anitrone wrote:
@SiMuMe@ thanks for reviving this thread, I have my D700 sitting on the table with the 28mm attached, just been so wet out. this is needed motivation
On the D700 topic, here's one from this summer. This is a stitch of 5 images done by Lightroom, taken with D700 and the Nikon AF 20mm F2.8D, not far from a Severe Thunderstorm.
i haven't had mine for years but i produced a few nifty shots with it. it replaced my canon equipment with it at the time it was released. it was near perfect for my needs.
Question - what current Nikon body produces comparable SOOC shots like a D3s or D700?
D850? D810? D750? D780? D4? D4s? or D5?
Asking because compared to my D500...my D3s shots are WAAAAYYYY more colorful and lively compared to the D500. Granted - different sensor sizes...but the D500 never comes close to image quality.
(sorry if this has been discussed in earlier threads...didn't see it while scanning the last few pages)
jcnemy wrote:
Question - what current Nikon body produces comparable SOOC shots like a D3s or D700?
D850? D810? D750? D780? D4? D4s? or D5?
Asking because compared to my D500...my D3s shots are WAAAAYYYY more colorful and lively compared to the D500. Granted - different sensor sizes...but the D500 never comes close to image quality.
(sorry if this has been discussed in earlier threads...didn't see it while scanning the last few pages)
The answer is none. There was a big shift in the colour science with the D800 and future cameras. It was very obvious at the time. (Very subjective opinion follows) In many ways D800 and up have what looks like a more faithful presentation of the original colour compared to the D700. However, a bit like analog and digital audio media. Even though analogue has the snap, crackle and pop nothing can come close to the sound for a person who prefers and has a good analogue rig. Digital is just, well, clean.
When it comes to shooting people, I really loved and still very much do, the D700. The D300/s comes very close at low ISO, you can tell they are cameras from the same era but D700 is really a special camera.
trenchmonkey wrote:
^ JC, it's those big FAT pixels!!
---------------------------------------------
SiMuMe wrote:
The answer is none. There was a big shift in the colour science with the D800 and future cameras. It was very obvious at the time. (Very subjective opinion follows) In many ways D800 and up have what looks like a more faithful presentation of the original colour compared to the D700. However, a bit like analog and digital audio media. Even though analogue has the snap, crackle and pop nothing can come close to the sound for a person for prefers and has a good analogue rig. Digital is just, well, clean.
When it comes to shooting people, I really loved and still very much do, the D700. The D300/s comes very close at low ISO, you can tell they are cameras from the same era but D700 is really a special camera. ...Show more →
Gentlemen - thanks for confirming my worst fears.
Yuck! I guess I'll continue to ride these D3s's and a D700 until they die. Then - if Nikon has nothing similar in regards to color resolution SOOC...then I may consider a different platform for the first time ever, but really not interested in doing so.
SiMuMe wrote:
The answer is none. There was a big shift in the colour science with the D800 and future cameras. It was very obvious at the time. (Very subjective opinion follows) In many ways D800 and up have what looks like a more faithful presentation of the original colour compared to the D700. However, a bit like analog and digital audio media. Even though analogue has the snap, crackle and pop nothing can come close to the sound for a person who prefers and has a good analogue rig. Digital is just, well, clean.
When it comes to shooting people, I really loved and still very much do, the D700. The D300/s comes very close at low ISO, you can tell they are cameras from the same era but D700 is really a special camera. ...Show more →
+1 ..they changed the sensor tech and rendering post d700/D3. You may get more "realistic" pictures or technically accurate ones but they just look a bit flat in comparison, less contrast and less color saturation. Although there's more dynamic range with the newer models it requires a bit more work in post as SOOC is a bit more flat.
Been thinking about adding a Nikon DSLR body. The Df is kind of tempting to have the Non AI compatibility, but the output from the D700 and being 50-60% less expensive are big draws.
Question, does anyone know if you can put a better manual focusing screen in the D700, and if so any recommendations?
The K3 screens from the FM3a / F301 have a good reputation, but I've never used one myself.
Thanks. Heard of that vendor, but wanted to see if anyone had used it. K3 sounds familiar, but wanted to make sure I wasn't going to break AF/Metering etc.
For those who may be using the default picture controls on their D700 or D3s, you can download additional picture controls here. https://www.nikonimglib.com/opc/
I am curious about the D2X picture controls and how much of the difference they make. I downloaded the D2X Control on my D700 but can't tell much of a difference on my D700. The Landscape control produces sharp, saturated images right out of the D700 that I didn't get previously. Anyone have any experience with them?
digitalshah wrote:
Anyone have any experience with them?
If you shoot jpg or use Nikon post-processing software, D2x Mode 1 has nice skin tones. Mode 3 has good colours for nature and landscapes without the over the top greens found in Vivid and Landscape modes.
I loaded the Picture controls as soon as I had my D700 in 2013 and Mode 1 was my preferred control. If your starting point is the Neutral picture control, then the change to D2X Mode 1 is subtle but a definite improvement at least for the skin I shot. If you are used to shooting Standard, then except for Mode 3, the Picture Controls might look a bit flat.
The below sample was shot in Neutral in 2015. It shows the change from Neutral->Mode 1-> Mode 2 with everything else as shot. When I shot people, my preference was always Mode 1 but Neutral is a great starting point.
SiMuMe wrote:
The answer is none. There was a big shift in the colour science with the D800 and future cameras. It was very obvious at the time. (Very subjective opinion follows) In many ways D800 and up have what looks like a more faithful presentation of the original colour compared to the D700. However, a bit like analog and digital audio media. Even though analogue has the snap, crackle and pop nothing can come close to the sound for a person who prefers and has a good analogue rig. Digital is just, well, clean.
When it comes to shooting people, I really loved and still very much do, the D700. The D300/s comes very close at low ISO, you can tell they are cameras from the same era but D700 is really a special camera. ...Show more →
Does anybody have experience between D700 an D2X? I have a chance to buy one of them and D2X is half price of D700. It is mainly to use for indoor portrait with flash. I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I am aware of the differences between them (apec vs full frame, size weight, DR, etc). Which one has better skin tone/color? I have D3S and fujifilm S5Pro. Just want to add one more
jjcpa wrote:
Does anybody have experience between D700 an D2X? I have a chance to buy one of them and D2X is half price of D700. It is mainly to use for indoor portrait with flash. I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I am aware of the differences between them (apec vs full frame, size weight, DR, etc). Which one has better skin tone/color? I have D3S and fujifilm S5Pro. Just want to add one more
Thanks,
Jjcpa
I'm keeping it short because you know the differences.
First answer: Neither
Second Answer: D700. D2X turns 17 this year. The rubbers were a pain in 2010-2012 already.
Third answer: On a budget. D610. Because the game has moved and you may benefit from seeing for yourself how far it moved even 7 years ago.
