NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: BruceSD on July 03, 2021, 01:48:34
-
.
I can purchase a like-new D700 camera for a good price from a local photographer. This is an older digital camera that was last made 13 years ago.
I don't care about auto focus speed, buffer size, low light performance, or the fact that it only has 12 mega-pixels. I only care about the RAW file image quality.
I've done a bit of Internet research on this camera, and I've read that the D700's monochromatic film-grain-like noise makes it a great camera for black and white photography. More than one reviewer said that it renders exceptional skin tone colors.
Do you feel D700 images compare favorably with say a Z6 or Z7?
Thanks
-
Here is the dynamic range of the D700 v. D6 and D7. I threw in a D300s because I own one and it's contemporary with the D700.
Dynamic Range v. ISO (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20Z%206,Nikon%20Z%207)
Since I never owned a D700 I can't say more than it's the camera I should have bought when I bought the D300s.
Dave
-
I think it is a great artistic tool, as long as you live with its foibles. Live View can be hard to turn on, but a function button can be assigned to do that.
My biggest complaint is the mushy multi selector knob on the back. Mine was hit or miss, so I bought a new ‘old stock’ one on eBay. It was very easy to fit, along with a new set of the four vertical rubber buttons. In fact all of the back buttons, and the lcd screen are very easy to replace, so if you do opt to but a D700, and it happens to have wear on the back, you can be pretty sure you can fit new thingamijigs.
-
I had both the D700 and D3s, loved both the cameras and files a lot until I got the D800E which delivered RAW files on a completely different level.
Where the Nikon 12MP sensor was a revolution in the high ISO department the 36MP sensor in the D800E did the same for the dynamic range as it could capture a whopping 11.45 stops vs 9.1. Back in the day the files were simply mind blowing as it changed everything because it added so much more depth to the files, got rid of stacking multiple exposures for landscaping and allowed for more correction options in post processing. B&W also improved a lot because the sensor captured much more levels of grey and detail in the low end.
The funny part is that the sensors didn't change all that much after the D800(E) as newer cameras mainly had improved resolution, new features or went mirrorless.
Here's the DR of the D700 compared to the D800E and Z6:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D700,Nikon%20D800E,Nikon%20Z%206
-
The D700 is my personal favorite Nikon camera. I currently have three of them plus a D3. I love the look of photos done on the 12mp sensor. While I also have a D800 and a D810, I prefer the look of the 12mp over the 36mp images. That's just me...I'm weird that way. I can't compare with Nikon's Z cameras--I don't own one and since I'm not a fan of EVFs it's doubtful I ever will.
The higher megapixel camera's images are beautiful, no doubt. For traditional image quality and resolution they are excellent. But many times I like a bit of grit and grain to my photos that the D700 seems to deliver better. I'm mostly a B&W shooter. I can't say the D700 images are more film-like but they are more pleasing to this old guy who has shot miles of Tri-X and HP5 in Nikons, Canons and Leicas. I would say the D800 and D810 photos look more Pan-F than Tri-X/HP5 when using film as a comparison. The D700 color is nice too although I don't shoot a lot of color and I'm a lousy judge of color science.
If you've researched the D700 online, you already know it's a solidly built camera. Very heavy. Add a vertical grip and it becomes even heavier. I seldom use the grip with mine. It's a camera with few quirks, outside the already mentioned 4-way button/dial on the back. And it feels good in the hand--at least it does to me. If you don't mind using a camera with dated technology, it should serve you well.
-
Thanks everyone for the great responses!
It's sure interesting to see what sensor characteristics appeal to individual photographers. To some, Dynamic Range is most important; and to others it's noise/grain characteristics. Guess there's no "one best" sensor for everybody.
For me, being a bokeholic who shoots all his lenses wide open, I'm most interested in the way a sensor renders the out of focus bokeh. I know, I know, bokeh is mostly impacted by the lens; however, I do beleive that the sensor itself also has an effect on bokeh, and am espeically curious to hear from D700 owners as to how you feel the D700 sensor impacts its' images bokeh.
-
Too much grain kills boke and depth in a picture, our brain is wired to generate a sense of depth when the eyes see a known object smaller than the reference stored in the internal memory banks. So when for example a house looks smaller than the person standing in front the house it must be a lot further away than the person or else it wouldn't make sense as giants don't exist.
If you overlay the same image with course grain the mind thinks everything is on the same plane as the grain on the subject is the same size as on the house in the distance so in essence you are flattening the image. You get a similar effect when you oversharpen the entire image as a close subject should show more detail than something in the distance, this is one of the reasons I prefer local sharpening and contrast adjustments to increase the depth perception instead of killing it.
-
Too much grain kills boke and depth in a picture, our brain is wired to generate a sense of depth when the eyes see a known object smaller than the reference stored in the internal memory banks. So when for example a house looks smaller than the person standing in front the house it must be a lot further away than the person or else it wouldn't make sense as giants don't exist.
If you overlay the same image with course grain the mind thinks everything is on the same plane as the grain on the subject is the same size as on the house in the distance so in essence you are flattening the image. You get a similar effect when you oversharpen the entire image as a close subject should show more detail than something in the distance, this is one of the reasons I prefer local sharpening and contrast adjustments to increase the depth perception instead of killing it.
Jan Anne, thank you for the excellent response! I'd never thought of bokeh and depth in that way - what you say makes a lot of sense to me.
-
It's sure interesting to see what sensor characteristics appeal to individual photographers. To some, Dynamic Range is most important; and to others it's noise/grain characteristics.
With dynamic range if you have too much you can clip the image to reduce it. When you clip the highlights [too much] you loose your diffused highlights and the image is said to be "Blown out." A much better approach is to add a soft "S" curve using LCH (lightness, chroma and hue). This "S" curve increases the mid tone contrast giving punch to the image while suppressing the shadow and highlight contrast. You have nearly infinite control of how much or how little punch you add. You can control how much contrast to take from the shadows and highlights by the shape of the curve.
In traditional wet process B&W photography the toe of the film suppresses the shadow contrast while the toe of the printing paper suppresses contrast in the highlights. This has been a feature of photography for more than 100 years. In digital photography the same effect is created with tone mapping.
With too little dynamic range you have to struggle with combining multiple exposures, HDR and the like. I don't like the look of the HDR image. I'd much rather start with a long dynamic range and then shape it to get the look I want.
A classic struggle with too little dynamic range is trying to hold highlight detail in a bride's gown while holding shadow detail in the grooms tuxedo.
The only time I've seen too much dynamic range was when experimenting with water bath development of B&W film.
Dave
-
Some great image editing tips in this thread :) I'd love to see some tutorials ;)
-
Why buy old technology?
-
Why buy old technology?
.
Lots of reasons...
For one, to my eye, the best color I've ever seen from a digital camera is out of ancient CCD sensor bodies!!!!
-
Bruce, the D700 was a huge step foward for me.
It sounds like you can effect a good deal, so I say "go for it" - if it does not turn out to be suitable, you will not lose much upon its resale.
Have fun - good luck!
.
I can purchase a like-new D700 camera for a good price from a local photographer. This is an older digital camera that was last made 13 years ago.
I don't care about auto focus speed, .................................................................................................
Do you feel D700 images compare favorably with say a Z6 or Z7?
Thanks
-
Why buy old technology?
Because, sometimes, new is not better!
-
Because, sometimes, new is not better!
Fully agree with you in general but the sensor technology used in the D3/D700 was still on the steep slope of the development S curve back then which started to plateau with the sensor in the D800 range. After that the improvements in ISO and DR performance were minimal and cameras mainly improved their feature set like fps, memory, liveview, mirrorless, ergonomics, etc.
Until cameras like the D800, a7S and a7RII came to market the sensor was always the main technical limitation of what I could capture. I remember my D200 files being completely rubbish above ISO400 limiting what I could do with the camera but the high ISO sensor of the D3s/D700 suddenly allowed me to get clean files at ISO1600 though with a limited DR of 9 stops, so these cameras enabled me to shoot wildlife during dusk and dawn but I still needed to shoot multiple exposures for landscapes. With the D800E the DR jumped up a whopping 2.5 stops, so the dynamic range was larger than the -1, 0 and +1EV HDR files which now allowed for single exposure HDR landscape shots which looked a lot more natural and without all the hassle of removing artifacts of moving objects, etc.
-
Because, sometimes, new is not better!
That is rare in the camera world, and certainly in this case.
-
Why buy old technology?
Because one can get things that work OK for the purpose for a fraction of the price. I got Sony Nex 6 for 50 CAD (roghly 40 USD now, I guess) and many of my pictures cannot be improved by using a better camera anyway.
-
Because one can get things that work OK for the purpose for a fraction of the price. I got Sony Nex 6 for 50 CAD (roghly 40 USD now, I guess) and many of my pictures cannot be improved by using a better camera anyway.
Yes, if one cannot afford a modern camera. But in the present case the OP already has more modern and more capable gear.
-
I've done a bit of Internet research on this camera, and I've read that the D700's monochromatic film-grain-like noise makes it a great camera for black and white photography. More than one reviewer said that it renders exceptional skin tone colors.
Do you feel D700 images compare favorably with say a Z6 or Z7?
Thanks
Bruce - Much as I loved the D700, for me the B+W fall apart more when converting using Silver EfexPro, I'm not sure whether it's the high dynamic range sensor or the very high pixel density or both, but there is far more tonal gradation with the newer sensors. Here are some photos - first three from D700, last three from D800E, all shot with AF35-70D. I'm not a fan of film grain, but more for texture and tones especially skin. I'll do some Z7 conversions if you like but will be with different lens as I dont have the 35-70 anymore. I suspect that the Z7 files will be just as malleable for monochrome. JJ
-
.
JJChan, very good examples. Thank you so much for posting and sharing your experiences!
-
JJChan, very good examples of what I meant when I wrote of comparing the 12mp D700 to the 36mp cameras in B&W film terms. Your D700 photos remind me of the look of Tri-X and HP5. The D800E photo reminds me of PanF. I was a fan of both types of film but I used Tri-X and HP5 the most and learned to love the look for my favorite type of photography which is based in candid, documentary style. I used PanF for portraits, nature, etc., when detail was important and the subject was less dynamic.
-
Bruce - Much as I loved the D700, for me the B+W fall apart more when converting using Silver EfexPro, I'm not sure whether it's the high dynamic range sensor or the very high pixel density or both, but there is far more tonal gradation with the newer sensors.
Yes: with a higher dynamic range the person doing the RAW development and B&W conversion is in control. One can clip the dynamic range as the camera might or shaped it to suite their purpose.
Or: with a higher pixel density more unique tone values are possible so finer tone gradation is possible. In the days of film for B&W I shot mostly Tri-X Pan in 35mm and Tri-X pan (not professional which was a different film with a different H&D curve) in 120. The 120 negative gave smoother gradation. The smoother gradation could be seen in an 8x10 print and larger.
Regarding grain there are plugins or built in filters in Photoshop and I'm sure other software. I use an old version of photoshop so I don't have access to film grain filters. I have on occasion used a very light, smooth noise on a full image but I can't remember the last time. With some retouching I blur a small area, add noise and then smooth the noise with very light blur to match the noise of the surrounding area. I don't mind very light noise but I guess I haven't added it since using a D300s or maybe back to my D2H.
Grain was a feature of a 35mm prints from Tri-X. It was a given. Lack of grain was a feature of 120 prints from Tri-X. The goal was generally to minimize grain. I souped in D-76, one part developer and two parts water as a compromise between soft grain and image sharpness. Some people mistook my 35mm prints for 120 prints with the right lens, assuming my technique as excellent.
With a D800/E or D850 there is more to work with. In my mind this puts the photographer in control.
Dave
-
Your D700 photos remind me of the look of Tri-X and HP5. The D800E photo reminds me of PanF.
Tri-X had a slight hump in it's mid line at about zone 6 in the H&D curve and no shoulder. Pan F had a distinct shoulder in the highlights. Add this shoulder to the shoulder of the printing paper and I never like the look of Pan F prints. Ansel Adams spoke of "chalk and soot." I associated these with Grade 0 printing paper and Pan F.
The photographer is in control with high dynamic range and a high pixel density. I felt at the mercy of my D2H if the ambient light wasn't perfect or if I needed to crop. The D300s was a great relief and D800 and D850 allows even greater control of a high contrast subject.
If I have too much dynamic range I can loose it in RAW conversion. If I have too little I can retouch like a devil and I may still be screwed. With too little dynamic range I would be trying to fake diffused highlight.
Dave
-
Tri-X had a slight hump in it's mid line at about zone 6 in the H&D curve and no shoulder. Pan F had a distinct shoulder in the highlights. Add this shoulder to the shoulder of the printing paper and I never like the look of Pan F prints. Ansel Adams spoke of "chalk and soot." I associated these with Grade 0 printing paper and Pan F.
Dave
Dave - so much knowledge and experience - alas a lost art. I never had any darkroom time and living in a small city 2500km from the next meant little chance of finding anyone with the sort of skill to learn from.
Bruce - here are some B+W using Z7 and Leica Elmarit 28mm (v3) at f2.8. The first is ISO 400, the last 2 at 6400 showing the 'grain' from noise and processing.
-
Years back I had a D700, but I was playing with high rez and never realized the iso performance. I started a thread about a D3 that followed me home, recently. (There is a cult following & pro's are still all over these two, 12 megapixer's.)
There is a 2 step dynamic range increase with later cameras and I use an 800e. Not a real biggie for me. I tossed a LOT of 36mp raw files for storage reasons.
(They don't make them any better than the D3/D700.)
The best Nikons have the red swoop on the grip that are made of rubber, not hard plastic.
Set iso, auto 3200 and shoot all day
-
In the D3/D700 line, the D3S was the pinnacle and D3X the reminder that megapixels alone is not the optimal approach.
-
David, I never had any difficulty with PanF's contrast. I always reduced development time and got a thin but full-detailed negative that printed perfectly on #3 Agfa Portriga Rapid. Now Kodak Panatomic-X was a different story. I never managed it without the soot and chalk look. Other than Tri-X, I preferred Ilford films. They always seemed a little less fussy to me.
Ansel was a great technician and I've read all his books but I learned the "down and dirty" method when working for a daily newspaper. The requirements were "get the picture and get it out". I learned a lot about the limits to which you could take film and negatives and still come out with acceptable photographs. Thank goodness for digital. Wish it had been available when I was working.
-
David, I never had any difficulty with PanF's contrast.
I'm not talking about the overall contrast of the image. Maybe I'm not describing this as well as I might. It was about the mid range contrast in the final print. I'm talking about the double suppression of the high lights by having a strong shoulder in the film compounded by the shoulder of the printing paper. This is a tone mapping issue. I don't like the image contrast distribution. I just didn't like the look of PAN F. Choosing a paper grade and paper developer to give a full set of tones in the print from black to white is a different issue to the H&D curve and the look a film gives compared to Tri-X Pan (not Tri-X Professional) and Super-XX 4142. Tri-X and Super-XX were both no shoulder films.
I pulled my Tri-X to 200 EI and my normal paper grade was grade 3. I pulled Super-XX also, perhaps to 100 EI. I don't remember what I souped Super-XX in, maybe HC-110 B, but I souped Tri-X in D76 one part developer and two parts water. I only used one shot developing. I wanted the consistency of one shot development.
Dave
-
Is The Nikon D700 Camera Still Viable In 2021?
I think the question might be is a camera with a 12 megapixel sensor and an AA filter still viable?
Took my D300s out and gave it a spin. I'm thinking I'll never use it again. It's super clean, much better shape than either my D2H or D800. Not that my D2H and D800 were beat up but I polished the plastic smooth on the grip and polished off the paint on the lower right side of each. The D300s was a big step up from my D2H but I could not use the DK-21m, 1.2x eyepiece so it wasn't as easy to use with AI and AIS Nikkors as my D2H was. I'm wondering what I can sell my D300s for. I wonder if a cousin's grand daughter might like it.
I really don't like cameras with AA filters on their sensors. Buying a D800 rather than a D800E was a mistake.
Dave
-
.
Finally purchased a D700. Got it from "Used Photo Pro" in Indianapolis Indiana USA (www.usedphotopro.com). They are the best place to purchase used photo gear in the USA (I much prefer them to KEH.com).
I paid $350 USD for this D700. It truly looks like new and has only 3,950 shutter clicks on it. Immediately after receiving it I put a Nikon DK-17M eyepiece magnifier on it. I'm glad that I had a couple of them laying about, because since they've been discontinued, their price on Ebay has gone up about 6 times!
I've decided that I'm going to use just one lens on it. Yesterday I briefly tested my Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 lens on it. Had trouble nailing focus with it. I also tested my Nikkor 105 DC lens on it. Was easily able to nail focus with it regularly.
So far I like the D700. Yesterday was quite sunny and bright. I noticed that the dynamic range was not what I've been used to with my more modern cameras (but I can live with that). I shot different ISOs and found that I didn't care for the grain above about 2,000 ISO; so, I set my auto ISO upper limit to 2,000 and will do more test shooting today and maybe will need to adjust that up or down a bit.
-
Congrats Bruce on the new purchase. I heard difference in IQ between D300/D300s and D700 is negligible. Has anyone ever compared?
-
Congrats Bruce on the new purchase. I heard difference in IQ between D300/D300s and D700 is negligible. Has anyone ever compared?
While I do not currently own a D300, I did own one for many years in the past. I never much cared for the images my old D300 produced for me. So, I am hoping that my new-to-me D700 renders more satisfying images then I got from my old D300.
-
It’s nice that they state shutter counts. For reasons unknown to me, here in Japan they are usually not stated - which seems downright shady to me.
-
It’s nice that they state shutter counts. For reasons unknown to me, here in Japan they are usually not stated - which seems downright shady to me.
Indeed.
Without a shutter count, I often rely on the appearance of the rubber grips on the body, and the degree of wear/scratches/brassing on the camera's lens mount. I have purchased cameras with missing or loose/worn rubber grips and replaced the grip. I've found that the replacement grips never look as good (or stick as well) as the original grips that the camera came with when new. I suppose that there's nothing to prevent a shady seller (who does not disclose the shutter count) from replacing all the rubber grips and replacing the camera's lens mount to make a heavily used camera "appear" to be less used than it really is.
-
While I do not currently own a D300, I did own one for many years in the past. I never much cared for the images my old D300 produced for me. So, I am hoping that my new-to-me D700 renders more satisfying images then I got from my old D300.
I still have the old good D300. It produced some really nice pictures for me, but it is practically sitting unused today. I love the way D700 look and I am sure it is a nicer camera to work with.
-
I sometimes use a D300. D2X and D2Xs as well. I like the way they handle and I like the look of the images. The D700 is still my favorite Nikon of all time. As I said in an earlier post, I'm mainly a B&W photographer and I like a little bite, grit and grain in my photos. For me, the D700 is Goldilocks--just right for what I like in some of my pictures. But not all of them. That's why I have higher resolution bodies as well. The D700 look is just my personal taste and opinion, nothing objective about it. We love what we love. :)
-
.
Did some shooting in the yard today trying to get to know my new to me D700.
First, I've discovered that I really don't care for the colors it produces.
Second, I really like how it renders black and white images. I don't care for it's RAW files for black and white, they just don't have the contrast of the out of camera jpgs produced by this camera. To my eye, it underexposes the jpgs about .3 stops, so I'm compensating for that.
Poor dynamic range, so I'll be primarily using it on cloudy/overcast days to make my black and white images.
I'm glad I bought it and thanks to all for your great advice.
-
The RAW and straight out of camera B&W images all come from the same data. If you use Nikon Capture NX-D or NX Studio to develop your NEF files and use the "Camera compatible" Picture Control v. "Latest picture control" you'll get the same image as "Straight out of camera."
The phrase "Straight out of camera" has no meaning unless perhaps the camera is set to the factory defaults but then one should say "factory default settings." Picture controls can be customized in camera. Picture controls can be customized in Picture control utility 2. Picture controls can be customized in Capture NX-D and NX Studio. Picture controls can be mostly ignored if one develops the NEF in Lightroom or another companies software.
The NEF file is more versatile than a JPG shot in any Nikon camera using the factory default Monochrome picture control. One can surely improve on the "straight out of camera" monochrome JPG if starting instead with an NEF in post. One can also make a worse image but we learn from our mistakes.
The best advice I can give is learn to use LCH (Master Lightness, Chroma and Hue) in whatever software you develop your NEF(s) in or use a purpose designed software designed to convert RGB images in to B&W.
---
In the days of film photographers often use a light or medium yellow filter to curb the excessive blue sensitivity of B&W films and give a natural rendition to clouds and sky. Ansel Adams use deep red filters to get dramatic black skies, Monolith the face of Half Dome and others.
I once use a deep green filter to differentiate between green text on the cover of a blue book that would print in B&W. I knew the second I looked at the book that the green text on the blue cover would print as the same tone of gray and recede into the cover. The deep green filter darkened the blue book and the green text was easily printed as a light gray that contrast nicely with a cover of the book. I knew to do this because of reading one or two sentences in a Kodak technical manual for filters. I had on hand a very large and expensive collection of Kodak gel filters including tri-color separation filters. All of this can be done with the RGB data in an NEF. Once the relationship of colors are translated to B&W and baked into the JPG you've lost all of this.
I would never shoot B&W in JPG with any digital camera. It is quite useful to photograph an image that will be B&W with the in camera Monochrome Picture Control set. Using the monochrome picture control will aid in previsuaizing a B&W final image while looking at the world as we see it in color. With experience setting the monochrome PC will change a persons mind set and previsualization will be easier. If one shoots NEF they can even change their mind and make a color image in post.
I learned much by reading books by Ansel Adams, Minor White and others and from a High school photography teacher who was a friend of Bret Weston. I hope the books of the masters are available today. Even if one never gets their hands wet they are worth reading.
Dave
-
Fully agree with you in general but the sensor technology used in the D3/D700 was still on the steep slope of the development S curve back then which started to plateau with the sensor in the D800 range. After that the improvements in ISO and DR performance were minimal and cameras mainly improved their feature set like fps, memory, liveview, mirrorless, ergonomics, etc.
Until cameras like the D800, a7S and a7RII came to market the sensor was always the main technical limitation of what I could capture. I remember my D200 files being completely rubbish above ISO400 limiting what I could do with the camera but the high ISO sensor of the D3s/D700 suddenly allowed me to get clean files at ISO1600 though with a limited DR of 9 stops, so these cameras enabled me to shoot wildlife during dusk and dawn but I still needed to shoot multiple exposures for landscapes. With the D800E the DR jumped up a whopping 2.5 stops, so the dynamic range was larger than the -1, 0 and +1EV HDR files which now allowed for single exposure HDR landscape shots which looked a lot more natural and without all the hassle of removing artifacts of moving objects, etc.
Have startet with the Fuji S2 back in 2003/2004. Jumped over to the d2x, d3, d3x, D800e and finaly d850. The sensor of the d2x brought a very "natural" looking image to the ground. Whilest the results of the d3 and d3x looked often very plastic like, and yes, the jump to the 800e was superb. But i will also mention, the 850 images are superior over the already ver good looking images from the 800e. And the given speed. If i would buy a 2nd handed camera, and want a lot of fun, and really perfect images, i would buy the d850. costs something more. But the "fun" and "results" are lightyears ahead over of the d700. Even if the camera will cost 100 euro, it is not worth to spend money into it. Okey if the camera would cost nothing. greetings, richard
-
Even if the camera will cost 100 euro, it is not worth to spend money into it. Okey if the camera would cost nothing. greetings, richard
If it is not worth 100 Euro then why should one get it, even for free? LOL
-
.
Everyone looks for characteristics in cameras that best suit their personal taste and type of photography. When it comes to digital cameras "newer" isn't always better. Examples:
1. I greatly prefer the color produced by CCD sensor cameras over CMOS sensor cameras.
2. Some here prefer the D700 noise/grain look (especially for B&Ws) to that of newer Nikkors.
-
Yep. For 100 euros, I'll take a half dozen D700s. ;D 8)
-
.
Everyone looks for characteristics in cameras that best suit their personal taste and type of photography. When it comes to digital cameras "newer" isn't always better.
Strangely, I paid attention to IQ when looking for a camera, but stopped being concerned when taking picture with it.
-
The RAW and straight out of camera B&W images all come from the same data. If you use Nikon Capture NX-D or NX Studio to develop your NEF files and use the "Camera compatible" Picture Control v. "Latest picture control" you'll get the same image as "Straight out of camera."
Dave
Dave, thanks so much for introducing me to Nikon Capture NX-D. I just downloaded it and played with some NEF files from my D700. You are right, I'm able to make TIFFs from the NEF files with the same look as the in camera JPGs!
-
The reason some explain for Capture NX-D's ability to duplicate what a camera's firmware can do is that the software and firmware use the same Nikon algorithms. This makes a great deal of sense to me. I use the "Latest picture controls" in Capture NX-D as they offer a few options not available with older cameras. Use latest picture control can be set as the default in Capture NX-D's preferences.
Nikon's NX Studio will supersede Capture NX-D but I don't recommend NX Studio yet as too many features don't work at this time. Even basic undo/redo were grayed out last time I checked. Eventually NX Studio will be required for new cameras. I think most will prefer the design and organization of NX Studio once it's up to speed. I will switch after NX Studio gets and upgrade or two. In the meantime what one learns in Capture NX-D will transfer fairly easily to NX Studio so using Capture NX-D now will not be lost time. I hope an upgrade to NX Studio will come soon.
Dave
-
What really annoys me is that so many companies, Nikon included, only support use with Windows and MacOS - not Linux.
Thank goodness for GIMP and Darktable, the latter similar to Lightroom in functionality.
-
It is a not-so-secret secret that Photo Ninja installs and runs well under Linux .... if you aren't familiar with this RAW conversion program, you ought to be.
I'm in particular fond of PN's capabilities for handling my UV and IR captures.
RawTherapee is another program that comes in a Linux flavour. Like PN, it digests almost anything RAW-wise.
Aftershot by Corel does well under Linux, cannot remember whether it comes in a native Linux version, but that doesn't mattrer as long as it works. Aftershot hails from the old and beloved 'Bibble', unfortunately after Corel purchased it development has been on and off. Largely the latter if truth is to be told, thus support for the latest cameras is so-so.
I discovered by accident that Monochrome2DNG (which I use for my monochrome NEX-5N) runs perfectly under Linux as well.
-
Glad to see you picked up a D700 Bruce, it’s my favourite camera. I also have the D300 but I rarely use it except when I want my lenses for birds or more reach on my telephotos. When I got my D700 I got all my lenses back as in my wide angles where wide and my telephotos weren’t too long. I didn’t want to invest too much in DX wide angles as I knew I would eventually go full frame. So shooting with your 85 1.4 will be an eye opener on how you can isolate your subject compared to shooting on micro four thirds. The guy I bought my D700 from was complaining about how big the files were on his D800 as well so that’s another plus and I find this file size to be more than adequate for my use as I do very little post processing. Anyways enjoy your new camera, it has lot’s of life left in it. Regards Gerry
-
It’s easy to add a focussing screen, BUT! On the D700 you can’t hide the red focus point when using manual lenses. Rather gets in the way of the split screen … An S type screen is probably the best bet.
The back of the camera is easy to remove, and all the back parts (buttons, multi selector, LCD screen) are readily available. <<< Just in case you need to fix anything ;-)
-
It would not be fast but rather a number of days but B&W film in a Nikon FM2n or FE2 would very likely result in higher quality images. If a shutter speed of 1/2000 is not needed a Nikon F or Nikkormat FTn would offer superior image quality. The dynamic range of B&W film is vastly greater than a DSLR even today.
This is not a recommendation as I have not done business with this company but it offers develop and scan services today...
https://northcoastphoto.com/
Dave
-
.
Been there done that. I have decades of experience shooting premium medium format cameras & B&W film which I developed and printed in my own dark room. Have no interest in every again returning to film.
-
.
Been there done that. I have decades of experience shooting premium medium format cameras & B&W film which I developed and printed in my own dark room. Have no interest in every again returning to film.
I'd like to shoot a little B&W negative. I'll never shoot color film again. A few years ago I threw out about $400.00 worth of color film.
Dave
-
.
Been there done that. I have decades of experience shooting premium medium format cameras & B&W film which I developed and printed in my own dark room. Have no interest in every again returning to film.
Same here, except 35mm B+W. I have no romantic attachment, as some seem to, to film grain and soft fuzzy Tri-X.
-
There are a lot of steps from shooting Tri-X 135 through developing and printing it. They all have to come together to get really sharp 8x10 or 11x14 inch prints. For example D-76 straight or 1:1 yielded mush grain by me. I diluted my D-76 1 part developer with two parts water. This gave me tight, fine grain with out being excessively harsh as with 1 part developer with 3 parts water.
I enjoyed printing for myself. 12-16 hour days getting an editor to press not so much.
Dave
-
How did this thread get so far off track?
-
How did this thread get so far off track?
I feel your pain >:(
But the only merit is that you haven’t been relegated to the mundane online epithet of the ‘OP’.
-
How did this thread get so far off track?
I was wondering that, too. But what the hell, it's all very enjoyable and quite informative. At least, to me.
-
The question "Is the Nikon D700 still viable in 2021" asks for comparison to modern digital cameras like the D800e, D850 and Z7 II among others. If image quality is the criteria of comparison the answer is no. If comparing the Nikon D700 even on introduction in mid 2008 to film cameras of years past the answer again is no. What the Nikon D700 offered is immediate results and convenience not superior image quality.
Many of us are viewing photographs on better quality consumer LCD monitors. Our monitors filter out much of the quality of better digital and scanned film images. Not only is the image quality constrained but the image size is small. Typical LCD monitors can't compete with a good quality 8x10 or 11x14 inch print.
Dave
-
.
I doubt that the monitors used by the expert photographers here on the NikonGear blog are "typical". For example, I use two, expensive, modern, 27-inch NEC monitors.
-
When D700 and D3 came out they where all the hype since they where FX, Full Frame - Finally it was possible to use the whole line of F optics without any constraints. I bought into the D3 immediately,,, if you enjoy shooting as a hobby it's a fine camera IMHO
-
For the right price and with low miles, a D700 in capable hands is as viable a camera today as it may well be in another ten years if circuit rot hasn't done its damage by then. I can personally attest to its ability to render outstanding B&W images, based on what I've observed from the likes of Zun Lee and any number of other photographers whose names escape me just this moment.
The only things that put me off the D700 initially were the less-then 100% viewfinder and the lack of video capability -- which was rapidly beginning to factor into many buyers' decisions at the time, even those with no experience with nor actual intention of shooting video. Fortunately, I was too broke to afford any FX body just then so was spared the agony of making choices or compromising myself. I was also too broke to afford a D300s, finally settling on a used D300, purchased for less then half its actual worth in dollars, that some kid tired of after one semester in college -- but, I digress. As I now recall, I also got two DX kit zooms in the bargain as well, which did not factor into my buying decision.