WHat is so bad about the D700 sensor? hmm
For those who like to argue ....
- Thread starter luckyorange
- Start date
WHat is so bad about the D700 sensor? hmm
wenbin0215
Senior Member
ijnek said:
I second that!! The "true" focal length on the lenses stay "true" in FX..
I think the benefits of a full frame are:
1. Shallow depth of field
2. Better low light performance due to less noise in high ISO settings (comparing latest generation FF sensors to latest gen crop sensors)
3. Both FX and DX mode available (D600 and D800, not sure about older bodies)
The advantages of a crop sensor is not so much in the IQ but more in the physical:
1. Smaller and lighter camera body
2. Smaller and lighter DX lenses
3. Longer (not physically) lenses by whatever the crop factor is
1. Shallow depth of field
2. Better low light performance due to less noise in high ISO settings (comparing latest generation FF sensors to latest gen crop sensors)
3. Both FX and DX mode available (D600 and D800, not sure about older bodies)
The advantages of a crop sensor is not so much in the IQ but more in the physical:
1. Smaller and lighter camera body
2. Smaller and lighter DX lenses
3. Longer (not physically) lenses by whatever the crop factor is
I believe you know what is the sensor used in D700 so i shall not feed you... the D700 sensor is outdated in today's technology although still quite capable but it lacks the high dynamic range, ISO performance and higher mega pixels of latest FX sensors in the market now. The D800's sensor is really a major step forward for Nikon...
Last edited:
nothing bad.. just old technology.. D600 with D700 sensor what advantages?? smaller body, got video compared to D700... i think many rather get the cheaper D700 with better focusing module and 51 focal points and a more "pro" type of body that many got custom to......
it didn't get any worse though, and still let's me pull back images from completely black shots. also faster than the d800. think the d3/700 were the first in a line of dslrs that would continue to give great results well into the future. granted the d800 is a leap forward. but i'm hardpressed, as a hobbyist, to think of a good reason to upgrade. the best i ve got so far is 100% vf and the 'look at how much i can zoom!!' thrill. video might be cool too.
i'll move up from the d700 someday. but when im thinking rationally, i'm not in a hurry to =P
edutilos-
Senior Member
Need or don't need, that really depends on the user and the situation during the shot. To have that ability to go very thin if needed to, is better then not having the ability to do so. There will be times creatively, you will want that thinner depth of field. At other times you can stop down.
And ISO and DR wise, there is simply no competition. And why people need insane ISO? Because there will be times you need to shoot in very bad light while trying to capture fast motion. Sure you can use flash... but having the ability gives you choices is really liberating for the man behind the camera. It just simply opens up so much more in terms of creative choices.
In the end, if you know what you need and don't need in your photography, that is great. But that has totally nothing to do with other people's needs. So there is really no point in trying to correlate your personal needs/experiences with others (or what you think others need or don't need).
Try shooting this with a DX cam. ISO 6400
Yes, it really depends on the individual.
Similarly, there is the other end of the scale when it comes to DOF. I know quite a few macro shooters who prefer using small-sensor cameras to shoot precisely because they can get far more DOF at the same aperture size than with FX, or even DX.
One needs to know what they need, and go from there. FX does provide more options in some ways (as mentioned, better high ISO noise control and shallower DOF - I personally think it's debatable whether DR is a clear win for FX, perhaps at higher ISOs?), but there are compromises that you would have to live with (e.g. generally larger/heavier size, more expensive/larger/heavier lenses IF you wish to maximize capabilities, etc).
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
If you are after really thin depth of field, do consider the "Brenizer method".
Yup. There will be costs in terms of weight and money. And yes it is individual. If one doesn't need the advantages that FX has to offer, then it makes no sense. I think that is what most people has been saying all along.
But if DX shooter run into a situation like the picture I posted above, with no flash or light on hand. They will be hard pressed to deliver a usable image.
So in the end every user has to ask what are their needs. Like for dniwkh, DX is probably all he will ever need. But that does not equate to everyone having the same set of needs, which what my post was about.
Last edited:
edutilos-
Senior Member
Yep, in the foreseeable future maybe DX will catch up, but I reckon there will always be a gap between the two. After all, it makes sense for the companies to have differentiated products (even to the extent of doing so artificially) to milk consumers. :bsmilie:
Yup. in the future everything can catch up. But for some, it is better to do it now, than to wait. And how much more expensive is a FF compared to a APS-C nowadays.. not that much. Even on lenses, there are cheaper alternatives as well.
Try shooting this with a DX cam. ISO 6400
kind of curious, why do you think a DX cam cannot do this shot? Other than it being a little noisier, I don't see why not...
you must understand that a DX cam has more DOF and thus you can get away with a bigger aperture for the same DOF. This will more or less cancel the ISO adv of FF.