how good is the d700 and when will we see this sensor in cheaper bodies?

fontmoss

fontmoss

Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Ok its lust but everything ive seen from the d700 seems lovely, yes its a high ISO monster and full frame but ive got beyond those. Its when Radiohead posted his pics recently (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=127029) that the colours and whole 'feel' of the photos was so so nice, almost like a film camera. I think ive managed to stem the flow of panic and unadulterated desire-i was considering selling my main (push) bike to fund one :P (perhaps simon barnes can help subdue this nonsensical state of affairs)

ive also realised a d700 is beyond my abilities but how long before this sensor starts to appear in other (poss cheaper) bodies?
 
I see what you means about the feel of the photos but that strikes me more like how a 50mm F1.4 looks on a full frame body than the sensor in the camera.
 
possibly but im unconvinced, seen a lot of pics from D3s and 700s from variety of lenses and always been impressed with the texture/feel of them.
 
The problem here is sensor yield. Although we're digital users, the sensor is a good old fashioned analogue slab of wafer-thin superconducting silicon; mined, sliced and analysed.

Natural errors occur frequently through a slab, so any one slab might be good enough to be split into sensors for a hundred compacts, but only error-free enough to produce 2 APS-C sensors. That same slab might not be good enough for any full-frame pieces. Let's say that for every 1000 compact sensors, you find a piece of silicon good enough for FX.

It's the same with diamonds, the same with computer RAM, and the same with optically perfect glass. The yield becomes a function of exponents [y = log e-x]. The FX sensor will never be cheap - look at the 5D; no FX camera is going to be APS-C money as long as we use current silicon-based analog technology. Of course, engineers are clever folks, and perhaps we'll see a clever solution to the problem.
 
Well, that's between you and your wallet!

I'm on the lookout for a D700, but the fact remains that I can keep the ISO down by using my tripod more for static shots, and coupled with the recent price increases seems a reasonable excuse to hang onto the D80 for now [still about 75,000 shots left in it, I hope..]

Plus, I've just splurged on a Leica, so one thing at a time...

Anyway, the FX sensor and all like it will likely remain 2x the price of the better DX bodies for now because of the sensor yield mathematics. But, in a couple of years - who knows? We might see alternative sensor designs [black silicon, for example] and we might see cameras which can manage sensor ISO on a per-pixel basis [which I think would be a mighty fine idea - imagine the possibilities...]

Still, the future's still some way away....
 
Plus, I've just splurged on a Leica
Click to expand...

yeah that'll kind of nail your d700 aspirations!

in truth i need a good 70-200 before i go for a d700 but by god ive been tempted
 
danbroad said:
...and we might see cameras which can manage sensor ISO on a per-pixel basis [which I think would be a mighty fine idea - imagine the possibilities...]

....
Click to expand...

:thinking: Do you think that's a realistic option in, say, the next 10-15 years? Obviously, it would be the dream solution to all handle all photographic situations and would eliminate the need for HDR completely. I suppose that cameras could then exceed the performance of the human eye, in terms of dynamic range and then images would start to look "unnatural" :shrug:?

Still, when I bought my D700, I told myself that this technology wasn't going to be around any time soon - was I wrong :(?
 
I'm saying nothing
Click to expand...

about the d700 or the lenses :)

i will have a d700 or full framer at some stage, i just cant afford it (or justify it?) at the moment
 
danbroad said:
The problem here is sensor yield. Although we're digital users, the sensor is a good old fashioned analogue slab of wafer-thin superconducting silicon; mined, sliced and analysed.

Natural errors occur frequently through a slab, so any one slab might be good enough to be split into sensors for a hundred compacts, but only error-free enough to produce 2 APS-C sensors. That same slab might not be good enough for any full-frame pieces. Let's say that for every 1000 compact sensors, you find a piece of silicon good enough for FX.

It's the same with diamonds, the same with computer RAM, and the same with optically perfect glass. The yield becomes a function of exponents [y = log e-x]. The FX sensor will never be cheap - look at the 5D; no FX camera is going to be APS-C money as long as we use current silicon-based analog technology. Of course, engineers are clever folks, and perhaps we'll see a clever solution to the problem.
Click to expand...


Damn fine comment!:clap:
 
sdb123 said:
Go for the Nikon 80-200mm - a stellar lens by all accounts and a lot cheaper than a 70-200mm VR. :)
Click to expand...

a steller lens indeed ! - i have one. Still would at times prefer the 70-200 AF-s VR at times .... still its a top piece of glass ..
 
I think some credit is due to the photographer.
Yes the D700 is a superb piece of kit, but don't think you can grab one and automatically turn out pics like Radiohead's.
I am sure you can squeeze quite a bit more IQ out of your existing kit - like we all can.
 
IQ isnt the issue, the amazing low light performance and incredible tone and colour are what im after. im under no illusions as to the most important part of any set up being the 12 inches behind the viewfinder
 
Fontmoss says 12 inches when he means 6 inches ;)


thankfully my gf doesn't understand imperial measurements

My s5 has live view, i dont like it :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top