I've just read Michael's very interesting write-up of his initial impressions of the Nikon D700. I thought it worth adding a footnote here that in the US the D3 is now down to $4699 at both the big NY stores (hint, one starts with an "A", the other with a "B"). With the vertical battery grip the D700 is priced within $1460 of the D3.

Michael already mentioned the reviews of the D3 on www.DPReview.com and by Thom Hogan at www.bythom.com. DPReview also has, as Michael has posted, a D700 preview. I've also been following Bjørn Rørslett forum posts as he puts the D700 through several tests to test / confirm Nikon's specifications and otherwise put the camera through its paces. It is much different from Michael's write-up, but does include interesting bits like:

"The normal-temperature test ended with the camera's battery dying while I was asleep. According to the linear regression model, I got an estimated 4400 exposures @22 C (jpg normal, 24-70, 30 secs intervals) which tallies well with Nikon specifications, just like the D3. I probably got nearly 10% better performance than the official figure.

The D700 is now gasping for battery power in the deep freezer (-26 C), it won't last long, probably less than 200 exposures. The final run will at at approx +2 C which a very common temperature in my neck of the woods."

That was with the little OEM battery, mind you - not the larger D3 battery which can be used in the optional grip. He also tells a tale of the camera being dripping wet as it thawed after being in the freezer and it was fine to shoot the whole time. My goodness. His "as he tests" posts are available here: http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=10771.0

He also has some technical insights that I haven't seen elsewhere re: what's in common between the D3 vs. the D300, such as the data is routed through the same 12 channel path (if I recall correctly the description) as the D3, which makes for faster processing like the D3 rather than the D300.

I pass it along in case anyone else might find it of interest.

Again, an excellent and interesting field report Michael. Many thanks.

I think you meant 4699 and not 2699 for the price of the D3.

Yes, thanks - I may have caused someone undue palpitations. I've fixed that typo.

Interesting over view of the D700. In most ways it's a stripped down D3 in a small form factor, but I''m sure Nikon is going to sell a ton of these things and I welcome the market competition. Now, if Sony can do something other than talk, we'll all enjoy some real choice in the market.

While I have little to no faith in Canon - they've had years to produce good/great offerings and they've given us some real disappointments and mediocrities - the real judgment of Nikon's offering must wait until a head-to-head comparison can be done with Canon's next 5d, if such a thing exits.

The D700's (and D3's) deficient 12MP resolution is an area where Canon is sure to score well, but beyond that, I'm sure Canon will look for every opportunity they can find to cut corners. (one can always hope for an awaking on Canon's part that being cheap isn't going to cut it anymore, but precedence says that's not to be...).

As an aside, I'd like to understand MR's "relationship" with Nikon. Since the camera isn't shipping, yet he has a "production" version unavailable to others, I found myself wondering how that happened. Any answers out there?

As I understand these things generally, Nikon / NPS will provide certain reviewers with pre-production or production models of yet-to-ship cameras so that they can be reviewed. Those reviewers need not have any relationship with Nikon - for example, Thom Hogan writes about Nikon but refuses anything free from them (travel, etc.) to maintain a no conflict of interest position. Similarly, DPReview has no particular affiliation with Nikon or Canon or Sony or Pentax or ... . NPS will also send some photographers bodies to try as well - again, photographers with no relationship to Nikon. As an example, a wonderful wedding photographer based in the UK, Jeff Ascough, who is a Canon 1Ds Mk II and III user was recently sent a D3 and lenses to try for a month by NPS.

Of course Nikon also sends bodies early to Nikon-sponsored shooters for the purpose of getting publicity photos for brochures and the Nikon web site, e.g. Joe McNally with the D700 (http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/) or Cliff Mautner with the D3 (http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/), and generate some blog excitement but that's a different story.

The D700 at half the price and 95% of the D3 is likened to the Canon 40D and the old 5D. I tested both of these cameras at the store and was hard pressed to opt for a 5D as backup to my 1Ds, with the 40D giving me what I wanted at half the cost of the 5D (or a savings of a good lens). However, a new 5D may tip the scales in favor, (and I'm curious of a head-to-head with the D700 as well).

So, the D700 may undercut D3 sales in similiar fashion, however an upcoming D3 replacement would remedy that.

In once sense the both companies may be undercutting their better cameras with cheaper alternatives, but are in sync with each other.

Then again, that's technology and competition for you, and in any case, we as customers benefit.

The answer is simple. There is no "relationship". I publish a popular web site and write for several major magazines. Manufacturers provide me with either pre-production or early production camera so that I can write reviews. They do the same thing for other journalists, bloggers, and magazine editors. That's about the long and short of it.

I don't accept freebes, gifts, or other forms of "presents". All loaned products are returned, or in the case of some (like large printers, which are not wanted back after 6 months to a year of long term testing) they are donated to an educational institution. Software is not returned.

I accept meals and drinks at a trade show or meeting, but as often buy them for others, so it all evens out. I also do not accept advertising from manufacturers.

BTW, this is the way that most online reviewers work. In the magazine world there is typically a "chinese wall" between editorial and advertising, and how porous that wall is depends on the ethics of the publisher. Most consider it sacrosanct, but with some, like the late unlamented Peterson's Photographic it was hard to tell the difference between advertising and editorial.

There are always complaints about bias, but in my 30+ years of writing for print and online I have found that this is rarely the case. Writers typically just tell it like it is – at least from their perspective.

Michael

"In the magazine world there is typically a "chinese wall" between editorial and advertising, and how porous that wall is depends on the ethics of the publisher. Most consider it sacrosanct, but with some, like the late unlamented Peterson's Photographic it was hard to tell the difference between advertising and editorial."

I think most consumer mags do "softball" reviews. This is probably a result of the need for ad dollars and the fear of law suit. I think the Bose v Consumers Union law suit really had a chilling effect on "product" reviews.

Michael
Personal perspective is a form of bias. Not all online reviewers are as honest with themselves and their audience as you are. Interestingly Ctein has an article on "payola" on TOP saying much the same as you do. Notwithstanding that, there is quite a controversy on DP review about how they rate DSLRs. Obviously, your approach to reviewing new products by explaining your personal bias and noting real world results has lead to you being one of the most credible reviewers online.
Keep up the good work. Most of us appreciate it greatly.
Ken

I disagree. In fact Consumer Union won that case on appeal because there was no proof of "malice"

I'm not saying that there aren't "soft ball" reviews, just that in my years of writing for magazines what I've seen is that they either print the review pretty much as written, or they decline it. Not wanting to piss off an advertiser is understandable though. (Which is one of the reasons I don't accept advertising (except for B&H, who sell all products)).

I also rarely see any attempts at manufacturer influence. Years ago I wrote a scathing review of a new computer / gaming device for a consumer electronics magazine. I subsequently received a telephone call from a VP of that company threatening me with legal action if I didn't write a retraction. I told what he could do with his "legal action" and never heard more about it.

On another occasion after doing a very negative review of a DSLR on this site I got a call from an individual who identified himself as an attorney for that company. He didn't threaten in any way, but politely asked if I would wish to meet with some of the company's engineers to discuss some concerns about my review. I replied that this would be fine, but that I was curious as to why such a call was coming from a lawyer. I never heard from them again and not long afterward they got out of the DSLR business.

Michael

What? I just don't understand this statement. And here is why:

If you look back a few decades, Nikon was the camera of professionals. End of story. Canon, although they had professional offerings, made their mark in the consumer sector. Fast forward to the last 4-6 years and the tables got turned a bit. I for one got feed up with Nikon's apc format stance & switched to Canon. Now, finally Nikon has gotten their act together. This is good for both companies and the marketplace in general.

Canon has done more for moving the bench mark for the small format camera then all the other small format camera companies combined. Yes there is tons of complaining about the aging wide angles but who complains about their long glass? Or the special lenses such as the 85 1.2?

The 10, 20, 30, 40D's were traditional Canon bringing the camera technologu to the masses - on a consumer level approach. Nikon's approach has always been slightly different - more working photographer.

The 5D - holy cow man - this camera existance is a huge milestone. Yeah, it may not be perfect but look what it did. Would we even being talking about a full frame Nikon right now?

Ken

"
I disagree. In fact Consumer Union won that case on appeal because there was no proof of "malice""

That is correct, but it was a fourteen year legal battle by Consumer Union and a final decision by the SCOTUS...a very expensive victory. My "soft" opinion is based more on my perception of changes in audio and automobile publications over the last fifty years.

Steve

Small point, but "bit of a shocker" in Britain means "very bad", not of course the right interpretation here but for a moment I was worried

Quentin

End of story? Canon turned the tables "a bit" in the last 4-6 years? OK, we disagree on some issues (like the 20+ years ago that Canon trounced Nikon with superior AF and then IS lenses, and hasn't looked back since), but if we can avoid a C/N battle right now as we do agree on some things I'd prefer it. I've been shooting over 30 years, have used both systems, and I'm a working photographer. I prefer Canon, but they're wearing me out.

I'm not a Canon lens complainer and I've replaced a lot of them in the last few years. I love my 85L's (still have two but sold one Mk I a month ago), all my other L primes except the 50L which is a crap lens, my 3 TSE's, my L zooms, and I just purchased another 300mm f/2.8 IS 6 weeks ago. I have no problem with Canon glass, and even love my 16-35 bthough people tell me I shouldn't. I have no Nikon glass envy and think 14-24 aside, Nikon is second fiddle as far as I'm concerned.

As for bodies , which is what generated my comment, I think it's clear that Canon is doing little beside spewing new bodies with minor upgrades to keep people upgrading and buying. They've released good sensors in most cases, but little else. Enough is enough. Their pricing structure vis-a-vis what they provide is so skewed it's ridiculous. After two 1D3's, my budget for a new 1Ds3 has been permanently shelved. Who in their right mind wants to pay $8k for a $5k camera (assuming you have the choice to skip it that is, and I do)? Nikon is providing feature on a $1700 camera Canon expects over 3x that price (100% VF and pro level AF are two examples).

I've owned four 5d bodies along side 1 series bodies, and while I thought it was novel when released, I found it strangely over priced. It's a 30d with a FF sensor.. nothing more.. I held the camera for 30 seconds and my gut said "not worth it". I love the IQ ( better than my 1Ds2) and think it's surpassed only by the 1D3 (and I'm told the 1Ds3). I'm not complaining about that and disagree with MR about the 5d IQ vs. the D700 at low ISO. I only have my own trained eyes to tell me the truth and don't have the necessary naivete to believe authors/web site that tells me I'm mistaken. As long as my eyes work, I'm going with Canon, especially in the studio. IQ aside, I like the 5d, but I have never loved it. It's a lower mid-level amateur camera with a good sensor. The rest of it is, well, not that good.... What can I say?

What Canon does is take features such as 100% VFs and make you pay $4500 for it (and then give you a cropped 1d3 sensor). They hit the AF in the head with a hammer before putting it in any non 1 series body; Nikon has reversed that trend. Canon cripples frame rates; Nikon is offering choice. Canon uses outdated Digic 3 processors (appeared 3 years ago in P&S cameras) in their $8k flagship and even have the gall to stick a crummy low res LCD on the back (give me a break on that one..). I actually had a Canon rep tell me the LCD was just as good as what Nikon was using (both cameras were in front of me). I stared at the guy, asked him if he was serious, and then walked away; it was clear I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone making that comment. Look at canon's UDMA support (if you can find it). The list continues; Canon is about over charging for features and always has been. Even my 20+ year old New F-1 lacked a 100% VF, while the F3 had it. The difference is that I've been willing to pay the freight in the past. I'm finally fed up and don't want to play the game anymore.

It's time Canon stepped up to the plate. They can do so much, but they are so cheap from a features perspective it's incredible. You may feel differently.

Have you tested a D3/D700 yourself in order to form this opinion?

Cheers,
Bernard

In most ways it is a D3 in a small form factor would probably be more accurate.

This is coming from a happy D3 user.

Cheers,
Bernard

Two updates - yesterday, when looking the price gap, I noted the D3 was priced at $4699 at the two large NYC stores. I note that the D3 is down to $4591.97 on Amazon today. Finally - I note that B&H has the D700 (body or kit) listed as "In Stock" as of this evening. July 23 beat my expectations by a bit (and it seems a great customer satisfaction practice to promise a date a bit later than when the company thinks it will really be able to deliver the first shipments).

The D700 is listed at 2999.95 US$ at B&H, not sure where you got that 4699 price from.

cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard - yes, I hope by typo (my second similar one this thread!) was obvious - it's the D3 that was at $4699 and was then at $4591. Nikonrumors.com has been tracking the price fall and has updated again tonight that Calumet is now listing the D3 for $4499.99 - $200 less than the lower price of 24 hours ago (or a difference of approximately $1260 (give or take a dollar or two) between a D3 and a D700 with the battery grip).

Internet prices seem to vary a lot. In Australia, the lowest price for the D3 I found is A$4,500. The D700 is $3749. I paid around A$5,000 for a Canon 5D body almost 3 years ago, but the Aussie dollar has risen in value since those days. It's now worth around 96 US cents.

From an amateur's perspective, I can say that I never experienced any Nikon envy until recently.

Nikon have definitely stolen a march on Canon. By the end of the year, Nikon and Sony look as though they'll have the DSLR market sewn up. Where is there for Canon to go?

Consider, in a few months time Nikon will have on offer a choice of two full frame 12mp DSLRs and a 24mp full frame. Sony will also have (presumably) a less expensive 24mp full frame with anti-shake sensor image stabilisation.

I've always been of the opinion that any less than a doubling of pixel count is not significant. Less than a 50% increase is virtually invisible. These progressions of Canon from 8 to 10 to 12mp in the cropped format, and from 12 to 16 to 21mp on full frame are not interesting.

Yep. I agree, especially about the LCD (total crap!) and the crippling of non 1-series cameras. (Especially the 5d) Nikon gives you D300 that is 95% of the D2X's, pentax gives you full sealing in a $1000 USD body, etc, etc, etc. Maybe its just differing design/marketing ideologies, but I think I prefer Nikons way of doing things.

"The D3 provides an integral vertical grip, release and controls, whereas the D700 can have these added by attaching the accessory grip. (They're there when you need them and not when they're not, reducing bulk and weight)."

A minor complaint about the MB-D10 battery grip is, to me, the annoying feel of the large notched wheel under the fourth and fifth fingers while using the vertical grip.

Steve

I am a working photographer as well, doing national advertising - all on location. I use a couple of 1Ds series cameras and a small group of Canon lenses. Don't see any reason to own anything more. I just don't loose sleep at night over what my equipment supplier is/is not doing. As a photographer who makes one's living shooting commercial work I just expect that nothing is perfect, from my camera to the weather and everything in between.

I was always under the impression that if you feel you are being ripped off by someone you just go find someone new to do business with, even if it costs you more. Life is just too short.

Ken

You're right, nothing is perfect, but my 1VHS - which I use on a regular basis - comes close.

In the many years I've owned that camera, I've always been satisfied and that's what's important to me. It met my expectations and always delivers. Digital is not a mature market though, and that makes a rational film to digital comparison difficult.

Anyway, the gear head in me and the "what's possible vs. what we get" questions in an immature market cause dissonance. As I said before, I prefer Canon, but the stingy upgrade cycle is what's wearing me out. I'd like to get off the wheel. Instead of offering the best they can, Canon deliberately withholds features so they can offer something "new" in another year. They charge a "premium" [their word, not mine] simply because they've had no real competition. While customers are numbers on a spreadsheet (like many companies) but withholding features such as a decent LCD and respectable UDMA support on a 1Ds3 is untenable to me.

I understand marketing, but there's a line where a company becomes Intel-like (the worst market churning company I've ever seen) and Canon has crossed that line. That's my opinion, if yours differs, that's fine but it's just another opinion. If you're satisfied with what you have, that's fine too. I am not satisfied with the current line up, and believe Canon's behavior is wearing quite thin on lots of people.

Regarding the suggestion to "switch", I applaud Nikon for finally offering competitive products, but they do not offer what I want yet either. I'm not about to move to a company that can't deliver more than 12MP...

I totally agree with you. My first assistant, a past nikon user who switched to canon via a 5D, is going back. I think it is the right choice for him but obviously not you or I.

The best part of all of this new Nikon surge is that you may see Canon change from the position that you dislike. I personally never paid attention to any of what you don't like. I just picked what I needed and paid the price and then bill it on to my clients each & every time I shoot a job - a digital gear fee.

Ken

Michael, with the high quality pixels on the D700/D3, which you say can be uprezzed a lot, does the 1.5x crop factor of the D300 really make it that much more interesting for tele? In other words, would an up-rezzed crop from a D700 match a D300 (given the same lens)? Which of them reaches its up-rezzing limit first, and by how large a margin?

If we can assume that the upcoming D3x has pixels at least as good as the D300, then it certainly will be as useful for long tele, though at a slightly higher price point:)

-Lars

There's no simple answer. The D300 has smaller photo sites and therefore has higher resolution than the D700/D3, which have the same MP count. This really only starts to become of significance when one is making prints larger than the native resolution can sustain (at around 180 ppi in most situations), though it can sometimes be seen in smaller prints as well.

So for example, when I go to Botswana to shoot wildlife in September I expect to shoot with the D300 on my longest lenses when reach is necessary, rather than with the D3 and then cropping and enlarging.

But, when the light levels are low I'll shoot with the D3 because its two stop advantage over the D300 is likely a better compromise. No one camera does it all.

Michael

I'm an amateur too, who has been shooting with Nikon for 35 years. When I first went digital, I went with the Nikon D70 because of my investment in lenses. Until I got the D3 6 months ago, I must confess I had a serious case of Canon envy.

The D3 is comparable or better than the 1DM3, but they still have nothing to compare with the 1DsMIII. Flame wars of Nikon vs Canon are futile. Both systems are now very good and the photographer will choose between them according to personal preferences and needs. Switching brands can be unpractical if one has a large investment in glass and accessories, but it is feasible for pros who have fully depreciated their current system.

Bill

The D700 seems to be in stock in several UK photo stores. Suddenly, despite my earlier reservations, I feel I should buy one. Someone talk me out of it before its to late.

Quentin

Hi!

I got the impression that an 3DX is probably on it's way using a 24 MPix sensor from Sony, I guess that would be comparable to 1DsIII.

Best regards
Erik

Okay!

Quentin,
Didn't you own, and perhaps still own, a 14mp full frame DSLR, the Kodak 14n?

Several years later you are now contemplating the purchase of a 12mp full frame DSLR that doesn't even have the benefit of 'no AA filter'??

Ray,

Nice try, impeccable logic (and yes, I still have the Kodak) and you almost talked me out, but temptation is getting the better of me, particularly as a good friend of mine has been raving about his D3 file quality.

Guess I am but a weak mortal

If I proceed then I will report back on findings

Quentin

PS Here is my completely useless logic: It could be a dry run for a D3x and wouldn't a D700 and D3x be a pretty versatile combination?

Well, here is my take,

The D3X will make stiff demands on the lenses. Think of D700 as Tri-X and D3X as Panatomic-X. If your lenses are good enough D3X is something to be seen. If you get the D700 you will have an excellent low light camera and a good backup for your presumed D3X. However, difficult to predict the future is... My guess is that a D700X or D900 may be lingering somewhere below the horizon.

Another issue is that we have a lot of raving about image quality. But what is meant by image quality? Talking about pixel quality may not make sense, what really counts is what you can have in your print.

Best regards
Erik

Quentin - now having a tracking number in hand for Saturday delivery myself, I'm afraid that I'm not qualified to even attempt to talk you out of it. Best of luck with the decision.

Me too... that's why I sold my 5D's, and will be picking up my D700 later today.

D700 acquired, from LCE in Norwich. A friend and I went together then had a quick test out over a pint at a local pub, Said friend had just sold his D3, which he found too large and bulky. So far, most impressed, but its very early days.

Quentin

You didn't give us much time to talk you out of it.

For me, the initial cost of a D700 would be around $6,000 because I don't have any Nikkor lenses. My Nikon envy is only slight from the perspective of body features, having already proved to myself that the claims of low noise at high ISO (of the D3) are much exaggerated.

It's the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 lens which interests me more. I doubt whether any landscape shot I could take would be noticeably better as a result of my using a D700 in place of a 5D, but I think it's quite likely that such a shot would be better, noticeably sharper, especially at the edges, have less distortion and be slightly wider as a result of my using a Nikkor 14-24 in place of my current 15-30 Sigma.

I notice a kit deal on the internet consisting of the D700 plus 14-24 lens for A$6095. I normally travel with a back-up camera that also serves as a telephoto extender, ie. cropped format such as the 20D and now 40D. Travelling with a D700 plus 14-24, and a 40D plus 24-105 and 100-400 would be workable, except for that gap between 24mm and 39mm.

However, I have a wide format printer (the Epson 7600) and therefore a 24mp DSLR would be much appreciated. I think I'd be better advised to play the waiting game. I'm hoping that the delay in the announcement of a 5D replacement is due to Canon withdrawing its 16mp upgrade that was almost ready to go when they learned that Sony had developed a 24mp FF sensor.

I assume that these large corporations have a road map and allow themselves the flexibility to bring forward future projects in order to meet current market competition.

Ray - just curious, what currency are those dollars in? It looked $1500 high for that kit i(D700 plus 14-24) in the US / US dollars.

From LL sponsor B&H, the "perfect" D700 kit (D700, 14-24 & 24-70) would be ~$6,200.

Steve

Australian dollars, currently worth about 95 cents US.

I've been shooting in an third floor playroom in our house with the D700 - the room is long and has great light at this time of day with windows on the north and west - it's a great setting to test the body out (and play with the girls). My girls, 2 and 5, are always great subjects.

My goodness. Well, perhaps because I used Nikon film cameras before moving to Canon, it only took a few moments (if any time at all) for my hands to feel right at home (getting used to the Canon feel took me a few days). The performance is fantastic - from how responsive it is to my first files - shooting with a 50 1.4 (An aside the Nikon HR-2 rubber hood for the 50 1.4 is a brilliant little item - it collapses down back to the lens face in your bag and provides excellent toddler protection for the lens). I'm tweaking it a bit already and even without the manual, it's not hard to figure out. So I just set Auto ISO a few minutes ago. I must have had a big smile on my face - what a feature. It was incredibly easy to set up - a menu item that was clear and then just two setting top sensitivity and bottom end shutter speed - and that's it. The controls are so easy to use. I'm switching between spot and matrix metering and my finger goes right to it. I focused with the AF button on the Canons and there's a similar button layout for that so I didn't miss a beat. The view finder is SO much better than my 5D. What do I mean? It's really in the information - what it includes and where it is. I was always trying to remember, what is x or y set at on my 5D. Canon has fixed the ISO issue in newer models, but I am so pleased to see it here. The icons are clear and - like checking your mirrors when driving - I find I'm getting all the information I want, e.g. what metering mode I'm in, etc. very easily. Another nice piece of VF-displayed information is how much buffer space is available - what a good idea to include that. It's got a much better / brighter font compared to the 5D or 30D as well - the view finder info is executed really well. Regarding responsiveness, if you're coming from something like a 5D or 30D - both my former bodies - the experience is something - even without the battery grip. I have it on continuous shooting and the speed of the AF and frame rate are giving me captures instantaneous with what I'm trying to photograph (little girls running around in this case) like I've never experienced before. I muttered aloud: "that's so fast".

I'm finding a bunch of little design touches that are improvements over what I'm used to - again in the category of design / ergonomics - for example, being able to delete a file by just pushing the trash button twice. It's a little thing, but having to press the delete, and then roll the thumb wheel to "ok" and then hit the center enter button on a 5D in comparison is doing it the hard way. The same with formatting a CF card - which you can do without going into the menus. The Info button on the back and the quick access items are also brilliant - again a host of little things that are adding up into a much faster / easier / dare I say, much more "fun" to use camera and having a camera that's fun (and that really is the right word) to use is certainly not a bad thing. To give a bit more shape and color to that "fun to use" concept, it's bit like when I use a ThinkPad in the office and my Macintosh at home - I may be doing a fairly similar task on either, but I much prefer the experience on the latter.

A few additional thoughts - I also purchased a 70-300 VR from B&H (who were excellent per usual). Thom Hogan and Moose Peterson had good things to say about the lens despite it not being a high-end Nikkor. Thom notes that it is a sharp with no complaints up through 200mm:

"Sharpness: from 70 to 200mm, this lens is quite sharp with plenty of contrast, and I have no real complaints. As you reach out to 300mm, you'll start to see it soften a bit at maximum aperture, though stopped down two stops it remains excellent."

See, http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm, see also http://www.moosenewsblog.com and search for 70-300. I've been shooting with it for a bit and I have to give it some praise too, although praise for the lens ties into the D700. The lens is very well built. My Canon kit consisted of L-zooms and primes and when I opened the box for this lens yesterday, my reaction was one of "this is much better than I expected; this is nice" in terms of build quality and feel - which is solid. Yes, there's plastic there, but it feels like a very high quality material. The lens is not tiny, just not as big as a 2.8. It is well balanced on the D700. As I mentioned, I'm shooting indoors, upstairs today. With auto ISO enabled up to 3200 with a minimum shutter of 250, this lens is not hitting any obstacles. This is where the use of the lens ties back to the D700 - with the files looking so good at 3200, it's giving me the same light capabilities of a faster lens on a camera where I might want to keep the ISO to 1600 (or really less than that if I could).

Michael, I'm tickled with the 70-300 VR so far. You have quite a lens list in your D3 / D300 piece, but if you haven't given this $479 VR lens a spin, you may want to give it a try.

D3 yes, D700 No.

There are so many examples on the internet that can easily be compared. At low ISO ratings the 5d wins with more detail, and color/clarity/DR are either equal or better IMO. Obviously once ISO goes up the 5d has more noise, but at lower ISOs I'm giving the nod to Canon or believe it's equal.

I want to add a caveat -

I have not "upresed" the images, so if the D3 can stand more enlarging than the 5d (and I've heard some people say that) I can't say. I'd be surprised if that's the case, but until I see two images with identical enlargements to compare, I'll keep my assumption.

It's almost a D3 in a small size, but I do see it as "stripped down". It's missing a professional VF (95% doesn't wind my clock), it's missing one of the CF slots, it has a built in flash that I see as more of an annoyance, the grip is not included and costs extra, the FPS is lower on the D700 with or without the grip, it's missing the 4x5 crop, and if I'm not mistaken it has an inferior shutter life.

To me, that's kind of stripped down. The IQ will be the same, but the feature set has been reduced.

The D700 so far is the most satisfying dslr I have used. Forget the drivel about resolution. The quality of the pixels with the D700 (and D3) is so far ahead of anything else on offer in a small format camera that it (they) have no competitors at present. Makes one wonder what might be coming in the next few months.

Quentin

I thought I'd add images to go with the above post re: first photos in the play room today. I shot JPEG Fine + RAW. Aperture doesn't support the D700 at this point (nor apparently does LR, my plan B ), so these are JPEGs right out of the camera (albeit, low-res, small JPEGs) - "Standard" setting plus one saturation. There's a mirror in the play room so I snapped a self portrait in my well-loved yard cap. Most of these are with the 50 1.4 except the close ups of my 5 yr old, which were done with the 70-300 VR. All of these are available light captures.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

General note: Amazon (which I haven't used for a camera order) is already discounting the D700 for $2899. It will be interesting to see if others follow that price point.

It's quite natural that folks should be excited with their new toy and be pleased with all the ergonomic improvements they see.

I was also impressed with the fast frame rate of the D3 when I tested it in a store in Bangkok. However, such features in themselves are not necessarily going to have any bearing on the ultimate quality of the shot, although they might in certain circumstances, in action shots for example, or hand-held shots for the purpose of image stacking or merging to HDR where the auto-alignment feature of CS3E might work more successfully.

I also find the following statement from Panorama somehow resonant with my own experience with the D3.



I got the impression that the 5D shots in my testing, shooting the same dark corner inside the store, were marginally sharper than the D3 shots. At high and very high ISO, the D3 shots were noticeably cleaner. However, curiously, I found that after applying chroma-only noise reduction in Noise Ninja to the 5D file, the noise levels were much improved whilst resolution was still maintained.

Applying a similar amount of chroma noise reduction to the D3 file also improved the level of apparent noise, but not without noticeable softening of the D3 image. These were not jpegs but Tiff conversions from RAW in ACR.

After playing around with various noise reduction settings in Noise Ninja for both 5D and D3 images, it was clear that the 5D level of noise could be improved to a greater extent than the D3 level of noise before image resolution was significantly affected in both images.

After such adjustments, the noise level differences between the two cameras at ridiculously high ISOs, between 6,400 and 25,600, sometimes seemed as little as 1/4 of a stop, although on average I would place it closer to 1/2 a stop.

One has to be careful about personal assessments of the performance of new camera models from people who have not carried out thorough, direct comparisons themselves. It's so easy just to believe and repeat the positive and promotional statements one finds on the internet and on the manufacturers website.

I remember well the glowing reports of the performance of Canon's 40D; improved autofoussing; lower noise due to 14 bit A/D conversion, and general image quality on a par with that of the 5D, if not better.

The reality is something else, as I see it.

(1) Despite 14 bit processing, no significant reduction in noise or increase in DR compared with the 20D.

(2) No noticeable increase in resolution compared with the 20D, except at 200% magnification on the monitor.

(3) Definitely slightly more noise and less DR than the 5D, comparing equal size image files or prints.

(4) No noticeable improvement in autofocussing whatsoever, that I've noticed.

The last point is a real disappointment for me. I never intended to buy a 40D when I went out shopping one day for the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8, because I knew already that I could not expect any fundamental image quality improvement over the 20D, except at a pixel-peeping level, which is not enough for me.

However, I was seduced by an exceptionally good price. I also rationalised to myself that the superior autofocussing attributes of the 40D at F2.8 could be worthwhile. The faster frame rate and Live View would be icing on the cake.

So far, I haven't discovered any better autofocussing qualities of the 40D, compared with either my 20D or 5D, and Live View has mainly served the purpose of confirming just how inadequate autofocussing can be with the EF-S 17-55 at F2.8.

It sure does look like a fantastic camera.

But...as lovely as those images are, I find that the 5D + 50L combination produces more pleasing colours and rendering to me.

The best I can describe it is thinking back to film days the Nikon looks more like Fuji to me, and the Canon like Kodak. The Nikon seems just a bit green to me and the Canon redder. As a personal preference I find the Canon tones nicer most of the time, certainly for skin tones.

As far as I can see the difference in images between the D700 and 5D is basically almost nothing that doesn't come down to preference, and variations in technique are likely to be far more relevant than any difference in camera IQ. Apart from IQ though the D700 is clearly a superior camera in every department.

I find I am one of those rare beasts who is actually hoping (when it finally comes time to replace my 5D) that Canon would make us a cheap and feature-stripped FF camera, possibly with the current 5D sensor.

If the 5D is a 20D with FF sensor, then I'd really like to see a 1000D with a FF sensor. The only "high-end" feature I am actually interested in is the ability to do some calibration with your specific lenses. Apart from that I want the lightest (plastic please), cheapest (so cut out as many features as you can) FF camera I can get.

Remember the EOS 50E ? I want that camera with a 5D sensor.

Quentin, I was counting on you to resist the lure of the D700, and thereby serve as an example to me :-) I actually did find one in my local camera store, and was tempted, but managed to resist (tho I do have a D3 - I was just not able to justify another camera purchase - so far, at least).

I totally agree with you about the image quality - pixel level IQ is the best I've seen from all the current DSLRs, regardless of ISO. Period. Images tolerate a huge amount of post processing, if necessary, without falling apart. And at least up to 16" x 24" prints, are difficult to tell apart from 1DsIII files.

As far as tonality and color differences, compared to Canon, that a few others in this thread have commented on, they are basically due to the RAW converter more than anything, and the defaults in the RAW converters. I don't find one camera brand better than the other in that regard - only different. And I can pretty much make either look like the other with minor tweaks in the color, contrast, and sharpening parameters.

Congrats on the new D700.

Ray, I'm not trying to play brand guardian, but I'm curious as to what facets of the autofocus you find similar? In my experience with the 40d the AF is worlds apart from that of the 20d/30d and 5d, especially when using servo (although still nothing like a 1-series). Are you talking speed or fine detail accuracy?