AndreasE wrote:
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)
Makes me want to sell my Canon 5D and buy a D700. I'm hoping comes out with something as good as the D700 if not I'm turning to the dark side..he...Awesome shots...
I have the D3 and both MK IIIs (sold my 5D not in the same class for low ISO). I have shot thousand of excellent shot with the D3 (identical hi ISO performance) @ ISO 6400. I have not experience with long exposures thought. Otherwise the D700 should be a fine value for hi ISO. Likely the 5D MK II will be better otherwise Canon will wait until it is.
gman1339 those iso 10000 shots are nothing short of incredible. What Nikon has done with image quality on a 12mp FF and DX sensors is world class. It will be interesting to see what Canon brings forth in the way of a D700 competitor. The 5D is still a great camera but the D700 with the total sum of all it's capabilities is really something special.
From what little I know, as far as long exposures (10 sec > are concerned, nothing can beat a transparency. I tried some with DSLRs at ISO 100/200 (Canon EOS 350D and Nikon D40), but the results were not as 'smooth' as some of my older long exposures (shot on Ektachrome using a Nikon FM10). Can't say about the D700 though but I read somewhere that digital sensors are unable to handle the heat that long exposures entail and noise, therefore, becomes conspicuous even at low ISOs.. Apologies if I have deviated from the topic here.
davenfl wrote:
gman1339 those iso 10000 shots are nothing short of incredible. What Nikon has done with image quality on a 12mp FF and DX sensors is world class. It will be interesting to see what Canon brings forth in the way of a D700 competitor. The 5D is still a great camera but the D700 with the total sum of all it's capabilities is really something special.
Thanks davenfl. A year ago I would not have even tried shooting this rodeo.
Mayank B wrote:
From what little I know, as far as long exposures (10 sec > are concerned, nothing can beat a transparency. I tried some with DSLRs at ISO 100/200 (Canon EOS 350D and Nikon D40), but the results were not as 'smooth' as some of my older long exposures (shot on Ektachrome using a Nikon FM10). Can't say about the D700 though but I read somewhere that digital sensors are unable to handle the heat that long exposures entail and noise, therefore, becomes conspicuous even at low ISOs.. Apologies if I have deviated from the topic here.
Not sure why no one posts up a 100% crop of the image they plan on posting...it would obviously help to see the performance at the given ISO. images scaled down for viewing on the web don't help much
Wallybud wrote:
Not sure why no one posts up a 100% crop of the image they plan on posting...it would obviously help to see the performance at the given ISO. images scaled down for viewing on the web don't help much
You also have to realize that a 100% crop does not help for showing what you would see in a typical print. On my 19" widescreen running at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 an image that is 800 pixels wide is equivalent to looking at a photo that is 8 inches wide.
are concerned, nothing can beat a transparency. I tried some with DSLRs at ISO 100/200 (Canon EOS 350D and Nikon D40), but the results were not as 'smooth' as some of my older long exposures (shot on Ektachrome using a Nikon FM10). Can't say about the D700 though but I read somewhere that digital sensors are unable to handle the heat that long exposures entail and noise, therefore, becomes conspicuous even at low ISOs.. Apologies if I have deviated from the topic here.