For Simpo Two - D200 vs D700?
Discussion
Hi Simpo,
The question may have been asked in which case I apologise... I have a D200 and am lusting after a D700.... the investment in new lenses (and the selling of my DX set at a serious loss) being what keeps me so far. I saw you saying somewhere you went back to the D200 from the D700... Care to explain or point me to the thread where you did?
Many thanks in advance
Maarten
The question may have been asked in which case I apologise... I have a D200 and am lusting after a D700.... the investment in new lenses (and the selling of my DX set at a serious loss) being what keeps me so far. I saw you saying somewhere you went back to the D200 from the D700... Care to explain or point me to the thread where you did?
Many thanks in advance
Maarten
Greetings 
When I heard of the D700 - essentially a cut-down D3 but with the same epic low noise, I thought it was the perfect camera for me, as I frequently have to work in low light (churches etc). Now at last I could keep a decent shutter speed and simply crank up the ISO. So I was one of the first to get one.
These are my experiences; yours may vary.
Pros:
1) Outstanding low noise performance - in fact it can make you lazy as you can just snap away using ambient and not use flash (not always the best results though)
Cons:
1) Any DX lenses you used on the D200 are now largely useless - you can shoot in crop mode but it's only 5Mp. So you will end up selling your DX lenses and having to buy new ones that cover full frame.
2) But hang on - if you want to keep the D200 as back-up, you can't sell the DX lenses. You'll need two sets of lenses because moving a lens from the D700 to the D200 will increase your effective focal length by 50%. And going the other way, to get the same FOV and aperture as a 70-200 f2.8 you'll need a 300mm f2.8 - not an option!
3) FX sensors are more demanding on lenses. Lenses will be larger, heavier and more expensive, yet will lose quality in the corners. There is no direct equivalent of my favourite, the 17-55 f2.8. The new 24-70mm f2.8 doesn't have the reach, and is significantly bigger. Same for the older 28-70mm f2.8. There are two 24-85s - one is longer but slower and the other version, f2.8-4, isn't AF-S.
4) My favourite RAW processing software (C1 Pro) wouldn't handle D700 NEFs. I tried Nikon NX2, C1 V4 and Lightroom 2 but none operated the way I like.
So I found myself unhappily between DX and FX, and carting around two sets of everything, and being slowed down accordingly. Afer much debate I decided that for wedding work at least, on balance, DX was more appropriate. The D200 will go to ISO800 with acceptable noise, I can carry everything in one reasonably light bag and I get the extra reach of the DX crop.
The D700 may be technically better but for my purposes, and much to my surprise and disappointment, it wasn't the best all-round answer.
When I heard of the D700 - essentially a cut-down D3 but with the same epic low noise, I thought it was the perfect camera for me, as I frequently have to work in low light (churches etc). Now at last I could keep a decent shutter speed and simply crank up the ISO. So I was one of the first to get one.
These are my experiences; yours may vary.
Pros:
1) Outstanding low noise performance - in fact it can make you lazy as you can just snap away using ambient and not use flash (not always the best results though)
Cons:
1) Any DX lenses you used on the D200 are now largely useless - you can shoot in crop mode but it's only 5Mp. So you will end up selling your DX lenses and having to buy new ones that cover full frame.
2) But hang on - if you want to keep the D200 as back-up, you can't sell the DX lenses. You'll need two sets of lenses because moving a lens from the D700 to the D200 will increase your effective focal length by 50%. And going the other way, to get the same FOV and aperture as a 70-200 f2.8 you'll need a 300mm f2.8 - not an option!
3) FX sensors are more demanding on lenses. Lenses will be larger, heavier and more expensive, yet will lose quality in the corners. There is no direct equivalent of my favourite, the 17-55 f2.8. The new 24-70mm f2.8 doesn't have the reach, and is significantly bigger. Same for the older 28-70mm f2.8. There are two 24-85s - one is longer but slower and the other version, f2.8-4, isn't AF-S.
4) My favourite RAW processing software (C1 Pro) wouldn't handle D700 NEFs. I tried Nikon NX2, C1 V4 and Lightroom 2 but none operated the way I like.
So I found myself unhappily between DX and FX, and carting around two sets of everything, and being slowed down accordingly. Afer much debate I decided that for wedding work at least, on balance, DX was more appropriate. The D200 will go to ISO800 with acceptable noise, I can carry everything in one reasonably light bag and I get the extra reach of the DX crop.
The D700 may be technically better but for my purposes, and much to my surprise and disappointment, it wasn't the best all-round answer.
Many thanks for the elaborate answer, Simpo! I'm not a professional by any measure so I'd sell of the D200 & lenses.... but your points are very valid and to have my current reach from (in DX measures) 15-600 mm would cost a positive arm & leg... Some more thinking to do. The high ISO and shallower DOF are still tempting tho...
Again thanks for the time.
Maarten
Again thanks for the time.
Maarten
One other thing which was important to me - you can't get a single large histogram in playback. It may not be as technically accurate as red/green/blue histograms but those of the D700 are too small to be much use IMHO. There is a single large histogram tucked away - a configurable option for the centre press of the 4-way selector, but you can't then use that button for a 100% crop to check focus...
ETA: Lust is not a good reason for buying kit... if noise is the issue what about a D300? Noise is about a stop better than the D200, it's DX so all your lenses work as you like, plus bigger monitor with faster scrolling. Still wrong histograms though...
Final check question before rushing off with chequebook - will a D700 or D300 actually make your photos look any better in reality? What is your current limiting factor, you or kit?
ETA: Lust is not a good reason for buying kit... if noise is the issue what about a D300? Noise is about a stop better than the D200, it's DX so all your lenses work as you like, plus bigger monitor with faster scrolling. Still wrong histograms though...
Final check question before rushing off with chequebook - will a D700 or D300 actually make your photos look any better in reality? What is your current limiting factor, you or kit?
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 27th October 18:33
Simpo Two said:
Final check question before rushing off with chequebook - will a D700 or D300 actually make your photos look any better in reality? What is your current limiting factor, you or kit?
This is the best piece of advice you could give. I played around with a D3 and D700 this eve and these are truly stunning at high ISO, the FX gives IMHO amazing portraits but this would not make any improvement as at the end of the day its me that takes the photograph, the camera simply captures what you ask of it. The camera cant take a better photograph no matter what make or model, only I can, Im only just realising this myself now.I don't think that is completely the case.
I would consider myself distintly average and yet when I went from a 350d to a 1d with L glass the pictures look much nicer. I wouldn't have said the camera was limiting me before, it just so happens that with exactly the same settings a 1d produces a nicer image than a 350d.
I would consider myself distintly average and yet when I went from a 350d to a 1d with L glass the pictures look much nicer. I wouldn't have said the camera was limiting me before, it just so happens that with exactly the same settings a 1d produces a nicer image than a 350d.
Again, thanks for the feedback Simpo. Obviously the photographer tries to get the picture he/she wants and talent, largely, is much more important than the equipment... However, this gets a bit philosophical. There are more factors - the "I need the latest in technology" factor, the "Mine is bigger than yours" factor, the "I have the money so there" factor, the "OK my talent is average so the quickest way to somewhat better photo's is better equipment" factor. In a way, it is very comparable to the mainstay op PH - surely most people on here with nice cars do not even use 10% of the capabilities - the above factors are much much more important.
Not saying I disagree with you - I don't, but for most non-professionals on here these factors are important and often more important than the single "the photographer takes the picture" point. For those lucky ones where the result is the only thing that counts, I saw it recently said somewhere that only a very small percentage of the truly great photographs have the sharpness, color etc. that are being discussed to death amongst the gearheads.
Anyway, let's see.... what category am I in... well probably still the gearhead but over the years I do find myself moving to the camp striving for that one picture that perfectly captures the mood of a moment.
Not saying I disagree with you - I don't, but for most non-professionals on here these factors are important and often more important than the single "the photographer takes the picture" point. For those lucky ones where the result is the only thing that counts, I saw it recently said somewhere that only a very small percentage of the truly great photographs have the sharpness, color etc. that are being discussed to death amongst the gearheads.
Anyway, let's see.... what category am I in... well probably still the gearhead but over the years I do find myself moving to the camp striving for that one picture that perfectly captures the mood of a moment.
m12_nathan said:
I would consider myself distintly average and yet when I went from a 350d to a 1d with L glass the pictures look much nicer. I wouldn't have said the camera was limiting me before, it just so happens that with exactly the same settings a 1d produces a nicer image than a 350d.
But you obviously have the discerning ability to spot the difference mmertens said:
There are more factors - the "I need the latest in technology" factor, the "Mine is bigger than yours" factor, the "I have the money so there" factor, the "OK my talent is average so the quickest way to somewhat better photo's is better equipment" factor.
Yes, all very valid points. Image does play a role at weddings; regardless of the quality of results, you'd get some odd looks if you turned up with just a D40 and kit lens! mmertens said:
I saw it recently said somewhere that only a very small percentage of the truly great photographs have the sharpness, color etc. that are being discussed to death amongst the gearheads.
The thrill of finding noise at 200% crop does seem to have replaced finding and taking nice photographs, I think. But then the advent and rise of digital photography has brought vast numbers of people into the frame (doh, pun) who wouldn't otherwise have been interested - they would never have bothered with a film SLR.mmertens said:
Anyway, let's see.... what category am I in... well probably still the gearhead but over the years I do find myself moving to the camp striving for that one picture that perfectly captures the mood of a moment.
Yep, see the picture, not the pixels. And of course you need the appropriate gear to capture it. The D700 didn't work for me because it didn't fit my 'workflow', but as long as you know what you're getting into lens and processing-wise I'm sure you'll find it a great camera.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff