>> One of the additional D3 features are the two CF slots and the variable
    >>> programing to feed data to twin CF cards; duplicate cards, serial data
    >>> writing, consecutive card fill etc.
    >>> Not essential for me, but something an actual "pro" could find useful.
    >>>
    >>> I too was tempted by the D3/D700 FF Siren, for now I am happy to stick
    >>> with my D300.
    >>>
    >>> Regards,
    >>> 'duck

    >>
    >>
    >> Did you ever see sa 16x20 print (some cropping) of the same photo from
    >> both a D700, a D300 and a Canon 5Dmkii? I would expect to see a
    >> difference in image quality from all three. The difference in the D300
    >> and D700 coming from the quality of the pixels and the Canon coming from
    >> both the quality and quantity of the mp.

    >
    > First we need to clarify "image" quality vs. "print" quality. Image
    > quality is dependant on sensor specs AND lens selection along with
    > photographer technique. Most prints smaller than your proposed 16x20
    > will demonstrate little if any disernable difference with any of these
    > quality DSLRs if produced with similar lenses. LARGE "print" quality is
    > a different issue, so we are back to apples & oranges.



    Okay, I am concerned with Print Quality (using the same printer and
    settings) so the only variation is the camera.




    >
    > Personally I have not found myself in the position to make your
    > proposed comparison. I agree for the most part if we are talking 16x20
    > or larger prints all of the factors regarding "print" not "image"
    > quality at those sizes will favor FF and quantity of MP.
    >
    > However these discussions are limited to whatever evidence of "image"
    > quality we can produce for display in this forum and on the Web. D300,
    > D700 or 5DIII "Images" appropriately sized for display on a web site
    > are going to be very difficult to critique for quality differences,
    > other than those deliberately emphasized. We are not shipping actual
    > prints to each other here for loupe examination.
    >
    > For photographers who need the pixel count for print size, or the other
    > features a "Pro" might find desirable then they might need to spend the
    > $$$ on the D700, D3, D3x, or 5DIII.
    >
    > Given what the D300 offers me in "image" quality and other features I
    > will just have to forgo gargantuan prints, crop within my pixel means
    > and be quite happy.
    >
    > Regards,
    > 'duck


    My interest is in producing large prints that can be hung on a wall.
    measekite, Jan 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    > Now you have brought another factor to bring to the table.
    > The larger your print, the greater the optimal viewing distance. It
    > would be ridiculous to view a massive 32x40 from, say 18 inches.


    While I understand your intention, I can't entirely agree. Two salient
    points:
    1. It all depends on the image content. Sure, if it's a portrait or
    'artistic' landscape, standing back may well be appropriate. But if it
    is say, a cityscape, or a finely detailed macro, or that group portrait
    of the entire extended family at a wedding.. Or if there is an eagle
    soaring over that landscape, why shouldn't you get up close to see if it
    really is an eagle?

    2. As soon as you introduce viewing distance *as a variable* the whole
    idea of comparing resolution and enlargability becomes very complex.
    Most cameras from 2Mp up will do a nice 6"x4" and a 30x20 poster at 5
    feet away is **exactly** the same as a 6x4 at 1 foot...

    Don't get me wrong, viewing distance is important, but an awful lot
    depends on what it is you are displaying, and whether or not *the image*
    draws the viewer in. Many images do just that, and if you aspire to
    create such images, then saying "well, you shouldn't go so close..'
    doesn't really cut it.
    Mark Thomas, Jan 6, 2009
    #3
  4. measekite

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2009-01-05 19:20:50 -0800, Mark Thomas
    > <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck wrote:
    >>> Now you have brought another factor to bring to the table.
    >>> The larger your print, the greater the optimal viewing distance. It
    >>> would be ridiculous to view a massive 32x40 from, say 18 inches.

    >>
    >> While I understand your intention, I can't entirely agree. Two
    >> salient points:
    >> 1. It all depends on the image content. Sure, if it's a portrait or
    >> 'artistic' landscape, standing back may well be appropriate. But if
    >> it is say, a cityscape, or a finely detailed macro, or that group
    >> portrait of the entire extended family at a wedding.. Or if there is
    >> an eagle soaring over that landscape, why shouldn't you get up close
    >> to see if it really is an eagle?

    >
    > Certainly subject counts, however measlekite expressed his passion for
    > the production of large prints without any reference to subject. There
    > are images which will have great impact when printed large and benefit
    > from examination of detail. The cityscape, the macro or the landscape +
    > eagle are valid examples where the large print argument is valid.
    > However the overall image will still be best viewed from a comfortable
    > distance.
    > Personally though I can't imaging tolerating a wall filling wedding
    > group shot of any kind for more than 15 minutes. What to do with it as
    > the reality of that extended family dawns on all involved, can only lead
    > to marital disaster, regardless of the original sentiment.
    >>
    >> 2. As soon as you introduce viewing distance *as a variable* the whole
    >> idea of comparing resolution and enlargability becomes very complex.
    >> Most cameras from 2Mp up will do a nice 6"x4" and a 30x20 poster at 5
    >> feet away is **exactly** the same as a 6x4 at 1 foot...

    >
    > Exactly.
    >>
    >> Don't get me wrong, viewing distance is important, but an awful lot
    >> depends on what it is you are displaying, and whether or not *the
    >> image* draws the viewer in. Many images do just that, and if you
    >> aspire to create such images, then saying "well, you shouldn't go so
    >> close..' doesn't really cut it.

    >
    > Again the intent of the artist or photographer is the issue. If fine
    > detail on a large print is the intent then use the tools required to
    > gain that end. They might be costly, if not then compromise.
    >
    > Sometimes you have to get up close to appreciate the artist's talent and
    > then backup for the full impact. http://snipr.com/7or04-wiksca This was
    > shot with a D70 in 2005 and printed up nicely at 13x19 and could
    > probably go a little larger. Having my D300 then or a D700 or D3 would
    > have been nice, but the D70 was what I had to use and I printed within
    > those limitations.
    >
    > Regards,
    > 'duck
    >


    All points agreed, and that's a cool image! As a bit of trivia I
    remember the huge outcry here in Oz when one of our museums bought a
    Pollock (Blue Poles) in the seventies for about $1.5m iirc, taxpayer
    funded.. The same painting is now valued at over $100m I understand -
    I'm not sure when we get our dividends, though.



    I think the new rule is that if you are printing large and all else
    fails, just use coarse canvas for 'effect'. (O:

    cheers,

    mt
    Mark Thomas, Jan 6, 2009
    #4
  5. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > Sometimes you have to get up close to appreciate the artist's talent and
    > then backup for the full impact. http://snipr.com/7or04-wiksca This was
    > shot with a D70 in 2005 and printed up nicely at 13x19 and could
    > probably go a little larger. Having my D300 then or a D700 or D3 would
    > have been nice, but the D70 was what I had to use and I printed within
    > those limitations.


    Ha!

    (she's looking a bit too close at that don't you think?)

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jan 13, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Furman

    Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!!

    Paul Furman, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    926
    Alotta Fagina
    Jul 3, 2008
  2. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    564
    JufĂ­
    Jul 1, 2008
  3. vinnyss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,147
    bmw2007
    Nov 7, 2008
  4. ASAAR

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    536
    Paul Furman
    Jan 2, 2009
  5. John McWilliams

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    John McWilliams, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    917
    John McWilliams
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page