Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Education
Need a camera and fully confused
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 636971" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>But why spend so much on features that have no benefit to the intended use? Yes, good general purpose camera but expensive to repair or not repairable at all now, without warranty, and low resolution, less than most phone cameras nowadays. He has a specific subject and goal, and an old D700 does not address those any better than other less expensive, repairable cameras. low ISO</p><p></p><p></p><p>At low ISO, 100 as used in the studio the D700 was not great, in dynamic range. Compared to other cameras at the time it was very good. But it is a full 1.5 stops worse in PDR than a DX D7000 and 2.5 stops less PDR than a D7200. A D7000 has higher resolution and costs about $300...so lower noise, wider color depth, much cheaper lenses for a newer D7000 or about the same price as a clearly IQ superior D7200 that can use lower cost DX lenses, I fail to see what advantage the OP receives from an older camera that is out of warranty, lower res, lower DR, with lower res view finder, that required more expensive lenses. </p><p>If sticking with Full Frame, a D600 which can be had for a lot less has 2.5 stops more 100 ISO PDR A D600 is going for about $550 now, with 24mpx, more color fidelity, twice the resolution, better low light performance so it makes little sense for a $1200 D700 when he said he had $2000 to work with and needs lights, stands, backdrop, cards, lens. Lights and modifiers, wireless flash controllers stands are essential and eat up almost 1/2 the budget. This is a task defined goal, not which is the most beloved camera. The D700 is nice camera in the hand for general photography but not a great choice for the budget that also has lighting and lens purchases to make. Even a D90 at ISO 100, has a 1/4 stop more PDR than a D700 and and if the D700 is shooting in Dx mode to use less expensive lenses like the D90 uses, it is a little over 1/2 stop disadvantage. Sure the D700 was head and shoulders better than the competing Canon and Pentax of the day but not so competitive with the rest of Nikon consumer cameras by the time the D700 went out of production.</p><p></p><p>Here is a graph of PDR for various models that used, are a lot cheaper than the D700. I included the D700 in DX mode also since there is a good chance the OP will be using low cost but good DX lenses:</p><p>[ATTACH]266696[/ATTACH]</p><p>At 100 ISO, the ISO expected to be used in the studio, the D700 really does not perform up to the level of much less expensive cameras. Sensor technology and image processors have advanced a lot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 636971, member: 43545"] But why spend so much on features that have no benefit to the intended use? Yes, good general purpose camera but expensive to repair or not repairable at all now, without warranty, and low resolution, less than most phone cameras nowadays. He has a specific subject and goal, and an old D700 does not address those any better than other less expensive, repairable cameras. low ISO At low ISO, 100 as used in the studio the D700 was not great, in dynamic range. Compared to other cameras at the time it was very good. But it is a full 1.5 stops worse in PDR than a DX D7000 and 2.5 stops less PDR than a D7200. A D7000 has higher resolution and costs about $300...so lower noise, wider color depth, much cheaper lenses for a newer D7000 or about the same price as a clearly IQ superior D7200 that can use lower cost DX lenses, I fail to see what advantage the OP receives from an older camera that is out of warranty, lower res, lower DR, with lower res view finder, that required more expensive lenses. If sticking with Full Frame, a D600 which can be had for a lot less has 2.5 stops more 100 ISO PDR A D600 is going for about $550 now, with 24mpx, more color fidelity, twice the resolution, better low light performance so it makes little sense for a $1200 D700 when he said he had $2000 to work with and needs lights, stands, backdrop, cards, lens. Lights and modifiers, wireless flash controllers stands are essential and eat up almost 1/2 the budget. This is a task defined goal, not which is the most beloved camera. The D700 is nice camera in the hand for general photography but not a great choice for the budget that also has lighting and lens purchases to make. Even a D90 at ISO 100, has a 1/4 stop more PDR than a D700 and and if the D700 is shooting in Dx mode to use less expensive lenses like the D90 uses, it is a little over 1/2 stop disadvantage. Sure the D700 was head and shoulders better than the competing Canon and Pentax of the day but not so competitive with the rest of Nikon consumer cameras by the time the D700 went out of production. Here is a graph of PDR for various models that used, are a lot cheaper than the D700. I included the D700 in DX mode also since there is a good chance the OP will be using low cost but good DX lenses: [ATTACH=CONFIG]266696._xfImport[/ATTACH] At 100 ISO, the ISO expected to be used in the studio, the D700 really does not perform up to the level of much less expensive cameras. Sensor technology and image processors have advanced a lot. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Education
Need a camera and fully confused
Top
