D200 To D700

[elrafo]

Hey there,


I own a D200 and I am quite happy with it, I am only disapointed with low light condition and Iso noise. I am doing model photography and landscapes.
the D700 seems to be way much better with those issues but the price of this camera is still pretty high, I also make a small jump resolution wise.
I am wondering if it worth a move to D700 and sell my D200 for unfortunately a low price ... maybe wait dor the D800 if they make one day the 21 MP

thanks for your opinion!

Raphael

 

[iflynething]

Well what kind of lens do you have because that D700 if full frame so that might be an issue there. Another thing is what kind of model photography is it. Natural light or what. In that case you would definately benefit from the D700 high ISO capabilities.

As for landscapes, are you just looking for a faster shutter speed and are shooting at night or dusk. If that's the case, then I would stick to a tripod. I haven't seen many people shoot a landscape and night and want to get in and get out. I try to take my time on those and bring a tripod

~Michael~

 

[elrafo]

thanks,

indeed I have a 80-200 f2.8 but I will need to purchase a 24-70 ... or 28-80...
I love dusk and low light, is there a real benefit to jump to D700 in high Iso? I Mean is it a revolution compared to D200 sensor?

 

[iflynething]

YES. If you can find some test shots around here with people who have shot with it then you can see why. The reason behind this is the sensor. Full-Frame

~Michael~

 

[Garbz]

Yes the D700 is quite the different beast. It is a worthy jump (unlike say a D200 to D300 or a 30D to 40D which I find quite a waste of money). I'd do it myself if I had a little more income. Since I don't I will be waiting for a D800 :roll:

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Here's an Idea of the noise performance that you can expect from the D700 at ISO's 6400 and 3200 shooting RAW and processing in Adobe CameraRaw. I shot these just the other night without a tripod, hand held with my 24-120VR. These would have very much been impossible on my D70s under the same conditions.



ISO 6400:

100% Crop of the picture:

ISO 3200:

100% crop:

They key is to just ever so slightly overexpose and then pull back a little. When you do that, the results are just mind blowing. I've made ISO 12000 look like ISO 1600 from my D70.

 

[JerryPH]

Here's an Idea of the noise performance that you can expect from the D700 at ISO's 6400 and 3200 shooting RAW and processing in Adobe CameraRaw.

I was going to say that I was not too impressed, but then realized that the "noise" I was seeing in your pics was dust on my LCD!

A quick wipe-down and I understand what you mean. Question for you... in ACR, did you adjust the noise removal in any way, or are the noise and sharpness settings straight from your camera?

 

[Call_me_Tom]

IMO I don't feel that there are enough differences to warrant an upgrade given your circumstances, needs and wants. If I were you I'd buy a nice wide angle (12-24mm perhaps) lens and a solid tripod.

I'd wait until a 20+mp model is released. By the time Nikon creates a prosumer body pushing 20mp the differences in features between the D200 and the Dxxx should be night and day. But until that day arrives I'd stick with your D200.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I was going to say that I was not too impressed, but then realized that the "noise" I was seeing in your pics was dust on my LCD!

A quick wipe-down and I understand what you mean. Question for you... in ACR, did you adjust the noise removal in any way, or are the noise and sharpness settings straight from your camera?

It's pretty much straight out of camera, I don't like to really do luminous noise reduction because it smears details. I just did color noise reduction and toned down the exposure level a smidgen.

 

[JerryPH]

Landscapes you do early morning or late evenings during times that there is that "golden light". No need for high ISO performance.

Portraiture you use off camera flashes/strobes. No need for high ISO performance.

That FX *definately* comes in handy for 3+ people portraits. So the question is, how often do you do this and can you justify the D700's costs for this?

Right now, I feel it's more a "not really needed" level of justification, more than anything else. I bet some nice off camera lighting equipment is more justifiable for you than a $3000 camera.

It's pretty much straight out of camera, I don't like to really do luminous noise reduction because it smears details. I just did color noise reduction and toned down the exposure level a smidgen.

Thanks for letting me know. Right now I am debating the D700/D3 balance for me as well.

 

[elrafo]

thanks a lot for all these examples, I see in your low light samples that the noise is really low compared to what I would get with my D200.

I prefer to work with natural light, so no upgrade in light/flashes at this time... I also like undirect lighting like just after sunset for instance.

For this kind of pictures I did, I think there is still too much noise, I guess the D700 would be more "Crystal Clear" in those low light/contrast conditions?

The 3000$ is still a big jump, and If nikon plans a 20MP for the next years, I may stick to my D200 in the meantime.

thanks a lot for your opinions guys!

Raph

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Unless you're shooting with amazing zooms or primes, a 20MP FF camera would look lousy with anything less.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

In my opinion, if you can stretch the extra cash, it will be well worth it. Of course, if you only own "DX" type lenses, you'll also need to buy some non-DX lenses (unless you're willing to use the D700's automatic "DX crop" mode, which comes in at about 5mp). The low-light performance is just fantastic, so I expect it will come in very handy for the kind of shots you've showed us (looks like indoor portraits without flash). Or, if you can bear it, wait a little time and (hopefully ) the price will have decreased a little.