I specialize in very low light photography. In film days I would often shoot 18 seconds @ f1.4 on ISO 3200.
I have moved to digital but so far have been disappointed with digital's low light performance, in particular I have seen alot of "banding" issues with the Nikon D70 and the Canon 40D.
I would like to ask if anyone out there has experience of how well the D700 deals with very low light photography. Noise is like film grain to me, I can accept it. What I cannot accept is banding.
Would the D700 be a good purchase for me? These are the kind of images I make:
I don't use high ISO much, but when I have I was amazed at what the D700 could do. I'm not aware of banding really being a problem with the D700 - I certainly haven't seen it - but I guess it is always possible.
But if you are using a Canon system currently, I would think the 5D would do a great job with high ISO, either the current version or the coming update. Or just go for the 1DMkIII. A switch to Nikon would likely cost as much as just going with a pro camera. Don't get me wrong, the D700 is a great camera which I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to own. But frankly, Canon has great gear that will likely do the job admirably for you as well. I stuck with Nikon because I was pleased with the results and enjoy using the same system without having to support different lens systems. What brand is on the gear is really irrelavant to me.
To clarify I wouldn't be getting rid of my Canon outfit, alot depends on the new 5D really. I would happily run both Canon and Nikon outfits if the D700 worked out, in fact I wish I had started slowly building dual systems years ago (between 1990 and earlier this decade I was exclusively with Nikon, but offloaded alot of kit when I was temporarily short of money, and I was very, very unhappy with my D70 and Nikon's then apparent refusal to commit to full frame) - now digital appears to be maturing a little I want to consolidate and expand my kit again.
If I do get the D700 I already have 2 Nikkors, and would only need to get a cheap Nikkor 50mm and the 85mm f1.8 to be up and running with a viable small Nikon outfit. If I got the D700 I would save for a year or two for the Nikkor 12-24 G, a lens I greatly admire and which Canon cannot equal.
Or I might just get the Canon 5D replacement, depends how good it is, but I am more interested in low light performance than gross megapixels. That's why I have posted this query, to find out how good the D700 is at night. I would be perfectly happy to come home to Nikon.
Sounds like the D700 is perfect for you. Unbelievable high ISO, you've already got the best low light lens there is... you should be set. Give it a try, if you don't like it then you can return it or sell it for nearly what you paid.
Low light performance is something I find to be superior in Nikon FX case. The D700 does have slightly filmish grain, but when you go over ISO3200, the image starts to go slightly pastel-like, so your client sees that you were still using digital if you don't want that to be obvious(same thing with D3). D700 has very little noise, even at ISO6400 and when noise does start to appear it usually seems to be all one-tone grain, unlike CCD sensors that have RGB-dot texture that's just plain ugly.
Don't have anything shot with the D700 over ISO400 though to show here
Here's some photos shot with the D300 in case you're wondering about the DX performance nowadays -> Photo Factory Estonia
D700 24-70/2.8 no NR at all
shot RAW
no flash
No in camera NR
no post NR
no sharpening in or out of camera
the only stomping on it was reduction to 1024x768 jpg lowest compression
The ISO 6400 D700 sample image there looks absolutely amazing. Its very hard to turn down low light imaging of that caliber! I might relegate my Canon outfit to portraiture and daytime stuff (I've got great Canon portrait lenses) and go back to Nikon for my night stuff. Here in the UK the D700 price has come down alot since the camera's initial introduction, I wonder if the price will go down more once the 5D2 is announced.
I've owned the D700 for a few weeks now and have done some long exposures but mainly at lower ISOs. Below are a few images taken generally at lower ISOs and as well as one taken at higher ISO and shorter shutter speed. Doesn't cover exactly what you're looking for but gives you some idea of how it performs in low-light, high-contrast scenes.
I saw your beautiful work and I have also seen the beautiful pictures posted by MHoldef but, your style seems to be long exposures under very dark conditions and the samples I have seen here, although outstanding photography, do not resemble what you actually shoot.
If I were you, before taking a final decision, I would rent the camera. Then I would shoot what you usually shoot, enlarge one of the samples to the size you use most and SEE what is there. Convinced of the quality you want? Now you have a good basis to make a decision.
The D700 is an excellent high ISO performer but you cannot expect others to tell you how good it performs. You NEED to know and nothing better than to use the camera in your actual shooting style.
Just my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I just gotta say mholdef and nick those are some fantastic images, low-light shooting conditions or not!
And yeah I can't add any long-exposure samples to the mix, or even comment honestly on it (my D2H was a champ believe it or not as long as ISO's were low), but I sure can vouch for high ISO with the D700...
The ISO 6400 D700 sample image there looks absolutely amazing. Its very hard to turn down low light imaging of that caliber! I might relegate my Canon outfit to portraiture and daytime stuff (I've got great Canon portrait lenses) and go back to Nikon for my night stuff. Here in the UK the D700 price has come down alot since the camera's initial introduction, I wonder if the price will go down more once the 5D2 is announced.
Don't want to quench gear acquisition syndrome, but I would say that if you already have Canon glass, it's worth bearing in mind that (a) the 21 megapixel 1Ds3 has high iso performance comparable with the D700, which suggests that (b) the very soon to be released 5D2 is likely to equal or exceed the D700's high ISO performance. So waiting a few weeks would probably save you quite a lot of money on lenses.
Thank you for your kind comments and good advice. I suspect I will have to rent as you suggest and try for myself.
Hello brainiac
Don't worry no such syndrome involved, even if I get the Nikon as I said I would only get a cheap 50 and 85 (together with both my existing Nikkor 28s), and run a dual Nikon/Canon outfit.
I will definitely wait to see the 5D MK2, but what is seriously worrying me about Canon is how their sensors work at extremely low light levels. For example, I was quite excited about the 50D specifications, but look at these sample images:
That's exactly the kind of banding that ruined my low light work on the 40D. However, I will wait to see if the new 5D performs better. I suspect I will end up renting the 5D Mk2 and the D700 and run them head to head at ISO 3200 and eight seconds exposure which is typical for my work. I will buy the camera with the best noise characteristics, and neither of them if there is any banding! I might even buy a Canon film body and go back to emulsion if neither can cut it.
I would expect the new 5D to be considerably better than the 50D, because it's full frame, not 1.6 crop. I recently tested a D700 against a 1Ds3 at ISO 12800, and the latter only had very slightly more banding than the former once noise reduction had been applied to both files. Crops are here if you're interested: http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/
I certainly think it's worth waiting to see. The new 5D may have even better high ISO performance than the 1Ds3, which has been around since November last year.
When I got my D700, I was irritated by the rumors on the web about noise and banding.
Here are a couple of pics I did the first night with the D700, just to check it out: http://www.pbase.com/andrease/d700 (many pics are in full D700 resolution)
