Nikon D700 review [Archive]

koffiejunkie

07-10-2008, 06:42 PM

dpreview just published their full review of the D700 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/). I skimmed over the features/build/layout bit (heard enough about that already) straight to the tests.

Maybe I'm over synical, but looking at the detail tests (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page27.asp), this cam doesn't appear to be very sharp. Even when comparing the RAW output, the 5D looks better, and even the D300 looks sharper.

Anyone else see this?

ldmelsa

07-10-2008, 07:31 PM

Maybe I'm over synical, but looking at the detail tests (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page27.asp), this cam doesn't appear to be very sharp. Even when comparing the RAW output, the 5D looks better, and even the D300 looks sharper.

The 5D does have technically better image quality. The D700 has superior ergonomics, functionality, screen, exposure meter, speed and lowlight. But with the new 5DMKII being the same price as the D700, why go for the D700? The new 5D has everything that was missing in the original 5D, plus video. 5DMKII FTW :)

I would never get a D700. The 5DMKII offers more for the same price.

BTW The D300 is not sharper than the D700. They're about the same. The D700 has better lowlight, but other than that the photos look the same.

koffiejunkie

07-10-2008, 07:41 PM

I think they offer much of the same, although the D700 has an edge in the FPS department. The one big criticism of the 5DmkII that I've read (over and over and over) is the AF system. No one knows yet how good/bad it is, but it looks identical to the 5D, which is just not in the same league as the D700 (or so they say). Time will tell, but I would have expected to at least match Nikon in that regard. Only one cross type? The 40D is better equipped. And that viewfinder (5D/5DmkII) looks like they simply took the AF and focus screen from the 20D as is - the focus points are clustered in the center instead of spread evenly across the viewfinder.

ldmelsa

07-10-2008, 11:26 PM

I think they offer much of the same.

I was talking about the original 5D, but the new 5DMKII is great. Even the 5D has better image quality than the D3/D700, so the new 5DMKII is very cool, as is has great lowlight and is even sharper than the old 5D. For sports, get a D3.

If I get a 5DMKII, I'll have to do weddings to pay for it. Think I'll just get a D90. :D

koffiejunkie

08-10-2008, 01:29 AM

I know, so was I (re sharpness).

As for the AF, I was referring to the new one. The old on looks like a stripped down 20D (if I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what it is) with a full frame sensor. I can not find any mention anywhere of cross-type AF points on the 5D. It's not mentioned on Canon's website, or in the dpreview interview. So I assume if doesn't have any, and if it does, it's probably only on the centre point (I have read numerous times on the forums that the centre point is very accurate compared to the others, so this would make sense). It looks like Canon has kept the AF system unchanged with the 5DmkII. This is what I read on the forums. I'm always the first to say lets wait and see, and maybe the processor based part of the AF system is in fact better - who knows.

What I will tell you, is when I tried the 5D last week, I used my 24-105L, so that I could get a fair comparison (I was more interested in how the lens feels on that body than in the 5D itself). What I noticed is that the 5D's AF is definitely slower than the 40D. It took longer to identify a focus area, and once it locked onto something, it took longer to snap into focus. I also definitely saw the difference in the sensitivity of the surrounding focus points. Maybe just because the response is slower, but again, these did not feel as good as the ones on the 40D.

Now, the 40D has cross-type on all focus points. It may only have nine, but they're damn accurate and pretty quick. I don't see why canon didn't just use this AF system instead of the one from the original 5D (i.e. 20D). It would make so much sense.

Anyway, what I was saying earlier about the layout of the focus points, look at these:

40D:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS40D/Images/viewfinderviewdiag.jpg (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page5.asp)

5D:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Images/viewfinderdiag.jpg (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page4.asp)

Notice the cluster of AF points is much smaller, less of the frame size is covered.

ldmelsa

08-10-2008, 09:28 AM

yeah, the 5d was quite a slow camera
the 5d only excelled at image quality, so i guess it depends on what you are shooting
40d/50d is so fast it can be used for sports

bwana

08-10-2008, 09:43 AM

While shooting the superbikes the other day I came to understand that even the fps rate of the 400d was enough for that. What I want is a long fast lens. Maybe that 150-500 sigma is on the cards. :D

ldmelsa

08-10-2008, 10:10 AM

150-500 sigma

500 x 1.6 = 800 :cool:

koffiejunkie

08-10-2008, 11:00 AM

f/5.6-6.3? I think you rather need the Sigma APO 200 - 500 mm F2.8 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp)...

mercurial

08-10-2008, 11:10 AM

f/5.6-6.3? I think you rather need the Sigma APO 200 - 500 mm F2.8 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp)...

:eek: OMG, that looks like a bloody missile launcher.

koffiejunkie

08-10-2008, 11:19 AM

Little known fact: this one really can make coffee :)