As a D700 user the sensor is superb considering it’s age it’s still producing the goods it’s one of the best cameras I own there has been a lots of videos on the D700 on UA-cam and it always delivers
Hello Allen. I'm a very irresponsible (and stupid) person - I've bought, shot with and sold way too many cameras and systems over the years. And I recently bought a d700...for the fourth time... As a result I sold my a7iii system, put up my Fuji x-t5 system for sale and will be getting rid of my z50 and zfc system after that... There is just something about the d700... I've never enjoyed a camera so much and loved the shots that came out of it so much. I believe I can finally settle down with my fourth d700 and be happy. Maybe ad a df again too haha.
what are your favorite lenses with it? I also rcently bought it and so far the best color and quality I got from tamron 70-300, not sure what other lenses to try.
I shoot weddings on 2x D4 and a d700 as a backup/3rd camera. Without question these 2 cameras produce the best images of any of the many cameras I've owned. I think the 12 and 16 mp sensors have a massive part in that. I love my d700 so much that I own 2 haha!
Hi Allen, I have followed your videos on the D500, Z6II, D780 and 850 and I found them to be the most interesting and well-founded. Sorry my english is not my native language. I looked at the images, covering up the detail from which camera they came from, and I immediately noticed that the photo on the left had the richest, most saturated colors, the red, the blue of the hoses, or the little brown of the wood on the ceiling. So I thought, maybe too quickly, that the Z6II has to be the one with the most vibrant and contrasting colors by the BSI and blah blah blah. To my surprise it is exactly the other way around. I see warmer, yellower tones on the Z6II, almost like they have a filter that affects everything else. I especially notice it in the background shed. I wonder if a lot of time has passed between shots and the existing light color has changed and that can explain such a change. On the D700 I see more nicer colors and the sky also looks much more natural than on the Z6II. I also agree with your wife.
Thank you very much, this was very insightful and helpful. The D700 has IMHO better reds and blues, the Z6 II better greens. The later is clearly visible, I think, if you compare the wooden fence in the middle of the pictures, the D700 picture looks a bit duller or rather with a slight yellow (or red) overcast. You mentioned the red water can and the blue bucket in the background, but the real winner in my opinion for the D700 is the sky here. Two to one in regards to colour and I like reds and blues a bit more than greens, so the D700 is a clear winner for me. Regarding the left side and background wall elements the D700 looks brighter and better to me. Is this maybe due to the "physics" of a 12 MP versus 24 MP sensor despite the age difference? Whatever, your fantastic comparison proved to me a couple of claims made often online: 1. There are some very good, capable and uniquely rendering older cameras out there. The D700 and the original Canon EOS 5d are the best known, the D200 and 6D are others 2. Digital sensors AND the processing in the respective camera body have combined one similar property as film stocks, creating a look which is difficult to impossible to achieve with another camera (or film stock) in post production. Thanks again and please continue the good work! Allt the best.
The D700 has more depth to the image and a more saturated colour palette. The Z6 has a greener cast. However, you used auto-WB for both. It would be interesting to see the same comparison with a fixed WB.
The D700 has more depth to the image and a more saturated colour palette but also the D700 has: 1/Colour fidelity /accuracy 2/ Discriminated hues. 3/ Vibrancy 4/ Contrast and better shadows recovery. 5/ More pop and character. All of the above optical qualities don't change with a different WB. They are optical qualities that are created from the D700 sensor and its legendary CFA and are recorded as data in the RAW file. All the above are the result of a Legendary D700 CFA, the huge 8.5 microns tonal gain and a huge photosite number 71.70µm2.
D700 looks much nicer. Might be one of the best colour pallettes of any digital cameras ever made. At least top 5. But its not just relative to their Z cameras, it also applies to all the Nikon DSLR cameras that came after the D700 with the exception of the D4 and D600/610 which also have very nice colours. Here is the issue. There is a green cast which very visible, at least to my eye. Yet very unintuitive to fix. The tint slider wont fix it. This really degrades the richness of the reds and blues. The greens also have too much of a yellow hue. Its the same on Sony cameras but significantly worse. You can really notice how green everything is in neutralish tones like dark browns. Canon doesn't have this issue on their DSLR range which is probay why people love the colours on those cameras. Canons also had less dynamic range so they tended to be a bit more punchy, which is probably why people rave about canon colour science. However canon's mirrorless cameras do suffer from digital greenness and the colours arent as nice as they used to be.Fujifilm are also very good when it comes to rich reds and blues and not over saturated greens, probably thanks to their x-trans sensor design. Bayer filters do mean that digital cameras have twice as many green pixels as they do blue or red and they are found in a regular pattern. This means there are lines running diagonally across your sensor that have no red or blue information . This I think is part of the problem. You can fix this colour shift in lightroom if you go to the calibration panel. Shift the greens to a bit more blue and reduce the saturation. Shift the blue a hint to the cyan and increase the saturation on the reds. Then set your white balance. Go to the colour mixer, decrease the saturation on the orange and increase the lightness of the oranges if you want to improve skin tones. Then decrease the green channel saturation, but balance it by also reducing the lightness of the greens. This should get you closer on later nikon models but every image different and will need different tweaks. But it should be a good starting point. Same for Sony, except you also have to deal with and balance it with weird magentas, so probably calibrate the red channel to be more orangey red if on a sony. In addition to colour, there are also much more pleasing tonal graduations on the d700 and d600/610, more microcontrast (3D pop) as long as you have a lens that can render the 3D pop. This makes black and white images look amazing.
I've got a couple of D700 cameras , plus a D810 . Great results from them all and no complaints . In fact , I've had two exhibitions using only D700 cameras . Will not part with these three and use any further purchases on lenses .
Pound for pound and the value the D700 gives you it’s a no brainer you won’t find many photographers both pro or amateur disagree it’s a gem of a camera
You need more than just one photo to jugde what camera gives the best results. A comaparison like this should include at least 5 photos of different motives in different ligh. And white balance should be set to the same number in each camera, not auto, just to blow that doubt away. That said, I bought my D700 the same week it was released. I have always been happy with it, it never let me down. The last years I have been using a D4 and I was planning to sell the D700 for nearly nothing, but I have changed my plans, I'm gonna keep it 😉
I own a D700 since many years, but didn't bought it straight after release into 2008, because it was very expensive. I like the output from it's 12 MP Matsushita (Panasonic) Sensor, which is a Nikon custom Design, produced by Matsushita, much.
The decline in quality is likely due to the demand for higher resolutions (Megapixels) The D700 may have less MP's but it has the 'largest photo sites' of all the Nikon Cameras - likely what gives it that 'special quality.'
True. I've always said, there's 2 cameras Nikon should have made, but never did. D400 D300 type body 51 point AF system Large buffer Fast processor All built around the D7000 16mp sensor D710 Basically the D700, but with the 16mp sensor that's in the DF. Unfortunately they decided to chase megapixels & unicorns instead & focus solely on profit alone. They forgot what made them what they were around 2009. Their lineup was D3000, D5000, D90, D300, D700, D3.
The difference is in the colour tones, the D700 has less sensitivity to green so the overall photo looks warmer. The blue in th sky seems a brighter hue of blu.
Started to play with DSLR because of the current prices. These cameras make me feel like film where I make an image. So far I’ve picked up a d200 d300 d300s. Looking to add a full frame Nikon now too. I think the d610 has the same sensor however a different image processor. I’ve had mirrorless in the past but enjoying these now
Allen it seems to me that photography is much more than just a job for you and perhaps even a medium for creative expression. Thanks so much for your educational and stimulating videos.
The price difference is massive. Nice used, 20k shutter count D700 approx £350 vs similar used Z6ii approx £1300-1500. If you are a stills shooter that's something to process. The Z6ii will do good video and do you eye-finding, tracking and focusing for you. I do portraits and casual people photography so, this far, I haven't panicked over getting a mirrorless body.
i have been shooting the d700 for many years in the studio and there is definitely something happening with it, i have tried some mirrorless and they feel lifeless compare to my picture on the d700 ...lets also mention the cheap price of this camera now and its amazing built quality ( most mirrorless feels like cheap plastic in my hands ) .... Because the colour are quite special with this camera my search for a new body has led me to buy a to a Nikon f5 i really really cant seem to find any modern digital camera that can reproduce the same tonal quality except maybe for the phase one system which is out of my reach ... and if i have to go to medium format now that i am shooting film ... it will be on film not digital
I have a D700 and a Z5 (Among other Nikons D7100, D7200, Z50 etc) and noticed the same hing. The D700 seems to be 'warmer' than the Z5. However, this can be a double edged sword, as I have had instances with the D700 (and the D300) where the reds (Say photographing a red red rose) are blown out on the D700, but fine on a newer mirrorless camera. I love both cameras for different reasons though and although my D700 recently died, I will be purchasing another and not just for the picture quality, but also the ergonomics.
Thanks so much for making this video! Two (pedantic) follow up questions: 1. Do you think any of this could be due to qualities unique to the lenses you used (rather than the camera bodies)? I notice that the D700 metadata says "35.0 mm f/1.4" whereas you were using a "35mm f/1.4G" on the Z6ii 2. This is something I've noticed is rarely mentioned in camera/Lightroom videos in general, but for the D700 (prior to applying your presets): what Process/Profile do you have selected for the camera in Lightroom and/or what's set on the camera body as your Picture Control (Standard, Neutral, etc.) and does it have any further refinements?
Hi - for some reason the D700 metadata leaves off the "G" they were the same lens:-) In LR I use Adobe Colour profile - as I shoot Raw none of the in camera picture control etc affects the Raw file. In LR i use one of many presets I've developed. Allen
I have the D700 and do believe that its images are or can be unique. I favor the D700's color and contrast. I also have a D750 and a D810 and use each for different purposes. Between those cameras there is a megapixal span from 12 to 24 to 34ish. My own personal theory as to why the D700 is special is that it has the largest pixel pitch of any nikon today, including all the Z cameras. The D700 pixels are larger than any medium format digital as well, I think. The D700 collects more light to start relative to all the algorithms that then act on that data. That is why D700 files are so clean. Doesnt Sony have a similar "legendary" camera. I believe it has their largest pixel pitch as well?
Curious how you feel about the colors out of your D750. I never liked the blues and greens out of camera (RAW) and always had to change them for realism in post. It was an amazing camera, but I hated its natural color output and never adjusted to it. I traded it in last year for two Fujifilm X-T1 bodies and I rarely touch color adjustments on those bodies. Are you satisfied with colors or do you find the same frustrations on the D750? I love the colors I’ve seen output on people’s D700’s, but I’ve never owned one. Very tempted to buy one though.
Great comment Robert! The D700 was and is, a really good camera. Right situation with the right lens, and one can snap fantastic photos! I have it on good authority the sensor was sourced by ‘Panasonic,’ if you can believe that? The bigger ‘Pixel pitch’ no doubt helps with gathering those photons, and also having a more “Film like” quality to the images. To address the comment from ‘Bill B,’ with regards to the colors from the 750; I have heard and noticed that, but I will say, the reds from the 750 were superb! I owned a 750 for a brief time, and it was during the Fall, and I snapped some fantastic foliage shots with it. And I have heard the 780/Z6 having a green cast? Always good to have RAW files so adjustments can be made. I find the Auto WB on my Z7 doing great at times, and missing on others? I still have my D700, and shoot with it on a regular basis. The ‘infamous’ loose D-Pad will not get fixed. (Local camera shop would replace the whole back, for about $125.00 ). I have the battery grip attached, and use the joystick on it for selecting things. Why there was no joystick on the body, don't ask me? The added benefit of the battery grip is using the larger 11.2 (?) Volt battery, which drives bigger lenses better, and increases the FPS. Oh but the weight 😯 Stay safe and Happy Shooting!
@@billb8262 Great comment Bill! I know what you mean by the colors of the 750. Some say the 780 suffers some of the same? I still hang onto my original XT-1. I have battery grip on it, and it fits my big mitts well. The camera can produce some fine images. I often don’t like the skies, as they have too much of a Cyan cast to them, which is kinda a “Fuji thing?” Focusing is, well, we all have heard and experienced the infamous Fuji AF. 🙄 Stay safe and Happy Shooting!
No surprise that the image quality - colours ( if you take out the resolution) is better in D700. Z6 its like there is a green Tint anywhere. Newer cameras can be praised for newer technology that can be useful but in terms of colours the D700 wins.
I used D700’s for weddings back in 2010. The images were indeed fantastic. I’m more interested in how images look in print though. I defy anyone to tell the difference from any modern camera 2008 to present day once process via a pro lab
hi I've owned from new when it first came out,everyone talks about the photos , but on one speaks about the d 700, battery options its own en-3e, if you putchase the battery bolt mb10 it can be used with the en-el4a battery for the nikon d3 cameras, and if the mb10 comes with a battery tray, you can load it with 8 -1.5 aa battery's making it the only nikon with 3 battery options,so you always can power the camera!!
I’ve had my D700 for almost 15 years and was thinking of retiring it, but considering the price and quality you get for today’s cameras… I’m not very convinced. One thing that I miss, would be faster focus and this is quite important.
Allen, what you don't mention is the obvious green cast of the Z6 picture. I am not sure whether you've used identical lens on both shots. Also, to alleviate any extremes/chromatics I would have set the aperture at something innocent and good, say f5.6 and WB should have been set to a fixed temperature to make the comparison meaningful. The D700 uses similar sensor to the D3/s, which at the time were identified as Toshiba. Nikon used those sensors in 2-3 bodies only before switching to Sony sensors ever since. I love the colors that my D700 generates, it just naturally beautifies my photography.
With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened 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. The colours and hues that are lost because of never being captured in the first place can never be recovered nor "cooked"
The thing is, presets created for an older camera MUST be adjusted for the sensor... you can just carte blanche apply a preset to different sensors expecting the same outcome, they ARE different... however, you will have much more flexibility, colour depth etc in the BIS of the Z6ii than you would with the sensor in the D700.
The optical qualities are well recorded in the RAW data and defined by the quality of the sensor and its CFA. The raw converter DOES NOT change the data. In the same way, your Christmas decoration DOES NOT change the quality of your house. What really makes the difference? Continue reading: With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened 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. THE COLOURS AND HUES THAT ARE LOST BECAUSE OF NEVER BEING CAPTURED IN THE FIRST PLACE, CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED NOR COOKED, NO MATTER THE EDITING SOFTWARE OR THE RAW CONVERTER! It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
I still have my D700 and D780 - the D700 for the colours and uniqueness - and the D780 as it's the last Dslr Nikon will ever make (D6 excluded). However as Nikon use Sony sensors for all the later cameras and will probably do so in future I see no reason to say as many people do that Nikon have better image quality - nonsense - actually comparing my newly aquired Sony GM primes to the Z8 and a 50 F1.8S lens I'd say Sony and just ahead if anything. Anyway I do still love the D700 !
The D700 image looks to have brighter colours if that is the right way of saying what I see. This really is a small ,but noticeable, difference, maybe due to the sensors used. . However, the Z5 and Z6 2 are remarkable cameras in their own right. A Good comparison .
D700 looks much nicer. Might be one of the best colour pallettes of any digital cameras ever made. At least top 5. But its not just relative to their Z cameras, it also applies to all the Nikon DSLR cameras that came after the D700 with the exception of the D4 and D600/610 which also have very nice colours. Here is the issue. There is a green cast which very visible, at least to my eye. Yet very unintuitive to fix. The tint slider wont fix it. This really degrades the richness of the reds and blues. The greens also have too much of a yellow hue. Its the same on Sony cameras but significantly worse. You can really notice how green everything is in neutralish tones like dark browns. Canon doesn't have this issue on their DSLR range which is probay why people love the colours on those cameras. Canons also had less dynamic range so they tended to be a bit more punchy, which is probably why people rave about canon colour science. However canon's mirrorless cameras do suffer from digital greenness and the colours arent as nice as they used to be.Fujifilm are also very good when it comes to rich reds and blues and not over saturated greens, probably thanks to their x-trans sensor design. Bayer filters do mean that digital cameras have twice as many green pixels as they do blue or red and they are found in a regular pattern. This means there are lines running diagonally across your sensor that have no red or blue information . This I think is part of the problem. You can fix this colour shift in lightroom if you go to the calibration panel. Shift the greens to a bit more blue and reduce the saturation. Shift the blue a hint to the cyan and increase the saturation on the reds. Then set your white balance. Go to the colour mixer, decrease the saturation on the orange and increase the lightness of the oranges if you want to improve skin tones. Then decrease the green channel saturation, but balance it by also reducing the lightness of the greens. This should get you closer on later nikon models but every image different and will need different tweaks. But it should be a good starting point. Same for Sony, except you also have to deal with and balance it with weird magentas, so probably calibrate the red channel to be more orangey red if on a sony. In addition to colour, there are also much more pleasing tonal graduations on the d700 and d600/610, more microcontrast (3D pop) as long as you have a lens that can render the 3D pop. This makes black and white images look amazing.
The red stands out more on the D700 but the blue sky and the green on the wooden uprights is better on the z6ii. I think that the D700 is brighter but I would not say that it has "come to life more." I own the d700 and would like the stronger blue and greens (as I see them) of the z6ii with the stronger red on the d700. Vivid on the d700 goes completely crazy with the red; unusable with the red.
I think if you want to do fair comparison, both cameras should be on tripod next to each other, same exact settings, same lens at the same time, I noticed from the images there is time delay the clouds moved a bit in one of the images, which effects exposure and white balance and color rendering, I love my D700 I've been using it for over 10 years, the quality of its images is the best I've ever took, and i used many cameras over the years, Now I'm thinking about mirrorless becuse they do have some advantages over digital SLRs, I'm not sure in terms of the image quality which I care bout the most.
There is no way for the clouds to affect the colour rendering. What you see (Colour quality, hue discrimination, vibrancy, organic results ) come from the legacy D700 CFA and the sensor's ability to gather a big amount of light ( Sensor Pixel Area 71.70µm2) With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened 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. The colours and hues that are lost because of never being captured in the first place can never be recovered nor "cooked"
@Νικος Ζωχιος i understand what you're saying, but as we photographers know, white balance and colors rendering will change from one image to the other even from the same camera, light intensity will change from one minute to another, sometimes in seconds, to be accurate to a high degree between cameras, it has to be the same angle on a tripod next to each other the same exact settings white balance, the same exact time releasing the shutter, and its been done before with different cameras, that will give you the difference between cameras, more accurately, nonetheless this test is accurate enogh for the naked eye, I'm a big fan of the D700 obviously I'm bias, because the best images I've ever took was with the D700.
@@JazzLowrider I see what you mean but if the colour and hues are not recorded in the raw data because of never being captured, the use of a tripod can't do anything to change the variety of hues, their good discrimination, the quality of the shadows, vibrancy, the 3d pop and the recorded micro-contrast. All those qualities are recorded in the RAW data and nothing can change them once are recorded by the sensor and the CFA of the camera! It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
Hi - yes I know it wasn't perfectly scientific but was intended to be a "real world" comparison. If you can't see any difference in the real world then for m, there isn;t any difference inspite of what a lab test might say. Many thanks Allen
I did fall for the D700 but it's going back on EBAY. The sensor is NOT magic, and we're dealing here with an amazing case of social nostalgia. Since I shoot RAW I get the colors I want. After playing with the D700 for three weeks, along side my GH5, supposedly a miserable M43 camera, I can get the same picture or a better picture out of the GH5 than the D700. And the D700 weighs a ton, doesn't let me shoot in complex position, since the screen doesn't move. It's going back on Ebay.
Your miserable M43 is a legendary camera for sure! Thousands of photographers have been using it for their professional work. It is well known as: "GH5.A Legend" you can easily confirm that by the reputation of your GH5 vs the obsolete D700. Btw...check whether your eye/aesthetic/photography and editing skills allow you to see or produce the magic that your ebay D700 promised you. ;-)
If you take away some of the green tint on the Z6 ii image they’d be even more similar… the fact that they are so similar in image quality massively favours the D700 due to the price difference for the people that don’t need the latest and greatest tech and just want great photos
Hi there, So I think what you're saying is that on camera all ok but you put the transmitter on camera but flash does nothing. Check that on the flash you've changed the "MODE" to Wireless - on the screen of the flash it'll say something like CH21 and A (or B or C) this being the channel. Just press the right hand button and the screen will cycle to various modes (it's basically on camera flash, or a flash + trigger, or an off camera flash) Then make sure the transmitter is set to the same channel and group and you should be good to go. If not let me know and maybe I can do a quick video Allen
@@CreativePixelPhotos Thank you for taking the time..I am at my wits end lol ... I have put the flash on slave mode and set the CH on both the flash and transmitter to the same and also the same group A... ,,Which right hand button I have presssed all the buttons..Maybe my camera is not set right ..But I have the set to manual in the flash setting
I’ve heard speculation the sensor on the D700 is from Panasonic. But so far I don’t see photographers tripping over themselves to get a full frame Panasonic.
As mentioned, the Panasonic S5ii has been released, looks great. The S1 has one of the highest rated sensors for any FF camera. Pros have been using the GH series for years but these are videographers/hybrid shooters. As a Nikon user, I wish they’d pack their cameras with as many pro features as Panasonic.
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p Organic?.Why not shoot a film? This would be more organic, I am sure you would agree. I think photography and gear are very personal, and what one man likes, the other does not so enjoy what you have :)
with much worse colours though.. These are the scores for a number of Nikon cameras. The left value is the score in sunlight, and the right value is the score in incandescent light. D850 - 79, 76 D810 - 80, 78 D750 - 81, 77 D800 - 78, 75 D700 - 83. 83
I went from D700 to Z6 and the Z6 destroys it in every way. The D700 is great, but it's not better than new tech, despite a lot of peoples' wishful thinking.
As a Z8 and Z6ii (and D780) user for weddings there's certainly nothing wrong with images from them - in fact they're REALLY good. BUT - the D700 due to it's cfa and processing algorithms in some cases produces unique images that for some people (me included) look better than the modern "realistic" look where everything is true to life, The D700 has the ability to sometimes (dependant on the lighting and colours in the scene) produce very arty images.
@@CreativePixelPhotos I am surprised you asked that question, you have been a photographer for long enough to know that different raw converters can ‘process’ differently to each other. There is nothing wrong with Lightroom but it is just one converter. Put those same files through C1, Affinity Photo, DXO Photolab, Photo Ninja, Darktable, Raw Therepee, Nikon’s own software etc. And likely you will get different results. You are drawing conclusions from your own, specific workflow which is fine if you make clear to anyone who is not so up on these things that their results could be very different.
@@colinsmith7314 The results will be similar no matter the RAW converter. The optical qualities are well recorded in the RAW data and defined by the quality of the sensor and its CFA. The raw converter DOES NOT change the data. In the same way, your Christmas decoration DOES NOT change the quality of your house. What really makes the difference? Continue reading: With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened 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. THE COLOURS AND HUES THAT ARE LOST BECAUSE OF NEVER BEING CAPTURED IN THE FIRST PLACE, CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED NOR COOKED, NO MATTER THE EDITING SOFTWARE OR THE RAW CONVERTER! It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
The D200 has a significantly inferior ability to gather light compared to the D700 71.70µm2 (D700) vs 37.14µm2 (D200).That affects all of its optical qualities. Colour fidelity included plus an inferior colour depth of 23.5 (D700) vs 22.3 (D200). The only thing the CCD sensor does is oversaturate specific hues.
Check the "imatest" colour checkers that measure colour accuracy and hue discrimination. There is not any Nikon camera that can match to the D700's colour accuracy. What you and i are able to see and appreciate in a photo is another story..
My eyes are just drawn to the D700. It looks more pleasing and real. The Z6ii looks flat and lifeless. Says it all really. New tech is just a marketing scam.
I’ve just compared photos taken with the D700 and the GH5. Keep in mind that the format of these two devices is not the same. The D700 is full frame at 3:2 and the GH5 is Micro fourth third at 4:3, so they don’t cover the same area. Obviously if you want to shoot exactly the same thing with a full frame and a micro four third, the photographer has to move. So don't look at the size and the aspect but at the color. Both cams have the equivalent of 50mm, about the same aperture and the same ISO value. ISO was kept under 500 for both cams. The Lumix had a 25 mm, which is equivalent to 50 mm in FF world. WB was on automatic. Everything shot at 2.8 The panasonic had the Lumix 25 mm f/1.8 and the D700 the Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 D Nothing is corrected, but everything is correctable. I purposely did not correct anything. As far as I'm concerned, no camera is superior, color-wise, to the other. Everything can be done in post. I could make one look better or worse than the other very easily. The pictures follow each other by group of two. So what do you think? photos.app.goo.gl/uhKJGGwN7xU7Qa2e7
No need to convince anyone about your GH5.It is well known your Micro fourth third at 4:3,GH5 is considered a Legend by thousands of photographers around the globe. No one ever thought that the D700 was better than your Microfourth Toy. The D700- 71.70µm2 vs GH5 -11.16µm2 does not play any role in final image quality and the 8,5 MICRONS Tonal gain of the old D700 is just a myth. Of course, your comparison is our way to go if we want to justify the name "Legend" next to your GH5! GH5 is a classic camera that has won countless photography competitions and also is famous for its micro contrast,3d pop, vibrancy and reliability! Here are some links with exceptional shots from the GH5. The show (among other things) the great GH5 hue discrimination, its vibrancy, the feeling of "being there" and the great GH5 tonal resolution (AKA micro contrast) which have given the name "Legend" on the GH5! www.flickr.com/photos/191035018@N07/ www.flickr.com/photos/197082054@N04
As a D700 user the sensor is superb considering it’s age it’s still producing the goods it’s one of the best cameras I own there has been a lots of videos on the D700 on UA-cam and it always delivers
Hello Allen. I'm a very irresponsible (and stupid) person - I've bought, shot with and sold way too many cameras and systems over the years. And I recently bought a d700...for the fourth time...
As a result I sold my a7iii system, put up my Fuji x-t5 system for sale and will be getting rid of my z50 and zfc system after that...
There is just something about the d700... I've never enjoyed a camera so much and loved the shots that came out of it so much. I believe I can finally settle down with my fourth d700 and be happy. Maybe ad a df again too haha.
Wow someone worse than me 🤣
what are your favorite lenses with it? I also rcently bought it and so far the best color and quality I got from tamron 70-300, not sure what other lenses to try.
two years ago I bought a D700 because I wanted exactly that look of the image. My better choice! I love it so much.
Ciao Allen
Alberto
I prefer the D700 image, the colours are bright and clear, the Z6ii is a bit dark/dull in areas.
I shoot weddings on 2x D4 and a d700 as a backup/3rd camera. Without question these 2 cameras produce the best images of any of the many cameras I've owned. I think the 12 and 16 mp sensors have a massive part in that. I love my d700 so much that I own 2 haha!
Haven't used mine in...15 minutes. Bought it from the waiting list in 2008. Used it for portraits and weddings, sports, wildlife.
Hi Allen, I have followed your videos on the D500, Z6II, D780 and 850 and I found them to be the most interesting and well-founded. Sorry my english is not my native language. I looked at the images, covering up the detail from which camera they came from, and I immediately noticed that the photo on the left had the richest, most saturated colors, the red, the blue of the hoses, or the little brown of the wood on the ceiling. So I thought, maybe too quickly, that the Z6II has to be the one with the most vibrant and contrasting colors by the BSI and blah blah blah. To my surprise it is exactly the other way around. I see warmer, yellower tones on the Z6II, almost like they have a filter that affects everything else.
I especially notice it in the background shed. I wonder if a lot of time has passed between shots and the existing light color has changed and that can explain such a change. On the D700 I see more nicer colors and the sky also looks much more natural than on the Z6II. I also agree with your wife.
Thank you very much, this was very insightful and helpful. The D700 has IMHO better reds and blues, the Z6 II better greens. The later is clearly visible, I think, if you compare the wooden fence in the middle of the pictures, the D700 picture looks a bit duller or rather with a slight yellow (or red) overcast. You mentioned the red water can and the blue bucket in the background, but the real winner in my opinion for the D700 is the sky here. Two to one in regards to colour and I like reds and blues a bit more than greens, so the D700 is a clear winner for me. Regarding the left side and background wall elements the D700 looks brighter and better to me. Is this maybe due to the "physics" of a 12 MP versus 24 MP sensor despite the age difference?
Whatever, your fantastic comparison proved to me a couple of claims made often online:
1. There are some very good, capable and uniquely rendering older cameras out there. The D700 and the original Canon EOS 5d are the best known, the D200 and 6D are others
2. Digital sensors AND the processing in the respective camera body have combined one similar property as film stocks, creating a look which is difficult to impossible to achieve with another camera (or film stock) in post production.
Thanks again and please continue the good work! Allt the best.
The D700 has more depth to the image and a more saturated colour palette. The Z6 has a greener cast. However, you used auto-WB for both. It would be interesting to see the same comparison with a fixed WB.
The D700 has more depth to the image and a more saturated colour palette but also the D700 has:
1/Colour fidelity /accuracy
2/ Discriminated hues.
3/ Vibrancy
4/ Contrast and better shadows recovery.
5/ More pop and character.
All of the above optical qualities don't change with a different WB.
They are optical qualities that are created from the D700 sensor and its legendary CFA and are recorded as data in the RAW file.
All the above are the result of a Legendary D700 CFA, the huge 8.5 microns tonal gain and a huge photosite number 71.70µm2.
D700 looks much nicer. Might be one of the best colour pallettes of any digital cameras ever made. At least top 5. But its not just relative to their Z cameras, it also applies to all the Nikon DSLR cameras that came after the D700 with the exception of the D4 and D600/610 which also have very nice colours.
Here is the issue. There is a green cast which very visible, at least to my eye. Yet very unintuitive to fix. The tint slider wont fix it. This really degrades the richness of the reds and blues. The greens also have too much of a yellow hue. Its the same on Sony cameras but significantly worse. You can really notice how green everything is in neutralish tones like dark browns. Canon doesn't have this issue on their DSLR range which is probay why people love the colours on those cameras. Canons also had less dynamic range so they tended to be a bit more punchy, which is probably why people rave about canon colour science. However canon's mirrorless cameras do suffer from digital greenness and the colours arent as nice as they used to be.Fujifilm are also very good when it comes to rich reds and blues and not over saturated greens, probably thanks to their x-trans sensor design. Bayer filters do mean that digital cameras have twice as many green pixels as they do blue or red and they are found in a regular pattern. This means there are lines running diagonally across your sensor that have no red or blue information . This I think is part of the problem.
You can fix this colour shift in lightroom if you go to the calibration panel. Shift the greens to a bit more blue and reduce the saturation. Shift the blue a hint to the cyan and increase the saturation on the reds. Then set your white balance. Go to the colour mixer, decrease the saturation on the orange and increase the lightness of the oranges if you want to improve skin tones.
Then decrease the green channel saturation, but balance it by also reducing the lightness of the greens. This should get you closer on later nikon models but every image different and will need different tweaks. But it should be a good starting point. Same for Sony, except you also have to deal with and balance it with weird magentas, so probably calibrate the red channel to be more orangey red if on a sony.
In addition to colour, there are also much more pleasing tonal graduations on the d700 and d600/610, more microcontrast (3D pop) as long as you have a lens that can render the 3D pop. This makes black and white images look amazing.
On the first shot the D700 has more Pop in the image, the Z6 image is flat. Notice how the Z6 images look smudged. I own three D700' s I love them.
The colors on the D700, especially the red, does look better.
I've got a couple of D700 cameras , plus a D810 . Great results from them all and no complaints . In fact , I've had two exhibitions using only D700 cameras . Will not part with these three and use any further purchases on lenses .
Pound for pound and the value the D700 gives you it’s a no brainer you won’t find many photographers both pro or amateur disagree it’s a gem of a camera
You need more than just one photo to jugde what camera gives the best results. A comaparison like this should include at least 5 photos of different motives in different ligh. And white balance should be set to the same number in each camera, not auto, just to blow that doubt away. That said, I bought my D700 the same week it was released. I have always been happy with it, it never let me down. The last years I have been using a D4 and I was planning to sell the D700 for nearly nothing, but I have changed my plans, I'm gonna keep it 😉
The D700 is the digitale camera to use when you look for warm Kodak Ektar-like images.
I own a D700 since many years, but didn't bought it straight after release into 2008, because it was very expensive. I like the output from it's 12 MP Matsushita (Panasonic) Sensor, which is a Nikon custom Design, produced by Matsushita, much.
The decline in quality is likely due to the demand for higher resolutions (Megapixels) The D700 may have less MP's but it has the 'largest photo sites' of all the Nikon Cameras - likely what gives it that 'special quality.'
True. I've always said, there's 2 cameras Nikon should have made, but never did.
D400
D300 type body
51 point AF system
Large buffer
Fast processor
All built around the D7000 16mp sensor
D710
Basically the D700, but with the 16mp sensor that's in the DF.
Unfortunately they decided to chase megapixels & unicorns instead & focus solely on profit alone. They forgot what made them what they were around 2009. Their lineup was D3000, D5000, D90, D300, D700, D3.
The difference is in the colour tones, the D700 has less sensitivity to green so the overall photo looks warmer. The blue in th sky seems a brighter hue of blu.
That is what came to m eye as well. The greenish tint to the Z6
Started to play with DSLR because of the current prices. These cameras make me feel like film where I make an image. So far I’ve picked up a d200 d300 d300s. Looking to add a full frame Nikon now too. I think the d610 has the same sensor however a different image processor. I’ve had mirrorless in the past but enjoying these now
have one was going to buy an 850 why ? just thought the way to go still sticking with d700 do what i want takes great photos
Allen it seems to me that photography is much more than just a job for you and perhaps even a medium for creative expression. Thanks so much for your educational and stimulating videos.
The price difference is massive. Nice used, 20k shutter count D700 approx £350 vs similar used Z6ii approx £1300-1500. If you are a stills shooter that's something to process. The Z6ii will do good video and do you eye-finding, tracking and focusing for you. I do portraits and casual people photography so, this far, I haven't panicked over getting a mirrorless body.
Great comparison. Again and again it shows me, how much of a pearl the D700 is.
i have been shooting the d700 for many years in the studio and there is definitely something happening with it, i have tried some mirrorless and they feel lifeless compare to my picture on the d700 ...lets also mention the cheap price of this camera now and its amazing built quality ( most mirrorless feels like cheap plastic in my hands ) .... Because the colour are quite special with this camera my search for a new body has led me to buy a to a Nikon f5 i really really cant seem to find any modern digital camera that can reproduce the same tonal quality except maybe for the phase one system which is out of my reach ... and if i have to go to medium format now that i am shooting film ... it will be on film not digital
I have a D700 and a Z5 (Among other Nikons D7100, D7200, Z50 etc) and noticed the same hing. The D700 seems to be 'warmer' than the Z5. However, this can be a double edged sword, as I have had instances with the D700 (and the D300) where the reds (Say photographing a red red rose) are blown out on the D700, but fine on a newer mirrorless camera. I love both cameras for different reasons though and although my D700 recently died, I will be purchasing another and not just for the picture quality, but also the ergonomics.
Thanks so much for making this video! Two (pedantic) follow up questions:
1. Do you think any of this could be due to qualities unique to the lenses you used (rather than the camera bodies)? I notice that the D700 metadata says "35.0 mm f/1.4" whereas you were using a "35mm f/1.4G" on the Z6ii
2. This is something I've noticed is rarely mentioned in camera/Lightroom videos in general, but for the D700 (prior to applying your presets): what Process/Profile do you have selected for the camera in Lightroom and/or what's set on the camera body as your Picture Control (Standard, Neutral, etc.) and does it have any further refinements?
Hi - for some reason the D700 metadata leaves off the "G" they were the same lens:-) In LR I use Adobe Colour profile - as I shoot Raw none of the in camera picture control etc affects the Raw file. In LR i use one of many presets I've developed. Allen
I have the D700 and do believe that its images are or can be unique. I favor the D700's color and contrast. I also have a D750 and a D810 and use each for different purposes. Between those cameras there is a megapixal span from 12 to 24 to 34ish. My own personal theory as to why the D700 is special is that it has the largest pixel pitch of any nikon today, including all the Z cameras. The D700 pixels are larger than any medium format digital as well, I think. The D700 collects more light to start relative to all the algorithms that then act on that data. That is why D700 files are so clean. Doesnt Sony have a similar "legendary" camera. I believe it has their largest pixel pitch as well?
Curious how you feel about the colors out of your D750. I never liked the blues and greens out of camera (RAW) and always had to change them for realism in post. It was an amazing camera, but I hated its natural color output and never adjusted to it. I traded it in last year for two Fujifilm X-T1 bodies and I rarely touch color adjustments on those bodies. Are you satisfied with colors or do you find the same frustrations on the D750? I love the colors I’ve seen output on people’s D700’s, but I’ve never owned one. Very tempted to buy one though.
Great comment Robert! The D700 was and is, a really good camera. Right situation with the right lens, and one can snap fantastic photos! I have it on good authority the sensor was sourced by ‘Panasonic,’ if you can believe that? The bigger ‘Pixel pitch’ no doubt helps with gathering those photons, and also having a more “Film like” quality to the images.
To address the comment from ‘Bill B,’ with regards to the colors from the 750; I have heard and noticed that, but I will say, the reds from the 750 were superb! I owned a 750 for a brief time, and it was during the Fall, and I snapped some fantastic foliage shots with it. And I have heard the 780/Z6 having a green cast? Always good to have RAW files so adjustments can be made. I find the Auto WB on my Z7 doing great at times, and missing on others?
I still have my D700, and shoot with it on a regular basis. The ‘infamous’ loose D-Pad will not get fixed. (Local camera shop would replace the whole back, for about $125.00 ). I have the battery grip attached, and use the joystick on it for selecting things. Why there was no joystick on the body, don't ask me? The added benefit of the battery grip is using the larger 11.2 (?) Volt battery, which drives bigger lenses better, and increases the FPS. Oh but the weight 😯
Stay safe and Happy Shooting!
@@billb8262 Great comment Bill! I know what you mean by the colors of the 750. Some say the 780 suffers some of the same?
I still hang onto my original XT-1. I have battery grip on it, and it fits my big mitts well.
The camera can produce some fine images. I often don’t like the skies, as they have too much of a Cyan cast to them, which is kinda a “Fuji thing?” Focusing is, well, we all have heard and experienced the infamous Fuji AF. 🙄 Stay safe and Happy Shooting!
I think the Z6 produces too much of a "green" cast to the image. That is what I see with my eyes, anyway.
No surprise that the image quality - colours ( if you take out the resolution) is better in D700. Z6 its like there is a green Tint anywhere. Newer cameras can be praised for newer technology that can be useful but in terms of colours the D700 wins.
I used D700’s for weddings back in 2010. The images were indeed fantastic. I’m more interested in how images look in print though. I defy anyone to tell the difference from any modern camera 2008 to present day once process via a pro lab
hi I've owned from new when it first came out,everyone talks about the photos , but on one speaks about the d 700, battery options its own en-3e, if you putchase the battery bolt mb10 it can be used with the en-el4a battery for the nikon d3 cameras, and if the mb10 comes with a battery tray, you can load it with 8 -1.5 aa battery's making it the only nikon with 3 battery options,so you always can power the camera!!
D700 seems closer to CCD sensor colours
I like D700
I’ve had my D700 for almost 15 years and was thinking of retiring it, but considering the price and quality you get for today’s cameras… I’m not very convinced. One thing that I miss, would be faster focus and this is quite important.
Nikon designed D700's sensor whereas all other sensors are made by Sony because they're cheaper but not better.
Would be interested in seeing the same photos loaded with Color Passport calibration profiles applied.
Allen, what you don't mention is the obvious green cast of the Z6 picture. I am not sure whether you've used identical lens on both shots. Also, to alleviate any extremes/chromatics I would have set the aperture at something innocent and good, say f5.6 and WB should have been set to a fixed temperature to make the comparison meaningful. The D700 uses similar sensor to the D3/s, which at the time were identified as Toshiba. Nikon used those sensors in 2-3 bodies only before switching to Sony sensors ever since. I love the colors that my D700 generates, it just naturally beautifies my photography.
I must admit im surprised how much better the d700 looks. However i suspect it would be very easy to get the 2 photos looking the same.
I prefer the D700 image, I love my D7200.D700 and D4!
photo of the z6II is a bit greener than the d700 or something with the blue. maybe correcting that would be the same
With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened
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.
The colours and hues that are lost because of never being captured in the first place can never be recovered nor "cooked"
I agree and I just brought one for that very reason
The thing is, presets created for an older camera MUST be adjusted for the sensor... you can just carte blanche apply a preset to different sensors expecting the same outcome, they ARE different... however, you will have much more flexibility, colour depth etc in the BIS of the Z6ii than you would with the sensor in the D700.
The optical qualities are well recorded in the RAW data and defined by the quality of the sensor and its CFA.
The raw converter DOES NOT change the data. In the same way, your Christmas decoration DOES NOT change the quality of your house.
What really makes the difference?
Continue reading:
With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened
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.
THE COLOURS AND HUES THAT ARE LOST BECAUSE OF NEVER BEING CAPTURED IN THE FIRST PLACE, CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED NOR COOKED, NO MATTER THE EDITING SOFTWARE OR THE RAW CONVERTER!
It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
where is the link to download the preset?
The D700 fotos have more three-dimensional appearence than others. Looking to the images you are inside the scene. I love my D700.
I still have my D700 and D780 - the D700 for the colours and uniqueness - and the D780 as it's the last Dslr Nikon will ever make (D6 excluded). However as Nikon use Sony sensors for all the later cameras and will probably do so in future I see no reason to say as many people do that Nikon have better image quality - nonsense - actually comparing my newly aquired Sony GM primes to the Z8 and a 50 F1.8S lens I'd say Sony and just ahead if anything. Anyway I do still love the D700 !
The D700 image looks to have brighter colours if that is the right way of saying what I see. This really is a small ,but noticeable, difference, maybe due to the sensors used. . However, the Z5 and Z6 2 are remarkable cameras in their own right. A Good comparison .
D700 looks much nicer. Might be one of the best colour pallettes of any digital cameras ever made. At least top 5. But its not just relative to their Z cameras, it also applies to all the Nikon DSLR cameras that came after the D700 with the exception of the D4 and D600/610 which also have very nice colours.
Here is the issue. There is a green cast which very visible, at least to my eye. Yet very unintuitive to fix. The tint slider wont fix it. This really degrades the richness of the reds and blues. The greens also have too much of a yellow hue. Its the same on Sony cameras but significantly worse. You can really notice how green everything is in neutralish tones like dark browns. Canon doesn't have this issue on their DSLR range which is probay why people love the colours on those cameras. Canons also had less dynamic range so they tended to be a bit more punchy, which is probably why people rave about canon colour science. However canon's mirrorless cameras do suffer from digital greenness and the colours arent as nice as they used to be.Fujifilm are also very good when it comes to rich reds and blues and not over saturated greens, probably thanks to their x-trans sensor design. Bayer filters do mean that digital cameras have twice as many green pixels as they do blue or red and they are found in a regular pattern. This means there are lines running diagonally across your sensor that have no red or blue information . This I think is part of the problem.
You can fix this colour shift in lightroom if you go to the calibration panel. Shift the greens to a bit more blue and reduce the saturation. Shift the blue a hint to the cyan and increase the saturation on the reds. Then set your white balance. Go to the colour mixer, decrease the saturation on the orange and increase the lightness of the oranges if you want to improve skin tones.
Then decrease the green channel saturation, but balance it by also reducing the lightness of the greens. This should get you closer on later nikon models but every image different and will need different tweaks. But it should be a good starting point. Same for Sony, except you also have to deal with and balance it with weird magentas, so probably calibrate the red channel to be more orangey red if on a sony.
In addition to colour, there are also much more pleasing tonal graduations on the d700 and d600/610, more microcontrast (3D pop) as long as you have a lens that can render the 3D pop. This makes black and white images look amazing.
700 by far my screen my eyes
The red stands out more on the D700 but the blue sky and the green on the wooden uprights is better on the z6ii. I think that the D700 is brighter but I would not say that it has "come to life more." I own the d700 and would like the stronger blue and greens (as I see them) of the z6ii with the stronger red on the d700. Vivid on the d700 goes completely crazy with the red; unusable with the red.
My comment is that I am waiting for a D3s to arrive 😉😊
I think if you want to do fair comparison, both cameras should be on tripod next to each other, same exact settings, same lens at the same time, I noticed from the images there is time delay the clouds moved a bit in one of the images, which effects exposure and white balance and color rendering, I love my D700 I've been using it for over 10 years, the quality of its images is the best I've ever took, and i used many cameras over the years, Now I'm thinking about mirrorless becuse they do have some advantages over digital SLRs, I'm not sure in terms of the image quality which I care bout the most.
There is no way for the clouds to affect the colour rendering.
What you see (Colour quality, hue discrimination, vibrancy, organic results ) come from the legacy D700 CFA and the sensor's ability to gather a big amount of light ( Sensor Pixel Area 71.70µm2)
With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened
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.
The colours and hues that are lost because of never being captured in the first place can never be recovered nor "cooked"
@Νικος Ζωχιος i understand what you're saying, but as we photographers know, white balance and colors rendering will change from one image to the other even from the same camera, light intensity will change from one minute to another, sometimes in seconds, to be accurate to a high degree between cameras, it has to be the same angle on a tripod next to each other the same exact settings white balance, the same exact time releasing the shutter, and its been done before with different cameras, that will give you the difference between cameras, more accurately, nonetheless this test is accurate enogh for the naked eye, I'm a big fan of the D700 obviously I'm bias, because the best images I've ever took was with the D700.
@@JazzLowrider I see what you mean but if the colour and hues are not recorded in the raw data because of never being captured, the use of a tripod can't do anything to change the variety of hues, their good discrimination, the quality of the shadows, vibrancy, the 3d pop and the recorded micro-contrast.
All those qualities are recorded in the RAW data and nothing can change them once are recorded by the sensor and the CFA of the camera!
It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
I do get the D700's unique abilites :-)
Hi - yes I know it wasn't perfectly scientific but was intended to be a "real world" comparison. If you can't see any difference in the real world then for m, there isn;t any difference inspite of what a lab test might say. Many thanks Allen
maybe a new comparison with the same manual color balance on both cameras with some "skin" to see what both cameras do with face skin smoothness
Lock the brightness on your phone. It will stop the flashing in your video
There better sense of depth on the d700 photo
Sigo usando mi D700 a pesar de tener varias Sony Alpha, es cuestión de carácter, la D700 es única y la mejor Nikon Digital que han creado.
D700 had better coloured
d700 is saturated a tad, red water can looks too bright. very subjective, usually the less appealing pictures are the ones that are more accurate!!!
D700 > Z6
I did fall for the D700 but it's going back on EBAY. The sensor is NOT magic, and we're dealing here with an amazing case of social nostalgia. Since I shoot RAW I get the colors I want. After playing with the D700 for three weeks, along side my GH5, supposedly a miserable M43 camera, I can get the same picture or a better picture out of the GH5 than the D700. And the D700 weighs a ton, doesn't let me shoot in complex position, since the screen doesn't move. It's going back on Ebay.
Your miserable M43 is a legendary camera for sure!
Thousands of photographers have been using it for their professional work.
It is well known as: "GH5.A Legend" you can easily confirm that by the reputation of your GH5 vs the obsolete D700.
Btw...check whether your eye/aesthetic/photography and editing skills allow you to see or produce the magic that your ebay D700 promised you. ;-)
Exactly the same Picture Control configuration in both cameras?
Yes but raw so doesn't matter
If you take away some of the green tint on the Z6 ii image they’d be even more similar… the fact that they are so similar in image quality massively favours the D700 due to the price difference for the people that don’t need the latest and greatest tech and just want great photos
Can you help me...I bought the Godox V1 flash with the X2T transmitter...the V1 works on camera ..but will not work with the transmitter
Hi there, So I think what you're saying is that on camera all ok but you put the transmitter on camera but flash does nothing. Check that on the flash you've changed the "MODE" to Wireless - on the screen of the flash it'll say something like CH21 and A (or B or C) this being the channel. Just press the right hand button and the screen will cycle to various modes (it's basically on camera flash, or a flash + trigger, or an off camera flash) Then make sure the transmitter is set to the same channel and group and you should be good to go. If not let me know and maybe I can do a quick video Allen
@@CreativePixelPhotos Thank you for taking the time..I am at my wits end lol ... I have put the flash on slave mode and set the CH on both the flash and transmitter to the same and also the same group A... ,,Which right hand button I have presssed all the buttons..Maybe my camera is not set right ..But I have the set to manual in the flash setting
@@crofterlass3459 Video on the way tomorrow 🙂
@Allen Blasdell Your so kind thank you
a studio with nothing changing would have been more effective for a point
I’ve heard speculation the sensor on the D700 is from Panasonic. But so far I don’t see photographers tripping over themselves to get a full frame Panasonic.
Developed and made by Panasonic specially for Nikon.
The Panasonic S5mkii has come out at a very competitive price.
As mentioned, the Panasonic S5ii has been released, looks great. The S1 has one of the highest rated sensors for any FF camera. Pros have been using the GH series for years but these are videographers/hybrid shooters. As a Nikon user, I wish they’d pack their cameras with as many pro features as Panasonic.
The D700 sensor NC81338L (CMOS) has been designed by Nikon and has been manufactured by "Matsushita"(later Panasonic)
not close for me 700 win win
I think if you used a 35mm z lens, you would see a vast difference the z6 2 comes to life with z lenes
I agree! In that case, the difference is even bigger. You get even more plasticky and non-organic results from the Z6ii!
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p Organic?.Why not shoot a film? This would be more organic, I am sure you would agree. I think photography and gear are very personal, and what one man likes, the other does not so enjoy what you have :)
@@martinsmyth5580 For sure! Different levels of aesthetic!
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p Which standard zoom is best on D700?
@@33antonius Nikon 24-70 f/2,8G
имею Д800Е, огромный динамический диапазон, и это решающий момент
with much worse colours though..
These are the scores for a number of Nikon cameras. The left value is the score in sunlight, and the right value is the score in incandescent light.
D850 - 79, 76
D810 - 80, 78
D750 - 81, 77
D800 - 78, 75
D700 - 83. 83
I went from D700 to Z6 and the Z6 destroys it in every way. The D700 is great, but it's not better than new tech, despite a lot of peoples' wishful thinking.
As a Z8 and Z6ii (and D780) user for weddings there's certainly nothing wrong with images from them - in fact they're REALLY good. BUT - the D700 due to it's cfa and processing algorithms in some cases produces unique images that for some people (me included) look better than the modern "realistic" look where everything is true to life, The D700 has the ability to sometimes (dependant on the lighting and colours in the scene) produce very arty images.
@@CreativePixelPhotos art isn't in a camera sensor, whatever model or brand
:-) Like to hear what someone who's just spent £13,800 on a Lieca M11 and Summilux35 lens would say about that....
The choice of raw converter has a huge impact on the result. This ‘test’ is fun but not of much true value.
So lightroom no good??
They will do everything to justify the money they spent on their mirrorless. Even if they have to blame the editing software!
@@CreativePixelPhotos I am surprised you asked that question, you have been a photographer for long enough to know that different raw converters can ‘process’ differently to each other.
There is nothing wrong with Lightroom but it is just one converter. Put those same files through C1, Affinity Photo, DXO Photolab, Photo Ninja, Darktable, Raw Therepee, Nikon’s own software etc. And likely you will get different results.
You are drawing conclusions from your own, specific workflow which is fine if you make clear to anyone who is not so up on these things that their results could be very different.
@@colinsmith7314 The results will be similar no matter the RAW converter. The optical qualities are well recorded in the RAW data and defined by the quality of the sensor and its CFA.
The raw converter DOES NOT change the data. In the same way, your Christmas decoration DOES NOT change the quality of your house.
What really makes the difference?
Continue reading:
With every jump in resolution, the colour filters are further weakened
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.
THE COLOURS AND HUES THAT ARE LOST BECAUSE OF NEVER BEING CAPTURED IN THE FIRST PLACE, CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED NOR COOKED, NO MATTER THE EDITING SOFTWARE OR THE RAW CONVERTER!
It is more than obvious that the weaker Z6II CFA is not able to discriminate hues and record the slightest tonal shifts and the only thing it does is turn everything into an awful greenish cast.
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p Thank you for clearing that up 🙂
Nikon D700
better
I cannot see, that the D700 would be better or worse.
What do you think about your Iphone's camera?
For you to consider: the D200 beats the D700 in this respect anytime.
The D200 has a significantly inferior ability to gather light compared to the D700
71.70µm2 (D700) vs 37.14µm2 (D200).That affects all of its optical qualities. Colour fidelity included plus an inferior colour depth of 23.5 (D700) vs 22.3 (D200).
The only thing the CCD sensor does is oversaturate specific hues.
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p The Z6 is more realistic in colours than the D700, but Allen can answer that better since he is next to the scene he shot.
Check the "imatest" colour checkers that measure colour accuracy and hue discrimination. There is not any Nikon camera that can match to the D700's colour accuracy.
What you and i are able to see and appreciate in a photo is another story..
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p thank you. I have them both.
My eyes are just drawn to the D700. It looks more pleasing and real. The Z6ii looks flat and lifeless. Says it all really. New tech is just a marketing scam.
I’ve just compared photos taken with the D700 and the GH5. Keep in mind that the format of these two devices is not the same. The D700 is full frame at 3:2 and the GH5 is Micro fourth third at 4:3, so they don’t cover the same area. Obviously if you want to shoot exactly the same thing with a full frame and a micro four third, the photographer has to move.
So don't look at the size and the aspect but at the color. Both cams have the equivalent of 50mm, about the same aperture and the same ISO value. ISO was kept under 500 for both cams. The Lumix had a 25 mm, which is equivalent to 50 mm in FF world. WB was on automatic. Everything shot at 2.8 The panasonic had the Lumix 25 mm f/1.8 and the D700 the Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 D
Nothing is corrected, but everything is correctable. I purposely did not correct anything. As far as I'm concerned, no camera is superior, color-wise, to the other. Everything can be done in post. I could make one look better or worse than the other very easily. The pictures follow each other by group of two.
So what do you think? photos.app.goo.gl/uhKJGGwN7xU7Qa2e7
No need to convince anyone about your GH5.It is well known your Micro fourth third at 4:3,GH5 is considered a Legend by thousands of photographers around the globe.
No one ever thought that the D700 was better than your Microfourth Toy.
The D700- 71.70µm2 vs GH5 -11.16µm2 does not play any role in final image quality and the 8,5 MICRONS Tonal gain of the old D700 is just a myth.
Of course, your comparison is our way to go if we want to justify the name "Legend" next to your GH5!
GH5 is a classic camera that has won countless photography competitions and also is famous for its micro contrast,3d pop, vibrancy and reliability!
Here are some links with exceptional shots from the GH5.
The show (among other things) the great GH5 hue discrimination, its vibrancy, the feeling of "being there" and the great GH5 tonal resolution (AKA micro contrast) which have given the name "Legend" on the GH5!
www.flickr.com/photos/191035018@N07/
www.flickr.com/photos/197082054@N04
Lock the brightness on your phone. It will stop the flashing in your video