| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
D700 performance
Stew Milne, Photographer
 |
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:28 PM on 10.29.08 |
| ->> So, I've searched the archived threads and haven't found exactly what I'm looking for. For those Nikon shooters out there that have both a D3 and D700, or have used both, how does the D700 perform in relation to the D3? Is the image quality the same? What about the AF? High ISO image quality, etc..... |
|
John Middlebrook, Photographer
|
Basel | CH | Switzerland | Posted: 6:27 PM on 10.29.08 |
->> Stew,
Two weeks ago I was at an all week long indoor, pro tennis event and Nikon was the sponsor so they were there with all the goodies. I asked the rep if I could give a D700 a whirl and of course he said yes. Now I have a D3 on one shoulder and my D300 on the other. I took my battery pack off of my D300 and placed it on their D700, changed the language and was off. I don't have too much in the way of scientific answers but in all aspects of my personal analysis, the D3 rocks.In my quick research, the D700 was not leaps and bounds better than the D300. I know the full frame issue and that is a reason alone to buy either the D3 or D700 but noise reduction was not quite of the D3, well nothing in the market is, IMHO. I don't recall if AF was an issue or not. The difference on price will always be an issue but you can't do anything about that.
Bottom line for me, the D3 is a pro camera and is so solid, I think I would keep saving to get my second before looking at a cheaper alternative. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 10.29.08 |
->> I'll repeat & expand on what I said in the Equipment Profile for the D700. From the image quality perspective I can't tell a difference between a D700 file and a D3 file. When I look at a Photo Mechanic contact sheet that has files from my D700 mixed in with files from one or more of my D3 bodies, I can't distinguish one from another. At any ISO. When ingesting from multiple Canon bodies it always felt like I could tell at a glance which images were shot with my Canon 1Ds vs. 30D or 5D, for example. That's just my own impression, though.
AF performance seems the same, but for fast-action sports I'm always using a D3 'cuz even though the stock D700 supposedly does 5fps it just *feels* a whole lot slower than that so I prefer the D3. Overall the D700 has a more pro-sumer feel to it than the D3, due in no small part to the @#$% pop-up flash. (Dunno which is more annoying--the two-piece hood design on the 400 & 600 or the pop-up flash on the D700. I can choose to leave one of the hoods at home but I can't choose to leave the pop-up flash at home, so I guess the pop-up flash is more annoying come to think of it.)
I like the D700's small size for remotes & when you want to be a little less conspicuous. I also like the self-cleaning sensor. That said, if I had to pick one and ONLY one, I'd still go with the D3, but the D700 makes an outstanding companion. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 9:16 PM on 10.29.08 |
->> The D700 with the battery pack (and EN-EL4a battery) ups the frame rate to 8 fps. That combination makes it a much closer call.
The D3 still gives you: (1) a second CF slot (and arguably a more secure card slot); (2) 9 fps versus 8 fps (yes, it can hit 11 fps in crop mode, but who wants to drop back to 5 megapixels); (3) a voice recorder. The D3 is also supposed to have something like double the duty cycle (I believe something like 300,000 versus 150,000 for the D700).
On the other hand, the D700 gives you a self-cleaning sensor (not really self-cleaning, but the sensor has been less of a dust magnet than the non-self-cleaning sensor in the D3). It also gives you the ability to remove the battery pack and work with a smaller, lighter (and perhaps less obtrusive) body.
As far as I've been able to see, there's no perceptible difference between the hi-ISO performance or noise reduction between the D3 and D700. My own impression is that each has a one stop (if not somewhat greater) advantage over the D300. |
|
Hassel Weems, Photographer
|
Locust Grove (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 10:16 PM on 10.29.08 |
->> I shoot D3 bodies my wife has a D300 and a D700. The D3 and D700 files are the same as far as I can tell. D300 files are a step behind in both noise and color under bad light.
I don't know how the D700 AF compares to the D3 because I haven't shot much with it but the D3 AF is easily better than the D300.
We shoot D3 and D700 in 14 bit raw and the ability to handle low light and ugly color light (like dimmed tungsten) is amazing. |
|
John Cheng, Photographer
|
New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 10.30.08 |
->> Stew,
Remember I bought the D300 as a high mileage body for meets? Well it turned out not to be the high ISO performer I expected it to be, so I sold it and got a D700 and kept the MB-D10 battery grip I bought for the D300.
12k frames later (with 90% of them @ISO6400) I'm one happy camper! At 8FPS it rivals the MKIIs and there is really no noticeable difference in the image quality and AF performance compared to the D3, except AF on the D3 feels more crisp, if that makes any sense at all. The built-in remote commander is cool on the D3, I even used it to remote a SB-800 the other day outdoors.
Why, are you switching? ;-)
-John |
|
John Cheng, Photographer
|
New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 2:28 PM on 10.30.08 |
| ->> Sorry,I meant the D700 with the built-in remote commander, not D3... |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 6:20 PM on 10.30.08 |
| ->> Switching?, NO. Just thinking about getting a Nikon body and lens along with all my Canon gear, until Canon introduces their next version which will hopefully blow the D3 away. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 7:04 PM on 10.30.08 |
| ->> A D700 users report will be featured in the "Photographers Toy Box" column in the upcoming Sports Shooter Newsletter. |
|
Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
|
Jason Jump, Photographer
|
Humble | TX | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 10.30.08 |
->> I have not shot with the D3, but I have been fairly disappointed with the focus speed of the D700 in indoor, low-light situations.
But I bought it mainly for football and baseball season and so far through football I have been THOROUGHLY impressed with it.
I strobe most of my indoor basketball games, so I will probably either have my D2X fixed or just use my D2H. |
|
Grant Blankenship, Photographer
|
Macon | GA | USA | Posted: 8:14 AM on 10.31.08 |
->> Jason,
I lit high school gyms when working with the D2hs. If the D700 files are as good as the D3 files like most of the above said, I'll bet you'll be leaving the lights at home this season. Just carry a gray card to balance for the dying sodium vapors and you are golden. |
|
Jamie Sabau, Photographer
|
Pickerington | OH | US | Posted: 9:41 AM on 10.31.08 |
->> Stew,
I recently did just what you are thinking of doing. I have six Canon bodies and went out and bought a D700 for the Nikon short glass (14-24, 24-70). I personally have never (15 years) been satisfied with the performance and quality of Canon's short zooms. I freakin' love the 14-24!! Wonderfully sharp, crisp lens that has restored my faith that it actually is possible to get sharp photos in digital.
I chose the D700 because it is a full-frame camera with enough pro features at a reasonable cost (paid about $2500 for mine). I really like the camera, almost as much as I like the lenses I got it for. My personal opinion is that the image quality from the D700 is better than my Mark III's and 1Ds MkII's at any iso. I've seen reports that at high iso some still favor the Mark III, but I think the D700 is a far cleaner, sharper file. Realize though that I only shoot short glass on it and don't shoot alot of action stuff with it, but I still think it's a better file. In fact, if it weren't for the incredible amount I have invested in Canon gear and the lack of a comparable Nikkor 28-300 push/pull zoom (best lens for hockey) I would strongly consider switching over fully to Nikon for the image quality alone. That said, I've read and been told that while the Nikon short glass is superb, and it is, the long glass is not as good as Canon. I've never had anything to complain about with respect to my Canon L long glass.
Oh, AF. Again, only use it with short lenses and not tracking an athlete in action, but the AF seems quite reliable. Quick to acquire and seems to predict and follow quite accurately. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|