I took both of your images and set the black and white points in Photoshop. The D700 needed both the black and white points adjusted and it made a fairly significant difference. The D780 needed the white point set, and a smaller adjustment on the black point, with the result being less dramatic. Then I removed the blue tint in both images, opened up the shadows, and converted to black and white in Silver Efex. The final result was pretty significant, in my opinion. While the D780 has more detail on the tree limbs (to be expected with a sensor that has twice as many pixels), the D700 has a more pleasing overall look to the image (with the D780 looking more washed out). I would have preferred working on the original images of course and am not sure if the results would have been the same. I have had the D700 for many years and love the results I get with it. I bought the D750 when it came out, but sold it after taking 400 images, and have continued with my D700 up to the present. I have read that the unique image quality on the D700 is due to Nikon using a different senor supplier (normally it would be Sony). Whatever the reason, it is capable of some truly stunning images. I especially like it combined with the Nikon 85mm f1.4D. As you mentioned, the overall image is what is important, and this is where the D700 excels, in my opinion.
No the D700 sensor is not a SONY one. The D700 sensor NC81338L (CMOS) has been designed by Nikon and has been manufactured by "Matsushita" Join this group. facebook.com/groups/330500120976297/ "...We need to go deep in the technology of the sensors in order to understand how great the sensor of the D700 is. There are some factors that separate the D700 sensor of any other Nikon camera sensor. About D700 colors: What makes the D700 colours so special (including excellent skin tones) is its unique CFA together with a unique algorithm which applied to its sensor.(different than the D3 and D3s ones) After the D700, Nikon altered CFA filters in order to boost high ISO performance and fit a bigger number of mpx in the same size sensor. But this required making the filter less discriminating. The colour discrimination of the specific CFA allows the separation as a unique shade of any single basic colour. Modern cameras lighter CFAs simply cluster similar shades of a single colour. So, we are coming now to the most important off all the factors which called "Tonal gain" Tonal gain is what makes the D700 shots so special in dimensionality and depth. THE LOW PHOTOSITE DENSITY OF THE D700 SENSOR PRODUCES HIGH NATIVE GAIN WHICH PROVIDES EVERY SINGLE IMAGE WITH EXTRA DEPTH AND MICRO-CONTRAST, (3D Pop) DUE TO THE MICROCONTRAST, THE D700 SENSOR SEPARATES THE BULK OF THE SUBJECTS IN THE FRAME WITH A UNIQUE WAY. The explanation: This is the D700's sensor pixel area (Photosite):71.70µm2 and this is-a an example- the D850 sensor pixel area:18.88µm2 That means that the D700 sensor has 279% larger pixel area. So, let's see why this makes the difference in dimensionality and depth we see on many D700 shots. Light is a signal. This represents the tonality (colours, contrasts, details) of the subject. Its strength is defined by shutter speed and aperture. Pixel area (Photosite) is an antenna that receives the signal so it affects how much light per pixel can be gathered. The larger it is, the more light can be collected by a single pixel. BUT, The size of the photosite defines its native signal gain as well. For a camera to record the maximum amount of micro-contrast and depth off a good lens, it requires low photosite density for higher native gain. Tonal gain is NOT a dynamic range. The higher the native gain, the bigger is the gap between the peak of the gain and the noise floor over the same signal.- Photosites exist at various densities within the size of the camera sensor. Higher megapixel sensors have a higher density and lower native gain. The ISO defines the applied gain on the photosite so that it can receive a weaker signal. Increasing the gain raises the noise floor. The Analog to Digital Converter (A/D converter) converts the gained signal into digital information. The quality of the conversion is influenced by Bit Depth. The Signal to Noise Ratio firmware (SNR) separates the signal (the detail) from the noise (the noise) right before making the RAW file. If the converted gain is low, it will have a harder time figuring out the difference, therefore removing more signal. So the quality of the TONAL GAIN matters greatly final image-making. The current ideal photosite density is 12mp for the size of a full-frame sensor (Nikon D700 - 8.5 microns is ideal) This is a short list with some full-frame cameras and their pixel pitch. Full Frame Sensors Cameras Nikon D750 (5.9 microns) - 2014 14 bit Canon 6D (6.5 microns) - 2012 - 14 bit Canon 1Dx (6.9 microns) - 2011 14 bit Canon 5Dii (6.4 microns) - 2008 14 bit Nikon D3/D3s/D700 (8.5 microns) - 2008 - 14bit Canon 5D (8.1 microns) - 2005 - 12 bit..."
Boy you are exactly correct. I still have my D3 and D700 and have gone back to those bodies which I used when I was shooting New York City street photography, weddings and events and model portfolios from 2008 through two years ago. My D800, D750 and my recent Z7 are useful for certain jobs such as wildlife and macro. But the colors are not as accurate.
I have only D800 and D750 - so can not compare to D700 or d3. But what I do see is - the d800 is very good in good light conditions and then makes the very pleasing and natural looking photos, when using iso 100 up to 400 at least. The d750 is also good - somehow I like it not as much in this area but of course more then when getting in the higher iso range. I usually don't shoot in auto white-balance , but rather in certain range of kelvin - for instance something like 4800-5000 in daylight. This gives me the best results outdoors ! I do not really see the point in the general comparison of the d700 to the new d780 here. Of course the new one is much more accurate in the way in "sees" the scene. Auto white balance is for sure on a higher level and either low or high iso are better than with the good old d700. This said - of course the general photos with the d700 look pleasing and it is still a great camera for many things to use. It is just a strange comparison, for that it is not the same kind of pixel density and of course not as up to date auto white balance ( apart of many other things which are indeed very different between these two ). Concerning usability and flexibility I suppose the d780 is much superior in most regards. Just my 2 cents.
You’re nuts. The resolution and detail in the D800 is light years away from the D700 and D3. Not saying that the D700 doesn’t take spectacular photos but c’mon man. Being able to keep detail on crops along with bringing out shadows and more are needed capabilities for maximum image quality and today technology is much superior than stuff from 12 years ago. Again the D700 and the D3 are nice but the D800 runs circles around them both.
No, not really. Yes the resolution is much higher, but the grain is rendered more ugly and the image output is lifeless outside of megapixels. The D700 can achieve max fps of 8, and the D3 can do something close to 10. The D700 and D3 can work well for sports, with the D700 also looking great for portraits. The D800 is limiting to mostly stationary subjects. Both have advantages, but the D800 is not topping either of these.
I have 2-d700s , a d7000, a 750, z6 and z7. My modern Mirrorless are used primarily for video and professional work that requires more clinical detail. But for personal projects I can’t seem to shake the character and color processing of the 700s. I shoot a fair amount of film also in medium format and on an F100 & FM2n. The 700 just has a filmic feel in the files- hard to put my finger on it. Everyone is blindly racing toward more megapixels and more dynamic range and manufacturers have forgotten to put the magic back into their sensors.
tim i agree with your view of the d700 in part because i still shoot transparencies with my F4, FE and FM3a as well as b and w in my film camers....the d700 produces remarkable B and W images.
Thank you for the comparison! I only ever bought a D700 and a 24mm f1.4 lens. Have never had the money or time for anything else for the hobby - nevertheless, the results are always beautiful. I print on 13"x19", and anything larger than that would require expensive commercial printer, so I do not see the need for more MP's. Also, I would have no use of features like bluetooth/wifi, since it is much faster to directly transfer photos.
I’m a sucker for d700 videos. I love my D700 and still shoot film. I just purchased a new D850. I haven’t shot it enough to tell how it renders, but will never sell the D700.
Thank you for this very interesting video. I find that cameras from those years (2007-2010) still produce the best looking photos. Reason to be that they were using a different processors technology that was meant to attract film photographers into moving to full digital, creating cameras that would render images similarly to film. Anyway, the Nikon D700 as well as the Canon 5D create just stunning images.
That is my today's post on my group "Nikon D700/The Legend" Modern cameras = Better image quality?? Sorry! That is not the case! If you can't see the difference in colour/micro-contrast/dimensionality then is ok but your eye does not define physics and facts. If you want huge numbers of DR/MPX you should compromise. Manufacturers will never tell you the truth because their experience has taught them that the average customer does not need it! More dr/mpx/focus points/fps is the recipe for them to boost the sales! This is the killer combination for the legendary D700 image quality! - D700 legendary CFA - 8,5 micron of tonal gain -71.70µm2 of photosite size "...Does the “size” of the color filters really make a difference? Yes, but it’s more related to the “strength” of the color filters than their “size”. Weak filters have more overlap between the R, G, and B channels which allows more light through to the sensor. This helps support the greater pixel density of high resolution sensors and their improved high-ISO performance, but degrades the ability of these sensors to detect subtle tonal shifts. After the D700, Nikon altered CFA filters in order to boost high ISO performance and fit a bigger number of mpx in the same size sensor. But this required making the filter less discriminating. The strong D700 CFA allows the separation as a unique shade of any single basic colour. Modern cameras lighter CFAs simply cluster similar shades of a single colour. Good processing is critical to preserving microcontrast? Remember that microcontrast is fundamentally an image property. To get it in the image you need a lens that can transmit it, a sensor that can record it, and processing that reveals it. Break any one of these links and microcontrast suffers..."
You need to bring the images into Capture NX or whatever Nikon calls it these days. Using Adobe is hit or miss. You're at their mercy for color and tone, and their manufacturer profiles are sketchy at best. Nikon's software replicates the camera's rendition. This is more a test of how well Adobe made its profiles vs the quality of the cameras, since this isn't anything close to a challenging scene.
Yes, this is what I just found out...In NX studio the colors and rendering is very good. Don't need any tweaking. In Lightroom it's really bad sometimes.
Interesting video Allen. I really enjoy the images from my D700 which seem much more pleasing and with character than my D750, even if the second of those two beats it at everything else like focus speed and low light performance. Nice to have both but I get more special pictures from the older camera. I heard the Canon 5d classic was better so got one in the summer. It does produce nice pictures but I found it hard work and it hasn't aged nearly as well as the D700, in my opinion.
Hi Joe, Thanks and great to hear your experiences are the same. I used a D800 for a year and for me, was the worst of all my Nikons - in spite of everyone raving about 36mp. Regards Allen
Thanks for the comparison, I will hold onto my D700 for quite some time. I'd like to point out that the images will always look different with sync due to the sensors being 6 generations apart. The dynamic range is always going to be higher on the 780, it would've been better to drop the shadows or lift them on the 700 to get a similar DR and contrast. Active D lighting may also have been on with the 780. All in all I still agree that the 700 has more character in the image minus the DR and i'm not looking at replacing it. 12mp is plenty if you're not cropping heavily and easy to work with. Cheers.
The large photosites mean that you have a very high signal-to-noise ratio - coupled with high colour accuracy and good dynamic range (that’s what I mean about high-durability pixels). In fact, exposed and processed with care, you can get around 13 useable stops out of the camera - which is right up against the limit of its 14-bit raw files. This does require judicious use of the highlight recover slider in ACR and a little deliberate overexposure (a stop is quite doable) - so you have to plan for it at the time of the shooting. In any case, any more dynamic range looks unnatural and flat - remember, screens at best can only display 8 bits of tonal range, and even less for print...
Thanks for that little video. I am sure the D700 renders differently to the D780, but this comparison does not quite convince me. In particular, that blue patch, which gives its "character" to the D700 picture: it was either there in reality or it was not. If it was there in reality at the same time for both shots, then both cameras would show it, even if they showed it differently. Winding back the video, I do not see any fleeting change of tint, but that does not mean it was not there. Just a shimmer of breeze can be enough to thin out the fog for a few seconds. There was a time gap between the two shots (time it took for you to swap bodies and lens), so you are in reality not taking simultaneous pics. Also, the way you tweaked the sliders in LR will have made visible things that are not discernable in the video. In a nutshell, I am not convinced by this exercise, even though I do believe in the existence of some "magic pixel dust" that blesses some sensors more than others (I have that experience with my old Df and am now considering a D4-might get a D700 one day as well).
Doesn't the D700 distinguish between a 50mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.4G lens? And shouldn't the ISO, speed an aperture be the same for truer comparison? Also, there was fog all around that tree, where does that blue patch comes from in the D700?
Well don Allan. From one dinosaur to another, I can say that I love my D700, so such a degree that my channel is almost developing into a D700 channel. I also have the D750, the A7RII, the X-T3 and the X-T20 - all wonderful cameras in each their way, but IQ is something special with the D700. Can I ask what microphone you use for your videos? The car that passed buy sounded really live!
I love my D700 and I'm looking for a second. If anyone is interested I posted a video about enlarging the D700 files through Gigapixel AI. The results are amazing and it's probably down to the fat pixels on the D700 that GP does such a good job.
Cannot in truth say that this was a good comparison. One set could have been taken with lesser fog so to speak and the 780 set when the fog slightly thicker. Also, it would have been good to see both sets without any editing straight from each camera. Sorry, not a good way to compare two cameras.
What you’re actually doing is comparing D780 settings on a D700 image… can you compare the images with independent editing except for similar field of view?
Thank you for the video..... I’m planning to purchase D750 with 105mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 G lens.. I’m wondering is it still worth to buy this camera considering 5 year old. My purpose of buying camera is for Portraits, Still, Landscape, Bird and of course my tiny kids. It would be really great if you throw some light to make my decision.... other option I have D780 with either of one lens only... thank you and looking forward your recommendation.
Firstly the 750 maybe a few years old but is virtually as good as the 780 but lacks the z6 live view focus. For your use the 750 will give you everything you want. I only got the 780 for weddings and its face and eye af which occasionally is useful. Good luck Allen
First of all - if you do shoot videos as well, the d780 is much superior to the d750. Live view is on a whole new level - really comparable to the Z6 ! And Autofocus is also slightly quicker and - though the d750 has already a face detection function, the new d780 is much more reliable in this area ! It really depends on what your main focus is on : Faster focusing and some more video - you should get the d780 for sure ! For all other things they are very close in performance - apart of the nice extras like touchscreen for the new one !
...ever thought about using the nikon raw converter? youre not seeing anything about the camera but about lightroom. the colors are from adobe, the contrast, the color profile,.... it's just not the color from nikon anymore as long youre not using nikon raw converters.
I really do love the D700 images but in low light situations (which I often get at Weddings) it would really struggle - I guess 10 years ago clients accepted lower image quality but now I wouldn't dare provide anything but really good images - hence the D780
@@MyKonaRC a shutter speed too. With the fog 100 vs 600 its a difference, cz fog is moving, also you can't take same photos even on same settings cz of the fog and sun lights. This test is so bad, just for comments like "oh i love my old d700".
I think back then I had the Nikon 50 1.4g. I found this lens really soft and whilst I prefer character over sharpness I do need it to be reasonable. Maybe just my lens was at fault but have changed to a sigma 1.4art and super sharp but a little less character. For weddings my main lenses are the 35f2d and 85f1.4d. both full of character and sharp.
As a D700 owner the 780 pic is better in almost every way. But for the price differential you can’t beat the 700. And there is Merritt to the 700’s “Artsyness” But the 780 is a superior machine in every way. I get it, playing on peoples romantic emotions make money on UA-cam content.
How can you do a fair comparison if your ISO, shutter speed, and f stop setting are completely different in each camera’s picture?...LMAO. This is hardly a fair comparison.
I took both of your images and set the black and white points in Photoshop. The D700 needed both the black and white points adjusted and it made a fairly significant difference. The D780 needed the white point set, and a smaller adjustment on the black point, with the result being less dramatic. Then I removed the blue tint in both images, opened up the shadows, and converted to black and white in Silver Efex. The final result was pretty significant, in my opinion. While the D780 has more detail on the tree limbs (to be expected with a sensor that has twice as many pixels), the D700 has a more pleasing overall look to the image (with the D780 looking more washed out). I would have preferred working on the original images of course and am not sure if the results would have been the same.
I have had the D700 for many years and love the results I get with it. I bought the D750 when it came out, but sold it after taking 400 images, and have continued with my D700 up to the present. I have read that the unique image quality on the D700 is due to Nikon using a different senor supplier (normally it would be Sony). Whatever the reason, it is capable of some truly stunning images. I especially like it combined with the Nikon 85mm f1.4D. As you mentioned, the overall image is what is important, and this is where the D700 excels, in my opinion.
No the D700 sensor is not a SONY one.
The D700 sensor NC81338L (CMOS) has been designed by Nikon and has been manufactured by "Matsushita"
Join this group.
facebook.com/groups/330500120976297/
"...We need to go deep in the technology of the sensors in order to understand how great the sensor of the D700 is.
There are some factors that separate the D700 sensor of any other Nikon camera sensor.
About D700 colors:
What makes the D700 colours so special (including excellent skin tones) is its unique CFA together with a unique algorithm which applied to its sensor.(different than the D3 and D3s ones)
After the D700, Nikon altered CFA filters in order to boost high ISO performance and fit a bigger number of mpx in the same size sensor. But this required making the filter less discriminating.
The colour discrimination of the specific CFA allows the separation as a unique shade of any single basic colour. Modern cameras lighter CFAs simply cluster similar shades of a single colour.
So, we are coming now to the most important off all the factors which called "Tonal gain"
Tonal gain is what makes the D700 shots so special in dimensionality and depth.
THE LOW PHOTOSITE DENSITY OF THE D700 SENSOR PRODUCES HIGH NATIVE GAIN WHICH PROVIDES EVERY SINGLE IMAGE WITH EXTRA DEPTH AND MICRO-CONTRAST, (3D Pop)
DUE TO THE MICROCONTRAST, THE D700 SENSOR SEPARATES THE BULK OF THE SUBJECTS IN THE FRAME WITH A UNIQUE WAY.
The explanation:
This is the D700's sensor pixel area (Photosite):71.70µm2 and this is-a an example- the D850 sensor pixel area:18.88µm2 That means that the D700 sensor has 279% larger pixel area.
So, let's see why this makes the difference in dimensionality and depth we see on many D700 shots.
Light is a signal. This represents the tonality (colours, contrasts, details) of the subject. Its strength is defined by shutter speed and aperture.
Pixel area (Photosite) is an antenna that receives the signal so it affects how much light per pixel can be gathered. The larger it is, the more light can be collected by a single pixel. BUT, The size of the photosite defines its native signal gain as well.
For a camera to record the maximum amount of micro-contrast and depth off a good lens, it requires low photosite density for higher native gain.
Tonal gain is NOT a dynamic range.
The higher the native gain, the bigger is the gap between the peak of the gain and the noise floor over the same signal.-
Photosites exist at various densities within the size of the camera sensor. Higher megapixel sensors have a higher density and lower native gain.
The ISO defines the applied gain on the photosite so that it can receive a weaker signal. Increasing the gain raises the noise floor.
The Analog to Digital Converter (A/D converter) converts the gained signal into digital information. The quality of the conversion is influenced by Bit Depth.
The Signal to Noise Ratio firmware (SNR) separates the signal (the detail) from the noise (the noise) right before making the RAW file. If the converted gain is low, it will have a harder time figuring out the difference, therefore removing more signal.
So the quality of the TONAL GAIN matters greatly final image-making.
The current ideal photosite density is 12mp for the size of a full-frame sensor (Nikon D700 - 8.5 microns is ideal)
This is a short list with some full-frame cameras and their pixel pitch.
Full Frame Sensors Cameras
Nikon D750 (5.9 microns) - 2014 14 bit
Canon 6D (6.5 microns) - 2012 - 14 bit
Canon 1Dx (6.9 microns) - 2011 14 bit
Canon 5Dii (6.4 microns) - 2008 14 bit
Nikon D3/D3s/D700 (8.5 microns) - 2008 - 14bit
Canon 5D (8.1 microns) - 2005 - 12 bit..."
I have a d700 and two D3. I keep them because they make “natural” photos. 800 and 750 do not compare.
Absolutely agree
Boy you are exactly correct. I still have my D3 and D700 and have gone back to those bodies which I used when I was shooting New York City street photography, weddings and events and model portfolios from 2008 through two years ago. My D800, D750 and my recent Z7 are useful for certain jobs such as wildlife and macro. But the colors are not as accurate.
I have only D800 and D750 - so can not compare to D700 or d3.
But what I do see is - the d800 is very good in good light conditions and then makes the very pleasing and natural looking photos, when using iso 100 up to 400 at least.
The d750 is also good - somehow I like it not as much in this area but of course more then when getting in the higher iso range.
I usually don't shoot in auto white-balance , but rather in certain range of kelvin - for instance something like 4800-5000 in daylight. This gives me the best results outdoors !
I do not really see the point in the general comparison of the d700 to the new d780 here.
Of course the new one is much more accurate in the way in "sees" the scene. Auto white balance is for sure on a higher level and either low or high iso are better than with the good old d700.
This said - of course the general photos with the d700 look pleasing and it is still a great camera for many things to use. It is just a strange comparison, for that it is not the same kind of pixel density and of course not as up to date auto white balance ( apart of many other things which are indeed very different between these two ).
Concerning usability and flexibility I suppose the d780 is much superior in most regards.
Just my 2 cents.
You’re nuts. The resolution and detail in the D800 is light years away from the D700 and D3. Not saying that the D700 doesn’t take spectacular photos but c’mon man. Being able to keep detail on crops along with bringing out shadows and more are needed capabilities for maximum image quality and today technology is much superior than stuff from 12 years ago. Again the D700 and the D3 are nice but the D800 runs circles around them both.
No, not really. Yes the resolution is much higher, but the grain is rendered more ugly and the image output is lifeless outside of megapixels. The D700 can achieve max fps of 8, and the D3 can do something close to 10. The D700 and D3 can work well for sports, with the D700 also looking great for portraits. The D800 is limiting to mostly stationary subjects. Both have advantages, but the D800 is not topping either of these.
I have 2-d700s , a d7000, a 750, z6 and z7. My modern Mirrorless are used primarily for video and professional work that requires more clinical detail. But for personal projects I can’t seem to shake the character and color processing of the 700s. I shoot a fair amount of film also in medium format and on an F100 & FM2n. The 700 just has a filmic feel in the files- hard to put my finger on it. Everyone is blindly racing toward more megapixels and more dynamic range and manufacturers have forgotten to put the magic back into their sensors.
Absolutely spot on. Megapixels don't beat fairy dust 😄
hi Tim- for semi pro sports i shoot d700 but i cannot crop- should i get a z6?
tim i agree with your view of the d700 in part because i still shoot transparencies with my F4, FE and FM3a as well as b and w in my film camers....the d700 produces remarkable B and W images.
Thank you for the comparison! I only ever bought a D700 and a 24mm f1.4 lens. Have never had the money or time for anything else for the hobby - nevertheless, the results are always beautiful. I print on 13"x19", and anything larger than that would require expensive commercial printer, so I do not see the need for more MP's. Also, I would have no use of features like bluetooth/wifi, since it is much faster to directly transfer photos.
Join us here:
facebook.com/groups/330500120976297/
Hi Allan. Just noticed on your monitor that both cameras are at different settings! Would of been interesting having them set at the same peramaters.
would have been nice to see the SOOC pics.
I’m a sucker for d700 videos. I love my D700 and still shoot film. I just purchased a new D850. I haven’t shot it enough to tell how it renders, but will never sell the D700.
I'd have gone for the 850 over the 780 but I really don't want 1500 photos at 45mp from a wedding day. Just too much!
@@CreativePixelPhotos Imagine the Sony 7R4, Ha!
How's the D850 so far?
@@michannestudio awesome
D780 is probably better for video but, I still think the D850 is the best all around DSLR ever made when it comes to photos.
Thank you for this very interesting video. I find that cameras from those years (2007-2010) still produce the best looking photos. Reason to be that they were using a different processors technology that was meant to attract film photographers into moving to full digital, creating cameras that would render images similarly to film. Anyway, the Nikon D700 as well as the Canon 5D create just stunning images.
That is my today's post on my group
"Nikon D700/The Legend"
Modern cameras = Better image quality??
Sorry! That is not the case!
If you can't see the difference in colour/micro-contrast/dimensionality then is ok but your eye does not define physics and facts.
If you want huge numbers of DR/MPX you should compromise.
Manufacturers will never tell you the truth because their experience has taught them that the average customer does not need it!
More dr/mpx/focus points/fps is the recipe for them to boost the sales!
This is the killer combination for the legendary D700 image quality!
- D700 legendary CFA
- 8,5 micron of tonal gain
-71.70µm2 of photosite size
"...Does the “size” of the color filters really make a difference?
Yes, but it’s more related to the “strength” of the color filters than their “size”. Weak filters have more overlap between the R, G, and B channels which allows more light through to the sensor. This helps support the greater pixel density of high resolution sensors and their improved high-ISO performance, but degrades the ability of these sensors to detect subtle tonal shifts.
After the D700, Nikon altered CFA filters in order to boost high ISO performance and fit a bigger number of mpx in the same size sensor. But this required making the filter less discriminating. The strong D700 CFA allows the separation as a unique shade of any single basic colour. Modern cameras lighter CFAs simply cluster similar shades of a single colour.
Good processing is critical to preserving microcontrast?
Remember that microcontrast is fundamentally an image property. To get it in the image you need a lens that can transmit it, a sensor that can record it, and processing that reveals it. Break any one of these links and microcontrast suffers..."
Interesting - I can see the logic in what you say. Thanks and all the best
You need to bring the images into Capture NX or whatever Nikon calls it these days. Using Adobe is hit or miss. You're at their mercy for color and tone, and their manufacturer profiles are sketchy at best. Nikon's software replicates the camera's rendition. This is more a test of how well Adobe made its profiles vs the quality of the cameras, since this isn't anything close to a challenging scene.
Yes, this is what I just found out...In NX studio the colors and rendering is very good. Don't need any tweaking. In Lightroom it's really bad sometimes.
Interesting video Allen. I really enjoy the images from my D700 which seem much more pleasing and with character than my D750, even if the second of those two beats it at everything else like focus speed and low light performance. Nice to have both but I get more special pictures from the older camera. I heard the Canon 5d classic was better so got one in the summer. It does produce nice pictures but I found it hard work and it hasn't aged nearly as well as the D700, in my opinion.
Hi Joe, Thanks and great to hear your experiences are the same. I used a D800 for a year and for me, was the worst of all my Nikons - in spite of everyone raving about 36mp. Regards Allen
Joe,join us here:
facebook.com/groups/330500120976297/
Thanks for the comparison, I will hold onto my D700 for quite some time. I'd like to point out that the images will always look different with sync due to the sensors being 6 generations apart. The dynamic range is always going to be higher on the 780, it would've been better to drop the shadows or lift them on the 700 to get a similar DR and contrast. Active D lighting may also have been on with the 780. All in all I still agree that the 700 has more character in the image minus the DR and i'm not looking at replacing it. 12mp is plenty if you're not cropping heavily and easy to work with. Cheers.
The large photosites mean that you have a very high signal-to-noise ratio - coupled with high colour accuracy and good dynamic range (that’s what I mean about high-durability pixels). In fact, exposed and processed with care, you can get around 13 useable stops out of the camera - which is right up against the limit of its 14-bit raw files. This does require judicious use of the highlight recover slider in ACR and a little deliberate overexposure (a stop is quite doable) - so you have to plan for it at the time of the shooting. In any case, any more dynamic range looks unnatural and flat - remember, screens at best can only display 8 bits of tonal range, and even less for print...
Thanks for that little video. I am sure the D700 renders differently to the D780, but this comparison does not quite convince me. In particular, that blue patch, which gives its "character" to the D700 picture: it was either there in reality or it was not. If it was there in reality at the same time for both shots, then both cameras would show it, even if they showed it differently. Winding back the video, I do not see any fleeting change of tint, but that does not mean it was not there. Just a shimmer of breeze can be enough to thin out the fog for a few seconds. There was a time gap between the two shots (time it took for you to swap bodies and lens), so you are in reality not taking simultaneous pics. Also, the way you tweaked the sliders in LR will have made visible things that are not discernable in the video. In a nutshell, I am not convinced by this exercise, even though I do believe in the existence of some "magic pixel dust" that blesses some sensors more than others (I have that experience with my old Df and am now considering a D4-might get a D700 one day as well).
Doesn't the D700 distinguish between a 50mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.4G lens? And shouldn't the ISO, speed an aperture be the same for truer comparison? Also, there was fog all around that tree, where does that blue patch comes from in the D700?
Well don Allan. From one dinosaur to another, I can say that I love my D700, so such a degree that my channel is almost developing into a D700 channel. I also have the D750, the A7RII, the X-T3 and the X-T20 - all wonderful cameras in each their way, but IQ is something special with the D700. Can I ask what microphone you use for your videos? The car that passed buy sounded really live!
Ha. For that video it was just my Huawei phone. Does damn good video for a phone!
@@CreativePixelPhotos Ha-ha! Indeed - that little microphone did a splendid job!
I love my D700 and I'm looking for a second. If anyone is interested I posted a video about enlarging the D700 files through Gigapixel AI. The results are amazing and it's probably down to the fat pixels on the D700 that GP does such a good job.
Join us here Marty
facebook.com/groups/330500120976297/
Where js that video? I have a D700 and find that I can only use gigapixel with buildings, flowers, cars, ect. and NOT human portraits. Any tips?
D700 - one camera to rule them all.
Thanks for sharing... I still use my D500 and very happy with results...I have always used Nikon gear & wouldn't change... rgds..
The D500 is a fantastic camera and after my departure to Sony for 2 years I really am so glad to be back with Nikon.
Cannot in truth say that this was a good comparison. One set could have been taken with lesser fog so to speak and the 780 set when the fog slightly thicker. Also, it would have been good to see both sets without any editing straight from each camera. Sorry, not a good way to compare two cameras.
What you’re actually doing is comparing D780 settings on a D700 image… can you compare the images with independent editing except for similar field of view?
Thank you for the video..... I’m planning to purchase D750 with 105mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 G lens.. I’m wondering is it still worth to buy this camera considering 5 year old. My purpose of buying camera is for Portraits, Still, Landscape, Bird and of course my tiny kids. It would be really great if you throw some light to make my decision.... other option I have D780 with either of one lens only... thank you and looking forward your recommendation.
Firstly the 750 maybe a few years old but is virtually as good as the 780 but lacks the z6 live view focus. For your use the 750 will give you everything you want. I only got the 780 for weddings and its face and eye af which occasionally is useful. Good luck Allen
@@CreativePixelPhotos thank you so much for advise 👍🏻
First of all - if you do shoot videos as well, the d780 is much superior to the d750.
Live view is on a whole new level - really comparable to the Z6 !
And Autofocus is also slightly quicker and - though the d750 has already a face detection function, the new d780 is much more reliable in this area !
It really depends on what your main focus is on :
Faster focusing and some more video - you should get the d780 for sure !
For all other things they are very close in performance - apart of the nice extras like touchscreen for the new one !
...ever thought about using the nikon raw converter? youre not seeing anything about the camera but about lightroom. the colors are from adobe, the contrast, the color profile,.... it's just not the color from nikon anymore as long youre not using nikon raw converters.
You were shooting in drastically changing atmospheric conditions, which will make a difference in the look of the images.
What camera you are using for filming yourself and the tree?
That was actually just my phone! Huawei p30.
@@CreativePixelPhotos Love the grade.
Not the best of conditions for a test like this. Also some portait's, nature close ups , etc. with some color would be a more complete test.
I definitely go with the d700
I really do love the D700 images but in low light situations (which I often get at Weddings) it would really struggle - I guess 10 years ago clients accepted lower image quality but now I wouldn't dare provide anything but really good images - hence the D780
the d700 image looks more real given the environment when you were shooting
does the d700 not have a sony sensor?
No, Panasonic 😊
I love my D700.
Join us on Fb
"Nikon D700/The Legend"
Yes i love how fat pixel cameras render images. Thats why i have both the d700 and 5Dmk1
It’s not the same settings
1.3 stops, big deal
@@MyKonaRC a shutter speed too. With the fog 100 vs 600 its a difference, cz fog is moving, also you can't take same photos even on same settings cz of the fog and sun lights. This test is so bad, just for comments like "oh i love my old d700".
d700 good forever. both 700 & d3 have the knack of producing film quality
Yes sure they'll both become collectors cameras.
@@CreativePixelPhotos d3 - canon?
d700 image is somehow more authentic.
Of course the Sony didn't help you , taking better photos. It's not the camera, it's the man behind what matters !!!
What 50mm lens did you use?
I think back then I had the Nikon 50 1.4g. I found this lens really soft and whilst I prefer character over sharpness I do need it to be reasonable. Maybe just my lens was at fault but have changed to a sigma 1.4art and super sharp but a little less character. For weddings my main lenses are the 35f2d and 85f1.4d. both full of character and sharp.
780 or 810?)))
Hi. I'm doing a dedicated D780 video today so watch out for that as might be useful 😊
The long & the short of it is Sony makes all consumer electronics , Nikon makes cameras .
For the D700 Nikon also made the sensor. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
As a D700 owner the 780 pic is better in almost every way. But for the price differential you can’t beat the 700. And there is Merritt to the 700’s “Artsyness” But the 780 is a superior machine in every way. I get it, playing on peoples romantic emotions make money on UA-cam content.
How can you do a fair comparison if your ISO, shutter speed, and f stop setting are completely different in each camera’s picture?...LMAO. This is hardly a fair comparison.
The D780 looks much better.
Never sell the D700
D780 is better but not 2000 dollars better 🤣