D700 Field Report from Web 2.0 Summit
After spending a month making friends with the Nikon D700, getting to know its user interface and learning to turn everything the wrong/right way, I took it into the environment that I bought it for. I used it as my primary kit for shooting the 2008 edition of Web 2.0 Summit. To be sure, I had all my Canon gear, including my Canon 5D and two 1D Mark IIIs, on hand to fall back on if needed. But I intended for this to be the grand trial by fire. And, with over four thousand frames taken over the course of three days, it was one heck of a trial.
Lt. General Jeffrey A. Sorenson
1/250@f/4 ISO 3200 • Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G@130mm
If you’ve been following along, you’ll remember that I picked up the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G and AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G lenses to go with the D700. In order to be fully prepared, I rented one more lens from Borrowlenses.com, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G. This gave me the complete go-anywhere, do-anything kit. Ultra-wide to telelphoto. It’s a bit more minimal than the Canon kit that I like to shoot with, but I’m taking relatively small steps here.
So how did it go? I won’t make you wait until the end of the post for the verdict. In a word, it rocked.
Throughout the conference, I tried different settings to push my comfort envelope. About half the time I shot at ISO 1600, which has been the upper limit that I use my Canon kit at. The other half, I shot at ISO 3200. I have to tell you, an ISO 3200 shot out of the Nikon looks as good as any ISO 1600 shot I’ve taken with either the Canon 5D or Canon 1D Mark III. Even better, there is less chroma noise in the ISO 3200 shots than I’m used to seeing at ISO 1600 with my Canon gear. Of course, the Nikon can go further, but under the Web 2.0 Summit stage conditions, shooting at ISO 3200 gave me the ability to use f/5.6 if I wanted. Just gaining one stop in these conditions gave me an amazing amount of flexibility.
The increase in ISO sensitivity headroom was expected. After all, lots of reviews talk about the low noise capabilities of the latest Nikon cameras. The big surprise for me was that I was able to push a different threshold: aperture.
The Honorable Al Gore
1/250@f/3.2 ISO 1600 • Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G@180mm
Normally with my Canon kit, I shoot conferences at f/4. I’ve found if I go any wider on aperture, I’m not happy with the sharpness of my shots. There are many reasons for this, and a full rundown here would take a lot of space. To make a long story short, after doing this for four years I’ve tried every possible combination of lenses, settings, and technique. I’ve had all of my lenses calibrated. I’ve tweaked with AF micro-adjustment. You name it, I’ve tried it. No matter what I do, f/4 remains the safe limit for me when using the Canon gear in the conference venues. I’ve adopted the f/4 rule to such a degree that I automatically dial in a manual exposure of 1/125@f/4 ISO 1600 when I first check stage lighting before a conference.
Since I was already pushing boundaries with the D700, I started experimenting a bit with my aperture settings. I shot a few frames at f/2.8 and f/3.2 here and there. After seeing the resulting photographs were acceptably sharp, I started shooting more and more at apertures wider than f/4. By the end of the conference, I had the confidence to shoot at any aperture, all the way to wide open. I can’t tell you if this is because of the Nikkor lenses I was using, the kick-ass autofocus system in the D700, or some combination of the two. Maybe I just “click” better with this setup. But, all in all, my hit-to-miss ratio was much different than I'm used to. Where before, I’d throw away a relatively large number of out of focus shots, with the D700, I had a large number of acceptably sharp shots compared to choose from, and very few shots that were immediately tossable.
Chris DeWolfe
1/250@f/2.8 ISO 1600 • Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G@200mm
So, I didn’t just gain one stop of headroom by shooting with the D700 at ISO 3200, I gained two. This meant that instead of eeking by with exposure times of 1/125th of a second, I was able to shoot at a 1/250th or even a 1/500th. You can usually see a bit of blur in somebody’s face when they’re speaking and you shoot them at a 1/125th. At 1/250th or higher, most of that disappears.
Let me tell you, getting two stops of headroom made me ridiculously giddy. It was like Christmas came early. When you are used to working at the very edges of what your equipment can do, getting a bit of breathing room opens up all sorts of possibilities. And the fact that ISO 6400 was there as a backup to eke out one more stop if needed, well, that’s Christmas, Hanukah, Thanksgiving, and a chocolate bar all wrapped up into one beautiful package.
What about the lenses? As I’ve already said, the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G lens is outrageously great. It’s the best lens of its type I’ve ever used and Canon has nothing to touch it. And the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G lens also easily outclasses its Canon equivalent. The AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G, on the other hand, doesn’t so easily trounce the competition. Instead, to my eye, it’s definitely in the same general league as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. I can’t unequivocally say that one is better than the other based on my observations so far, just that they are in the same ballpark of capability. This is to be expected since Canon really does a good job with their longer glass. The only major difference for me using the Nikon 70-200 was that I was able to use it wide open in places where I hadn’t had as much luck with the Canon equivalent. I think that’s as much to do with the camera bodies as anything, however, since I’ve successfully used the Canon long glass wide open in other environments.
Tesla Roadster • 1/250@f/7.1 ISO 400 • Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G@15mm
The bottom line is that I’m totally thrilled with the results from the Nikon gear. I’m publishing photos that are at least as good as any I’ve ever posted, yet am working with two extra stops of headroom, with a third in my pocket if I really need it. What’s not to like about that? The only thing I really missed was having a built-in vertical grip on the camera. I debated about this when I bought the D700 rather than the D3, but decided at the time that if I wanted to, I could always pick up the the optional grip attachment.
Okay, so this is all good and fine for me, but what about you, dear reader? We’ll, let me break it down this way. If you’re shooting at ISO 100-400, out in the landscape, or otherwise shooting at a slower pace, well, these experiences and thoughts shouldn’t sway you too much one way or the other. Both Canon and Nikon can produce great results. The only thing that should really tempt you on the Nikon side is the wide angle glass. The same goes if you’re in a studio with controlled high-power lighting. But, if you shoot on the fly in low light or if you work in a photojournalistic style, then you need to know that right now, Nikon owns the sweet spot. Of course, anything could happen in the next year or so. Stay tuned...
Related Posts:
- Going Dual System
- D700 First Impressions
- The D700 Experiment, Two Weeks In
- Web 2.0 Summit 2008 in Two Minutes, featuring photographs made with the D700.
Related Links:
- Web 2.0 Summit 2008 Photoset on Flickr, containing 202 photos taken with the D700.
- Pinar Ozger’s photos from Web 2.0 Summit 2008
- DP Review forum discussion about this blog post.
- Ted Leung's D3 Report
37 Comments
James, I do recommend the vertical grip for the D700 (pr D300, it's the same!). I've been using it ever since I got my D300 and not only it does feel as good as built in, but it also gives you a great balance with big&heavy lenses, extra battery power (and frame rate burst if that's important for you) but it also can be removed very easily, nothing to do with previous grips that required removing the battery cover... So you can make your camera big or small on your own convenience...
Reply to this comment
:( this makes me sad that I can't afford to shift to Nikon from my current Canon kit.
Hopefully their engineers in the R+D department are able to get support from Sales to push their cameras in these direction!
Reply to this comment
Gianfranco, it's good to know that the grip works so well. I used to use add on grips for the 5D (and 20D before that), but their L-shape made them kind of awkward to carry when not on the camera. I'll probably look into one pretty soon—at least before the next big gig.
On the other hand, I really do like having a smaller camera than the D3/1D Mark III size when I'm not shooting at a gig. The slimmer form factor slides much more nicely into a backpack. :)
Reply to this comment
Hey Duncan,
I second to get the grip. I carried mine over from the D300 and it works like a charm.
In my opinion this beats the D3 not only for versatility, but also feature wise. The grip not only adds the two wheels and the shutter button, but also the joystick to move the focus point around. I believe the D3 doesn't have a "vertical joystick".
Reply to this comment
Wow... I've been mostly happy with the 1D MkIII, but there have been some glaring shortcomings and you've just illustrated them nicely. I hope Canon comes out with a reasonably reply to Nikon who has absolutely been on a tear lately.
Reply to this comment
Has nobody heard of the 5D Mk II? I know it's not out yet but switching to Nikon now is madness.
Reply to this comment
Here is question that maybe the people who read this site, or James, can answer for me. I'm a prosumer-ish hobbyist photographer, I'm used to shooting with Pentax kit and had some really nice glass for it, but
a few weeks ago I got everything stolen, about $4000 work of equipment, which for a University student is perhaps years of trying to rebuilt. That said I'm now free of any kit, so I can't start new where ever I want. Right now I'm stuck choosing between the Pentax K20D (which I would be familiar with) and the Nikon D90, not the highest end I know, but I'm really interested in starting with a base that will give me the ability to grow.
I love Pentax glass and the way their cameras are set up, and I have absolutely no experience with Nikon, any help that anyone can provide would be amazing.
Reply to this comment
Ditto Joel's comment. And that's all I have to say about that.
Reply to this comment
Useful and interesting article, but it's 'eke', not 'eek'. From the middle english for 'increase'.
Reply to this comment
Mariano, indeed the D3 doesn't have the second joystick. That is an interesting feature indeed on the vertical grip that I'm looking forward to playing with, especially as a fan of moving my focus points around manually :)
Reply to this comment
Do you think your opinions would change much with the new 5DmkII? It seems your biggest complaint of Canon that was fixed with the Nikon was the need for a higher stop, the new ISO options in the mkII should fix most of that for you don't you think?
Reply to this comment
Ryan: that is my dilemma as well. I am torn between the D700 and D5mkII, and am leaning towards the Canon.
Reply to this comment
Michael, Thanks. Fixed.
Reply to this comment
Ryan (and 700x500), no. I don't anticipate my opinions changing much once we see the what the 5Dmk2 can really do in photographers hands. If I shot just in the landscape or in the studio, the resolution would probably be welcome, depending on the lens. A usable 3200 will be nice, and certainly hits one need of mine. But, there are two other things at work here besides the sensor: AF and lenses. As I said in this post, I didn't just score an extra stop of headroom, I scored _two_ because I'm reliably nailing shots wide open that require me to use f/4 on my Canons in the conference environment. There's probably no single reason for this, but a whole host of systemic reasons and maybe just human factors as well. Obviously, this is a case where mileage will vary.
On the other hand, the 5Dmk2 comes with files that are close to twice as large. Multiply times 4000 in a shoot like I do, and that's a negative for me in conference work, especially when there's no use these images will be put to that require the extra resolution. Again, this is specific to my needs doing what I do to pay the bills. Landscape and studio work require different things and if your lenses can produce a detailed enough image, the resolution is probably just the thing you need.
Bottom line, there's no easy one answer anymore. Canon used to be king and that was the easy answer. Now Nikon has caught up and each line has made different design decisions. Those decisions interact in complex ways with the way we use the equipment and the choice for each photographer is now much more difficult. But, in my having used most of the Canon DSLRs since the D30 was released in 2000, and owning the first 5D as well as two 1Dmk3s and having used a 1Dsmk3, I'm pretty comfortable in my analysis of what the 5Dmk2 will bring to the table and proceeded with going dual system with as much information as I could given that I haven't (nor have most people) had the 5Dmk2 in hand.
And, maybe I'll end up getting a 5Dmk2 anyway for landscape work with medium to long lenses. It's all about using the right tool for the job.
Reply to this comment
BWJones, yah. I hope that Canon does something nice with the 1Dmk4. Full frame ~14Mpix, usable ISO 6400, and a fixed AF system. Of course, we'll have to see what happens on all sides, especially given the economic situation we find ourselves in. The Digital SLR market looks like it's being hit as badly as anything else so we may see the manufacturers slow up here a bit.
Reply to this comment
Just piping in here for the first time... I too just bought a D700 after a long run with Canon. And I have had the exact same reaction. I absolutely love it. The images I'm getting are better than anything I've ever gotten with Canon. Not only do I have more low light headroom... I've also noticed that the way the camera handles extreme shadows and highlights is quite nice. Big dynamic range.
Plus, the camera just "feels" good. Don't know quite what it is, but it just feels more "camera"-like to me.
Anyway, glad to hear that others are enjoying it as much as I am.
Reply to this comment
Duncan, this is a very useful review. Can you give us an honest comparison of ergonomics on the D700 vs the 5D? How long did it take you to get the camera to fall into the background so you could work quickly?
When I was first getting into this and looked at the first digital rebel vs. the Nikon D70 I liked the Canon ergonomics better and I've continued to like the ergonomics better on each successive body I've had (I have a 5D now).
However, Canon's AF has never been great on the bodies I've had and that's meant fewer keepers than I'd like. You're not the first to rave about improved AF on Nikon bodies.
Lastly, are you contemplating a complete sea change at some point?
Reply to this comment
Ben D, This is the experience I have had with the very similar D300. The confidence I get in very low light (even with its smaller sensor) comes in part from the surprising amount of deep shadow detail, partly from the remarkable AF, and partly from the physical ergonomics of the thing meaning I am hand-holding at slower shutter speeds than I've managed with other kit.
Until a few months ago I was sure I'd stick with DX for the next couple of years and get another DX body as a backup. I'm now rethinking my lens strategy to accommodate a D700, for which my D300 will become a backup. It is looking more and more like a pragmatic decision than an aspirational one.
Reply to this comment
I've never liked Canon ergonomics. My Digital Rebel XT was pretty awful, and though the 5D (didn't own one, just held it a few times) was better, the D700 (and D3) blow it away. I've had my D700 for several months now, and every time I pick it up, it makes me smile. Ergonomics are somewhat subjective, of course, but it fits me like a glove. And it is amazing how well the vertical grip integrates. It feels as solid as a D3, with a whole lot more flexibility.
Reply to this comment
Richard, it didn't take long for most of the adaptation to happen. I still trip up once in a while with directions, but mostly this is now limited to removing the back lens cap from a lens. After a month of owning it (and three long conference days really driving things home), I adjust most things now without thinking about it.
I've enjoyed the ergonomics of the D700, but having shot Canon since 1998 or so, I'm so used to the Canon set up that it's still a bit hard to be totally critical. Mostly, when on the Nikon, I miss the back thumb-dial from the Canons. Otherwise, the Nikon "fits" really well.
As far as a complete change over, we'll see. I'm now in a place where I can take advantage of both brands of gear and time will tell how that plays out.
Reply to this comment
Interesting blog - thanks for posting.
I don't really get the comments about aperture though. I would never hesitate to use my 24-70L wide open...
Reply to this comment
Tim, I don't hesitate to use my 24-70L wide open in other situations. Working specifically in conference venues is what I'm referring to with my comments. Quote: "No matter what I do, f/4 remains the safe limit for me when using the Canon gear in the conference venues." Hope that helps clarify things.
Reply to this comment
Thanks James for the hands-on report on the D700 and comments above, really informative. I shoot street and candids of people, and I was waiting a bit to move to FF (I shoot mostly in WA). Since I never use flash, this available light ability of the D700 is really what is attracting my attention, plus the top spec'd body. One question: not sure if you ever compared to D3 re AF, but your report seems to imply the D700 has about a state-of-the-art AF system, in particular for ambient indoors light, since you have also used the top Canons (lower pixel 1D series). Do you confirm that?
Reply to this comment
Thanks Duncan, I remember last month I was confuse to decide which one between 5DmkII or D700, your previous articles made me choose the second one., and it was NOT a wrong choice.
One have to experience it first then believe it, its a far different Nikon I used to know.....
Love my D700 + 24-70 F2.8 its really ROCKS!!
Reply to this comment
I have been second guessing putting in the pre-order for the Canon 5d Mk 2 with all of the positive press around the D700 on this site and others. It is definitely great to have a competitive camera market to push everyone harder on great products. But having gear envy is rough ... I am sure we will be in for a wave of positive Canon vibes if the Mk2 lives up to some of the hype.
I went into B&H this week and played with the D700. Coming from a Canon DSLR world, I honestly was surprised by all of the buttons and placement on the D700 body. Probably not enough time to truly make an assessment of what using the camera full time would be like. But after experimenting with the D700, I felt a lot more comfortable waiting hopefully another week for my continued deeper commitment to Canon bodies and lens. The 5d AF spread was also not as poor as some online reviews would claim (not ideal but certainly not end of world kind of stuff).
Ergonomics are definitely a personal thing. And maybe I am just Canon feature layout engrained now. For folks on the fence, it probably would make a lot of sense for Canon fence sitters to rent the D700 for awhile and do the Duncan side by side comparison. Think folks will be happy going either path. Just depends on if the lens set gets sold off or augmented.
Reply to this comment
When I needed to buy a camera system the D3 had just come out. After doing a price comparison I bought a 5D and 3 lenses [16-35II L;28-70 L;70-200 f/4 IS L] for little more than what I would have paid for a D3 body alone. Am I sorry about my decision? No, for two reasons.
1) When in doubt go with what you know and I'd come to know Canon digital cameras quite well over the previous 5 years.
2) I did not buy a Nikon for one very specific reason: Canon, as a corporation, does ~$37B a year and from my understanding their R&D budget just for photography is greater than Nikon's profits. So, in other words, I wasn't buying a camera I was buying [into] a corporation and with the economic brew-ha-ha that's going down now I stand firm on my decision.
It is nice to see the "David & Goliath" scenario going on at the moment. If Canon is spending so much $ on R&D why aren't they totally dominating the market? One reason that comes to mind is a common comment that I hear from time to time: "Canon is made by engineers and Nikon is made by photographers" to put it loosely and that may well be but in some ways Nikon really dropped the ball. And I feel we've all had to pay for it either by being "forced" to choose Canon [for lack of another term] or because there wasn't any reason for Canon to try harder. They didn't need to but now they do and it will interesting to see what they pull out of their hat.
My humble suggestion would be this: Three cameras based roughly on the 50D, the 5D and the 1Ds + a video version of the 5D [ala MK-II], a 5Dv, if you will, and a 1Dsv as well. The 50D would continue the APS-C format with the 5D and the 1Ds continuing in their respective roles with solid features like high ISO and 50+ focusing points with manual selection, etc. The price points would be $1000, $2000 and $3000. These prices sound laughable? Wait 6 months . . .
With the economy looking to be going down like the Titanic at the moment I don't care how big you are if no one is buying your stuff you better learn to be flexible AND innovative, which is why I find the philosophy behind the Red "DSLR killer" to be so appealing. What kind of features to you need? Chip size? Mount your dusty old Canon/Nikon/Zeiss lens on it? No problem.
Let's face it changing your whole camera for the latest features is very "20th century" and in some ways the 20th century was "more advanced" in that software updates required trying a different film stock. Simple + efficient = more advanced as far as I'm concerned. Ad to that the fact there was no reason to get rid of my 10-year old Nikon N90 cameras accept to go digital. I won't get into the whole 18 month average life-cycle for a digital camera body and how much resources it must use and the inherent by-product of waste, etc., etc.
All I can say is, its wake up time and it will be interesting to see who takes the helm . . .
Reply to this comment
So Canon put $$$ in R&D and still their flagship professional DSLRs like 1Ds mkIII / 1D mk III still have problem with focusing, more than one year after announcement and after so many hardware/firmware fixes. That's nothing to be proud of.
Canon 5D II is a nice camera, that's for sure.
Nikon D700 is a very strong competitor to it, that's also for sure.
Personally I do prefer D700 for following reasons:
- Better focusing system, good for 'taking snaps' under any circumstance;
- 12 mega pixel is good enough for my purpose (amateur, enthusiastic, no need to print 'professional' giant posters), and it doesn't need an upgrade to my computer;
- faster burst-rate: 5fps / 8fps
- better weather-sealing, make it overall more suitable for different environments rather than just in studio
... Overall, I think Nikon D700 is better suited for practical use, at least for me.
Reply to this comment
Renato, yes. The D3 and D700 use the same autofocus module. Some people that have both cameras report that the D3 is a bit faster in initial acquisition, but others dispute that. For sure, I'm impressed with it. The Canon 1-series cameras has amazingly fast AF, and with a larger set of cross-type points is better on paper. However, I find I get more keepers with the Nikon. That's anecdotal, I know, but it's what I can say.
Reply to this comment
Riza, I'm happy to hear you're happy with the kit. It is amazing stuff, isn't it?
Reply to this comment
ecarr, indeed, there is quite a bit of personal preference in this kind of decision. Both Nikon and Canon make incredible gear, especially considering what the state of the art was just a few years ago. And a big part of how easy a camera is to use comes down to how well _you_ interface with it. It's because of this that I'm trying to be careful and mention what works for me could—to a fair degree—be chalked up to how well the camera meshes with "me".
As to the buttons, after more than a month with the new kit, I still find myself getting used to the interface and layout. But I'm making great images, so it's fine.
Reply to this comment
Howard, the effects to be seen from both economic forces as well as new entrants into this space are going to be fascinating to watch. And, one thing I dislike above all else is that there is lock-in on the lens mount. I would love for a future where we can more pick-and-choose what we want to use. But, we'll have to see how it plays out.
In the meantime, I'm sticking to my own plan which is using gear that makes a difference now, and reevaluating that as the situation changes. In other words, I'm less interested in buying into the perfect system for the future than others may be. I'm more interested in what I can do right now. Of course, that comes from my involvement in doing photography commercially. If I was a strict amateur, the equation would be much different I think. :)
Reply to this comment
Thank you for the wonderful article and comments. I've been killing myself in making a decision between the D700 and the 5D mark2. But after reading this and numerous post on the net, I would say that for my needs the D700 looks the better all-round DSLR. I'm placing my order at B&H as we speak and moving back for Canon to Nikon after 6 years.
Reply to this comment
Not to incur a possible argument between fans of different brandnames, however, I just would like to share with you what I found on the Internet: Nikon D700 vs Canon 5D Mark II high-ISO comparison:
http://www.xtremephotography.ca/Canon-5D2-Vs-Nikon-D700/
To me it is very obvious that Nikon D700 is superior than another strong competitor, Canon 5D Mark II, in terms high-ISO noise performance. (Looks like 5D II also has some banding problem. And I heard about all the problems reported by many users of Canon 5D II, such as black dot problem, ERR 30 problem, and strange mesh-net like stripes in dark areas on picture. To me 5D II is not that impressive at all.)
I think Nikon D700 is pretty a good choice for most people as for now.
Reply to this comment
My struggle was over getting the heavier/higher price D3 as opposed to getting the D700. Give me another week or so, and that D700 will be in my hands. Don't know if it'll turn me into a bat, but, with a few "nice" nikor lenses, something's gotta look pretty. lol
Reply to this comment
Duncan,
Lots of great info about the D700 here and I appreciate the detail in which you have reported about this gear. I have a quick question: I have the D300 (which is great and fits my budget much better than the D700) and the low light performance is very very good. 1600 looks great but 3200, while very low on chroma noise shows a good amount of luma noise - a bit more than your D700 shots on this page show. I am wondering if you would share your settings for the camera and Lightroom. I know I won't be able to get D700 quality from my D300, but I would love to get as close as possible. I shoot all RAW, try to be extra careful with the exposure as adjustments really bring up the grain, and use the defaults for noise reduction in LR - plus maybe a +20 or +30 in luma noise reduction.
Thanks!
Reply to this comment
Greg, for these shots I did very little in Lightroom. Specifically, I used the default noise reduction settings. Didn't tweak 'em a bit. The only minor changes I made otherwise were to correct white balance a touch (my initial reading was off by a couple of hundred K in this case), sometimes tweak exposure just a tad here and there (up 1/2 stop here, down a 1/3 stop there), and sometimes use a a stronger tone curve for contrast.
In camera, I'm shooting Manual mode and RAW. Otherwise, all camera settings relating to the image are at their default.
Hope that helps!
Reply to this comment
James and others, thanks for this great comparison between D700 and 5D Mark II. I also need to make a decision. My desire to shoot street, action, and sports directs to D700, but I need to understand still one thing. I keep on hearing that Canon has a better overall system, especially objectives. But when I compare F2.8 wide angle zooms, normal zooms, and tele zooms, I see no major difference, at least for the benefit of Canon. James, you have used the both, what do you say?
Reply to this comment
Leave a comment