The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

D700 - Finally a Digital F100! (fun pictures with D700)

etrigan63

Active member
You sir, are the recipient of "The Parent's Curse". Sometime in your childhood, your mother said "I hope you have one just like you when you grow up!".

In my family, the boys tend to favor their uncles. I was a good kid (almost stupidly so) and my boy behaves more like my brother (the family scamp).
 
A

asabet

Guest
Here's the little "curse" again - D700, 135/2 AIS wide open, taken today:



I saw some reviews of this lens talking about soft wide open, haze at f/2, and I'm just not seeing that. Here's the full res version of the above shot. Here's another full-res example showing the sharpness of this lens at f/2. Bokeh is also really nice IMO. Definitely worth picking one up if you find a cheap good copy!
 
A

asabet

Guest
I'm still learning my way around it and need to read the manual but everything has been great so far. The shutter lag and viewfinder black out are noticeably shorter than on the 5D. Auto ISO is excellent. AF is brisk even with my old 28-105 zoom. Ergonomics and controls are well thought out. The viewfinder is bright, works well for manual focusing, and the coverage is enough for me. Other bonuses like the high-res LCD aren't that important to me, but nice to have. The body is still larger and heavier than I'd like. Overall I'm very happy with the D700. I need to get more comfortable with Aperture though.
 

Terry

New member
Even after owning the D300 I'm still learning the menus and functionality. Enjoy! I'm working on Lightroom 2 but may switch to Aperture. I want to understand the plug-ins/local adjustments on both before making the switch.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Terry

For a bunch of reasons I have stuck with Lightroom including the new 2.0. I still find much to like, but the plug in architecture of Aperture 2.0 is now beginning the segue to a new tool. I now have used demos or real versions of Silver Efex, Vivenza, Dodge and burn, etc and they just make the raw converter the stop of choice. For the most part you can get the final product almost right before going to Photoshop for final local adjustments. Really nice workflow.

All Aperture needs is a clone of the retouch brush from Lightroom to be a killer App. The retouch tool in Aperture, at the moment, is too lightweight to be considered against the Lightroom tool. Lightroom has the ability to brush sharpeness, clarity, saturation etc etc so that you have local controls that are unmatched elsewhere. But with the open architecture of Aperture, someone out there will produce the needed tool, I am sure.

Aperture will be declared the final winner, of that I am sure

Woody
 

Terry

New member
Woody,
I hear you but.... It seems to me that we always end up talking about going to photoshop and I have to believe that Adobe has a bit of an advantage in being able to add photoshop functionality to Lightroom including plug ins. I have this fear that the day I switch (an get proficient in Aperture) Lightroom will add everything we want.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Woody,
I hear you but.... It seems to me that we always end up talking about going to photoshop and I have to believe that Adobe has a bit of an advantage in being able to add photoshop functionality to Lightroom including plug ins. I have this fear that the day I switch (an get proficient in Aperture) Lightroom will add everything we want.
hi Terry
I would think I 'go to photoshop ' once in a hundred shots these days (and that's normally for straightening verticals I'm WA buildings.
 

Terry

New member
hi Terry
I would think I 'go to photoshop ' once in a hundred shots these days (and that's normally for straightening verticals I'm WA buildings.
I understand that. Most of my shots are handled in Lightroom and not into photoshop. That's because Lightroom and Aperture are both robust programs. I'm just struggling with which model works better for me and how additional functionality will be added to each. I just need to take the time on both which will happen in a couple of weeks when I am at the beach on vacation.
 
A

asabet

Guest
I've not made many flower pictures before, but here's a go with the Zeiss 50/2 at f/8. I'm pleased with the way the delicate tones held up at ISO 2500. Aperture RAW conversion, no NR, cropped to vertical.

 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
hi Terry
I would think I 'go to photoshop ' once in a hundred shots these days (and that's normally for straightening verticals I'm WA buildings.
If Aperture is like LR - non destructive - I suppose we will all have to to to PS occasionally for 'transformations'
 

robmac

Well-known member
It is startling that we'd even be talking about 'delicate tones' at ISO 2500 let alone seeing pics, even web-sized, of that quality. I suddenly feel old ;<
 

woodyspedden

New member
If Aperture is like LR - non destructive - I suppose we will all have to to to PS occasionally for 'transformations'
Bertie

In my opinion, both Lightroom and Aperture are terrific photo editors and very good photo imaging tools. They do not totally replace Photoshop to be sure. However as more and more functionality comes into the tools like in the case of Aperture plug ins such as Dodge and Burn, Noise ninja, Silver Efex etc it is getting close. Vivenza does not have the full Photoshop functionality in Aperture as it does in Photoshop but close to be sure.

Lightroom is pursuing a slightly different strategy but still very solid. The difference for me personally is that Aperture works with Hasselblad 3FR files and Lightroom does not. However even this is minor as you can import the 3fr files into Phocus, transform them to DNG and then Lightroom has no problem working with them.

Think about where we were about 18 months ago and you can see the incredible progress that has been made. Maybe we are truly on our way to only one raw converter and, as Jono has already stated, we go to Photoshop for one in one hundred images that need the power.

Woody
 
A

asabet

Guest
It is startling that we'd even be talking about 'delicate tones' at ISO 2500 let alone seeing pics, even web-sized, of that quality. I suddenly feel old ;<
I was suprised to see, while processing from RAW with no color/saturation adjustments, that the colors of the flower were the same at ISO 2500 f8 as they were at ISO 200 f2.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
The D3/D700 fidelity at ISO's up to about 2500 is nothing short of astounding. You start to get a bit of grain at 2000, and 3200 is the limit of superb quality, but 6400 and 12500 are both quite useable depending on the intended output. It really is a game changer, especially when used with the auto-iso function.
 

David K

Workshop Member
With regard to the Aperture vs Lightroom debate a few more points... with respect to DMR files, LR handles them and Aperture doesn't (unless converted via the DMR>M8 utility or otherwise converted first). I've gone with Aperture because, like Woody, I think it's going to become the more compelling application as time goes by, especially for Mac users. If I'm right about this, and there's surely no assurance I am, it seems to me important to start as early as possible with it. I say this based on my recent experience in captioning and key wording thousands of older images based on a new file structure I've adopted for my photos. Unless I'm mistaken the metadata may be recognized (at least for 35mm shooters) but the key wording will not be, so if this is an element in your workflow, and it probably should be, you could be facing a fair amount of duplicate work down the road.
 
Top