Nikon 8800 vs D70

I just purchased the 8800 and have taken many shots, some better then
others. i saw some prints taken with the d70 and they are so much more
sharper. I still have enought time to return the 8800. I keep telling
myself that once i get the controls right on the 8800, iwill be happy
with the outcome. Does anyone have any feedback regarding both cameras.
I reason I picked the 8800 was the zoom range and not having to change
lens.

 

In 8x10 or smaller prints, I don't believe there's any inherent reason
why shots from a D70 should be sharper than shots from an 8800. (8x10
is an arbitrary choice; it probably remains true for bigger prints
too, but I'm guessing the prints you saw weren't bigger than 8x10
anyway.)

You also don't mention if you're viewing your own 8800 shots only on
screen, or if you have also made prints. If you made prints, how did
you do it? And did you use a reasonable but not excessive amount of
unsharp masking in your editing and printing workflow? How were the
D70 prints made? Is the person who shot the pictures and made the
prints a professional or very experienced amateur, or just a beginner
who happens to have a D70?

I think it's *likely* that the differences are in the workflow and
perhaps in the operation of the cameras, rather than any inherent
difference in the sharpness possible with them.

There are benefits to both classes of cameras. The DSLR fits *my*
needs better I think (I use a Fuji S2, which is why I'm only
*speculating* about these two Nikon cameras), but my needs aren't your
needs.

 

Try a faster shutter speed, and make sure you have the camera set to save the
images at the largest size and with the highest jpeg quality (if saving as jpeg).

It may be that you are a little bit shakey when taking photos so they aren't as
sharp as they could be.

Ben.

 

You have used BSS? If not, try it. Also set your camera to the best jpg
mode (the one with the lowest compression). Do some test images with
a tripod.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

 

The sharpness of the images you see can be affected by post-processing, as
well as the camera. The quality should be similar, except that in lower
light situations the 8800 may produce pictures with more noise (grain) and
the D70.

I also wanted a long-zoom camera and, despite owning the Nikon 5700, I
went for the Panasonic FZ5. My wife has a Panasonic FZ20, and we are both
very pleased with the results. I also have the wide-angle version of the
8800 - the 8400 - which has the same sensor.

My style of camera usage is best suited by small and light cameras and no
great kit-bag of expensive and heavy lenses letting in the dust as they
are changed. I accept the grainer low-light results that I get (and
occasionally use software to improve the image).

Cheers,
David

 

The other replies to your post indicate that unless you are doing
something wrong, then you should get near to the same image quality with
an 8800 as a dslr (D70 in this case).

The reality is that very wide zoom range lenses are available for dslrs,
but many dslr and film slr users avoid them (except for the convenience
factor that you identify) because they are not as sharp, not as fast,
and have more distortion than fixed focal length, or good zoom lenses.
(The good ones typically have a maximum 3x zoom factor or thereabouts).
Assuming that a miracle breakthrough has not been made with optics by
Nikon for the 8800, then it is not going to be as sharp as a dslr with a
good lens. That does not even include the limitations that a smaller
sensor imposes on sharpness, as well as the limits imposed on noise vs
speed. Many D70 and other dslr users will own and use lenses that cost
as much and more than an entire 8800, and you would be hard pressed to
convince them that they were not getting value for money.

If image quality is your main concern, then get a dslr - but don't
expect a huge improvement over the 8800 if you decide to get one with a
28-300mm lens. And that is where the small difference in price between
an 8800 and a D70 begins - good lenses are quite expensive.

 

Frederick wrote:
[]

Actually, whilst it may not be an optical breakthrough, your correct
assertion about the 28 - 300mm lens for 35mm cameras not having as good
quality as a 3:1 zoom does not seem to read across well to the current
crop of smaller sensor cameras. Why?

One difference may be that the wide-angle of the zoom in the Nikon 8800 is
not 28mm but 35mm, thus avoiding some of the optical problems of
wide-angle coverage. The range is 35 - 350mm equivalent. In the
Panasonic FZ5 & FZ20, for example, the range of its 12X zoom is 36 - 432mm
equivalent, and in the FZ20 a constant f/2.8 aperture is retained
throughout the zoom range. (In the Nikon 8400, with a 24mm starting point
for its zoom, the ratio is a much more restricted 3.5:1.)

Another difference is that the lens may be tailored better to the sensor
requirements. There is no need to provide any MTF after the cut-off of
the anti-alias filter, so the design requirements of a lens specifically
for a digital sensor may be eased, compared to 35mm film/digital lenses.

I would like to see some justification for your statement that "smaller
sensors are not as sharp" (to paraphrase). What is their inherent
limitation?

I do agree that the DSLR is capable of higher quality, given suitable
lenses, and is capable of lower light operation, so you have a choice
between function, cost and versatility.

Cheers,
David

 

I note that barrel distortion is nevertheless slightly higher at wide
(35mm equiv) settings than the 18-70 Nikkor at wide (28mm equiv).
However, you are right in that the distortion performance of the 8800
zoom isn't bad considering the range, and the above comparison with what
is regarded as a good lens.

One reason is explained here:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
If that is correct - and I can't argue against it - then the clamouring
for bigger sensors in dlsrs, and the apparent comparative lack of
sharpness observed in cameras such as the 8800 is well explained.

Another factor is that post processing (in camera or on computer using
the RAW image) is carried out, which normally will include sharpening.
The 8800 does suffer from purple fringing/ CA, common (but the 8800 is
apparently better than many) with similar cameras. Sharpening will
accentuate the visibility of this. So, if you are to sharpen, then you
need to first remove as much CA / purple fringe as possible. Also, if
you apply sharpening to a noisy image it will look much worse, so
perhaps some software noise reduction is also carried out. Before you
can begin to create a sharpened ready to print image, you are already
well behind with an 8800. *Please* don't come back at me and say that
applying USM is not "real" sharpness. I know the arguments, but the
good results (that may be one of the factors behind the result the OP
notes) are plainly evident when you look at a print. Apply the same
amount of USM to an image with even a hint of "purple fringe" or CA, and
it will look hideous on a large print.

And with choice comes compromises.
The lower light performance is mitigated somewhat by the VR feature -
something that is a very expensive luxury in most dslrs. I have no beef
against an 8800. I would like one, or something similar - but not as a
replacement for a dslr.

 

I believe what you may be seeing is not actually sharper images, but
the appearance of sharpness due to the dslr's typically shallower depth
of field. When the background is out of focus, the main subject often
looks extremely sharp. It's a beautiful effect that's much harder to
achieve with typical point-and-shoot cameras.

Here's a good article comparing dslr's with point-and-shoots:
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm> There are many advantages
dslr's.

-=-Joe

 

I forgot about diffraction - you are correct.

[]

If you have a DSLR, the Nikon 8800 or perhaps a somewhat lesser P&S camera
can be complementary as a take-anywhere, lightweight camera, or for
situations where you don't want to damage the expensive DSLR or its
lenses. What's really good is the number of P&S cameras offering VR (or
image stabilisation or anti-shake - call it what you will), which really
extends the range of lightweight, hand-held, long telephoto shooting.

Cheers,
David

 

I own neither the D70 nor the CP8800, so perhaps I shouldn't butt in;
but, I will.

I've kept close tabs on posts pertaining to the D70 and the 8800.
Some have said that the picture quality of the 8800 can equal or rival
the D70... in some situations. The claim was not disputed by the D70
people.

Orrin

 

I just traded my CP8800 for a D70s. It really wasn't about image sharpness,
I found the 8800 to produce excellent results. I just couldn't put up with
the shutter release delay. I love the handling of the D70s, reminds of my
F3 days. Boy did it feel feel great to lock in a lens again!

If you can afford it, and you recognize you will be facing an addiction of
lens buying <g>, go for the D, you won't regret it.

 

There are already several replies in this thread concerning the
optical qualities of lenses and sensors, so I shall not talk about
these and instead concentrate on other aspects. It is also difficult
to give you precise advice because you do not state what is your level
of expertise in (digital) photography, so the problems with your
pictures could be due to faulty (but easily remedied by learning)
handling of the camera and/or pictures rather than by their intrinsic
limitations. I myself have a 5700 and a D70s, and used film SLRs from
about 1975 to 2000 and digital afterwards (starting with a 990).

A factor not clearly discussed in other replies is that a D70(s) with
a rather long zoom (albeit not 10x) weights 2-3 times more than an
8800. It also requires a much larger and heavier bag, its accessories
(e.g., spare battery, tripod etc.) are also heavier, so the 2-3x
weight and size factor translates to the whole equipment range. A
digital SLR also attracts more attention than a prosumer camera, which
may be unwanted.

If you are already used to working with film SLRs, a prosumer without
removable lens (no matter what its specs) will feel constricting and
limiting. I myself rediscovered the joy of photography after buying a
D70s recently, my first DSLR. But I am also aware that the weight of a
heavy camera backpack often makes me leave the D70s at home when a
camera would come in handy, and my mobile phone camera is not up to
the job. I am considering buying a small digital camera (1/3 of the
weight and size of the 8800, perhaps one of the smaller or medium
Coolpix) to always carry in my day bag.

There is a good point in other replies about the quality of DSLR
lenses being much variable. This includes the Nikkor range too. I do a
lot of macro work, and one of my favourite macro lenses is more
expensive than the D70s. On the other hand, I also have the cheap
Nikkor 70-300 G, which is lightweight and does an excellent job for
handheld shots (but of course does not cut it against better, heavier
and more expensive tele lenses). There is always a compromise between
lens price, quality and weight, and the lens that gives the best
picture is not necessarily the best choice for every job.

 

Deedee Tee wrote:
[]

[]

One of the main reasons I went for the Panasonic FZ5 rather than the FZ20.
Both are more compact than the 8800 (which as you say is more compact than
the DSLR).

David

 

I had a 8700, then traded up to 8800 on smb's promise that its performance
(primarily shutter lag) is better.
However, I returned the 8800 to the store and got Olympus E-300 2-lens kit
for a few more bucks.
Now I am happy.

If you plan to walk around town, with your 8800 on the tripod on your
shoulder, then shoot
a wonderful city scape or a cat on a remote balcony once in a while - then
keep the 8800.
No, the 8800 is a bit too heavy and bulky for hiking.

If you are in for smth more versatile - then SLR is a must-have.
You can't compare a prosumer camera shot with that of a DSLR by sharpness.
They are dfferent beasts.

My 0.02$ Canadian.


"David J Taylor"