# D90 (DX) vs D700 (FX)



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Both images (1 and 2) taken with 50mm f1.8 at f4, ISO3200, 1/40 sec EV 0 for D700 and 1/50 sec EV -1/3 (screwed up with EV not 0), but close enough. Both images post processed auto color, auto contrast using Picasa 3. D700 is clearly sharper and less noise (compare 2 and 3). Love those bigger pixels in the D700 

1. D700









2. D90









3. D70 cropped to D90 size


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

How old is the D70 now? Stands up pretty good to the other two..


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

typically the dx cameras have more resolution than an equal megapixel fx full frame camera . the same amount of pixels are spread out over a wider area with full frame. you have to becareful when cropping alot.

but ooooh that field of view of full frame is wonderful. that is until you reach the telephoto range. then dx wins. the lenses are smaller and lighter as well as far cheaper.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Stick your 300/2.8 on that D700 and go shoot some sports, Dave. I've shot around 20,000 photos with that combo and the results can be spectacular. A monopod will help lots. I use teleconverters with mine if I need more reach.

Another good place to take the D700 is a nice dark museum. We have a local auto museum that was established in Blackhawk by Ken Behring. This was one of the first places I visited when I bought a D700 2 years ago. Dial up the ISO to 1600 or 3200 and you'll still get good photos. I couldn't shoot in that museum with my D2X.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> How old is the D70 now? Stands up pretty good to the other two..


5 years old? 6.2 mpixels, ISO good up to 1600. You can find them in craigslist for around $200 body only.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> *Stick your 300/2.8 on that D700 and go shoot some sports, Dave. I've shot around 20,000 photos with that combo and the results can be spectacular. A monopod will help lots. I use teleconverters with mine if I need more reach.*
> 
> Another good place to take the D700 is a nice dark museum. We have a local auto museum that was established in Blackhawk by Ken Behring. This was one of the first places I visited when I bought a D700 2 years ago. Dial up the ISO to 1600 or 3200 and you'll still get good photos. I couldn't shoot in that museum with my D2X.


Absolutely. I marked the calendar 1/6 for first soccer scrimmage. I do have the TC 14E if I need it.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

If you're shooting at iso 3200 then the D700 is far superior. Try comparing at iso 100, i bet the difference is much smaller.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Cliff said:


> Stick your 300/2.8 on that D700 and go shoot some sports, Dave. I've shot around 20,000 photos with that combo and the results can be spectacular. A monopod will help lots. I use teleconverters with mine if I need more reach.
> 
> Another good place to take the D700 is a nice dark museum. We have a local auto museum that was established in Blackhawk by Ken Behring. This was one of the first places I visited when I bought a D700 2 years ago. Dial up the ISO to 1600 or 3200 and you'll still get good photos. I couldn't shoot in that museum with my D2X.


Glad to see my buddy Cliff posting again here...

:thumbup:

Merry Christmas!!


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

Dave 330i said:


> 5 years old? 6.2 mpixels, ISO good up to 1600. You can find them in craigslist for around $200 body only.


most 1600 iso d70 pictures are pretty bad, they are not just noisy but soft as heck.

you have to have just the right scene with just the right exposure to get away at 1600 iso on a d70.

800 iso on a d80 is about the limit for passable quality and 1600 is pushing it on my d300


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> Glad to see my buddy Cliff posting again here...
> 
> :thumbup:
> 
> Merry Christmas!!


Merry Christmas to you and your family, Jon :hi:

I still check the site out, but I usually am not logged in when I visit, and I usually don't have much I want to say.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

To my eye, the D70 pic looks better than either of the other two :dunno:

I still love my D70s - it shoots just fine under most of the conditions I'm going to use it for.

If I want to take night pics, I set it up on a tripod and use a long exposure. It'll shoot just fine at iso 200, 400 or a bit more.

I like this camera because I really know it - I don't have to mess with it to get good shots.

I like to take pictures, not mess around with gear, so perhaps I'm a bit different in that respect.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

EdCT said:


> To my eye, the D70 pic looks better than either of the other two :dunno:
> 
> I still love my D70s - it shoots just fine under most of the conditions I'm going to use it for.
> 
> ...


It's D90 not D70. I sold my D70s long time ago. Compare pic #2 (D90 full size) with #3 (D700 cropped to D90 size). Look at the label on the round plastic container "chocolate chip" and "vanilla", and the letters on the pop tart box. Pic #3 is sharper (D700).

I like the D90 for its 1.5x longer reach, but if I cropped the D700 to the same size as the D90, the D700 picture is sharper. Basically, I'm saying I don't need the D90. The D700 with the battery grip can shoot 8 frames/sec. The D90 max out at 4/sec. I mount the 70-200mm f2.8 on the D90 as a backup.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Dave 330i said:


> The D700 with the battery grip can shoot 8 frames/sec. The D90 max out at 4/sec.


You need the battery grip to pull out 8 frames/sec.?



Still love my 1D Mk III with 10.5 frames/sec. I got a 7D for back-up and video.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Jon S. said:


> You need the battery grip to pull out 8 frames/sec.?
> 
> 
> 
> Still love my 1D Mk III with 10.5 frames/sec. I got a 7D for back-up and video.


Yep. otherwise it like 5-6/sec. Canon has always been faster than the D3. D700 has the same sensor as the D3, but lacks the burst rate, and a few minor features like 4x5 aspect ratio and built in battery grip. I prefer not to use the attached grip anyway. I can cropped full frame to 4x5 using software, which I usually do. My D90 has 720p video, but I haven't used it.  Why the D700? D700 $2300 new, D3 $3000 used.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Jon, what do you think, from Ken Rockwell on Canon EOS 1D Mk III...

January 2008: AF-System Update and Upgrade: My pal Steve Cirone is a pro bird photographer. He's the guy out wiggling around in the wetsuit chasing after birds every dawn and sunset. 

Steve has one or two Canon 1D Mk IIIs, and their AF system has been worse than his EOS-IV film cameras. THe 1D Mk III can track a bird in flight when it's easy, like against a blank sky, but that's about it.

Steve just bought the new improved 1D Mk III, and it now is a zillion times better. He says it works fabulously and can track anything, so long as you can drop one of the AF sensors on top of the subject once. THe new D Mk III (?N)can track flying birds against backgrounds which have little contrast from the bird. He avoids the 45-pont free-for-all mode, since it tends to grab obvious wing tips versus the bird's eyes, so that's why he uses the tracking mode where you drop one box on the target.

Steve tells me the way to identify the new version, which has a new mirror box assembly in addition to new firmware, is by a small blue stick-on dot next to the bar code on the box. Steve says these have been out since November 1st. 

Steve says his 1D Mk III is good to ISO 2400, and at ISO 3200 starts to get noise in the shadows. One day soon we're going to get together and shoot off the D3 vs the 1D Mk III . 

Steve's going to send in his original 1D Mk III which he says Canon will update the mirror box for free. 

I have no idea about any official word from Canon; this is from my pal Steve.

July 2007 

INTRODUCTION

As far as I'm concerned, the Canon 1D Mk III is world's best camera for sports and action. Why? Easy: It runs at 10 frames per second, critical for anything that's moving faster than you can see, and it works great at ISO 6,400. ISO 6,400 is two stops faster than ISO 1,600, so an f/2.8 lens becomes twice is as fast as an f/1.4 lens at ISO 1,600. 

ISO 6,400 is insanely useful. For those of you who remember film, ISO 1,600 was about tops for color and it was very grainy and dull. Konica 3,200 sucked. There was no retail ISO 6,400 film, period. The fact that the 1D Mk III makes any images at all at ISO 6,400 is laudable; the fact that they look great is insane.

The Canon 1D Mk III is a big, heavy and complicated pro camera. The price is right: about $4,500. You people know who you are. If I was a news photographer with a budget, I would have had ordered two of these the day they were announced in March 2007.

I had my hands on a prototype in March. I haven't worked with a production model yet. 

Even though it retains the same ancient 1D model name, the Canon 1D Mk III is a complete ground-up redesign and replacement for the 1D Mk II N. These are all 1.3x cameras. 

Do any of you remember the old days (1995) when to get 10 FPS you had to get an exotic film SLR with no moving mirror? The Canon EOS-1N RS had a fixed, half-silvered pellicle mirror as I recall, which lost light both for exposure and viewing, but allowed 10 FPS and no mirror blackout. Today, just hold down the shutter and hang on. The EOS 1D Mk III has a 110 shot JPG buffer (30 RAW). 

It has a 3" LCD. For astronomers and still-life shooters (not action) you can flip up the mirror and view a live image from the sensor. You can zoom 5x or 10x for precise manual (only) focus. There's also a live exposure preview mode. 

There's a PC Live View mode, which lets you view the live image and fire the 1D Mk III remotely, via USB or wirelessly with the appropriate transmitter.

It takes both CF and SD cards. It can record the same or different file types to each. It can be set to start writing to the second card when the first fills up. Of course you can copy files and folders back and forth.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> Canon has always been faster than the D3.


Not quite accurate. The Nikon D3 shoots 9 fps in full frame/FX mode, but 11 fps in crop/DX mode. The Canon 1D Mark III shoots 10 fps, but it has a 1.3x FOV crop sensor. Comparing apples to apples, the D3 is faster. If I want more "reach" when shooting sports, I shoot the D3 in DX mode with the added benefit of faster fps. Check out this YouTube clip:






Bottomline: Nikon and Canon both make great dSLRs and it allows us to choose the weapon of our choice.

Regards....JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

SRFast said:


> Not quite accurate. The Nikon D3 shoots 9 fps in full frame/FX mode, but 11 fps in crop/DX mode. The Canon 1D Mark III shoots 10 fps, but it has a 1.3x FOV crop sensor. Comparing apples to apples, the D3 is faster. If I want more "reach" when shooting sports, I shoot the D3 in DX mode with the added benefit of faster fps. Check out this YouTube clip:
> 
> Bottomline: Nikon and Canon both make great dSLRs and it allows us to choose the weapon of our choice.
> 
> Regards....JL


I was giving Jon the benefit of doubt. I didn't want this to be Mark III vs D3 comparison. Mk III has a 1.3 cropped sensor, the D3/D700 has full frame sensor. Yes, I can shoot 1.5 cropped with the D700.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dave,
There is no harm in comparing specs because it helps us decide how we spend our hard earned money. I frown on and NEVER participate in any "this is better" discussion or threads. You and I are Nikon diehards and Jon is a Canon guy. If our love for our brand of choice makes us happy, I believe it indirectly empowers us to take better pictures. I suppose if my first SLR (1970) was a Canon instead of a Nikon, I would be a Canon dSLR owner today. 

Seasons Greetings...JL


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

I love my 1D Mk III and the 7D as well. When I first bought the Mk III I was a bit worried about the AF issues, but my copy has worked flawlessly. It's now the 3rd season I've been shooting with it, and I have no motivation to replace it yet, so lately I've been focusing on adding new glass to my quiver. Recent acquisitions this Fall include Canon 135mm f/2L, Canon 85mm f/1.2L, and Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 (manual focus only). All three are superb. I had to switch out the focus screen to get good results with the Zeis. Now, if we can only get a nice stretch of decent weather... I can't wait to get out and shoot -- especially since my back is now healing from surgery 6 weeks ago.


Regarding the whole Full Frame discussion, I don't (personally) get so hung up on it.

For the purposes of this thread, we should compare images produced by a D300S and the D700 (apples to apples).


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

SRFast said:


> Not quite accurate. The Nikon D3 shoots 9 fps in full frame/FX mode, but 11 fps in crop/DX mode. The Canon 1D Mark III shoots 10 fps, but it has a 1.3x FOV crop sensor. Comparing apples to apples, the D3 is faster. If I want more "reach" when shooting sports, I shoot the D3 in DX mode with the added benefit of faster fps. Check out this YouTube clip:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is the diff between D3 and D3S?


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Jon S. said:


> What is the diff between D3 and D3S?


The D3s has HD video, increased low light/higher ISO capabilities and on-board sensor cleaning to name a few differences. These are nice enhancements, but not enough for me to spend $2K out of pocket to replace my D3. I don't shoot video and I don't do much low light work so the D3 works for me.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

SRFast said:


> Dave,
> There is no harm in comparing specs because it helps us decide how we spend our hard earned money. I frown on and NEVER participate in any "this is better" discussion or threads. You and I are Nikon diehards and Jon is a Canon guy. If our love for our brand of choice makes us happy, I believe it indirectly empowers us to take better pictures. I suppose if my first SLR (1970) was a Canon instead of a Nikon, I would be a Canon dSLR owner today.
> 
> Seasons Greetings...JL


I am avoiding comparing mfgs here.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> I am avoiding comparing mfgs here.


I don't blame you. I tuned things out when the conversation went off on a tangent.

FWIW, if you ever decide you need some real reach, buy a TC20E. Then take a Dremel with a grinding wheel to a little tab on your TC14E. I just got around to performing that bit of surgery on my TC14 and it went a lot easier than I expected. Then attach the TC14 to the camera body, stack the TC20 on it, and attach the 300 and presto, you have an 840mm/f8 lens (1.4 * 2 * 300 along with one stop for the TC14 and 2 stops for the TC20). Surprisingly it even autofocused in the somewhat dim light - f5.6 is supposed to be the magic number for autofocus.

The auditorium in the attached photo is about a quarter mile away.

(exif info: 840mm, f8, 1/200, ISO 6400 mounted to a monopod. This would have worked better in brighter light so I could get the shutter speed up and/or the ISO down, or on a tripod)


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff said:


> I don't blame you. I tuned things out when the conversation went off on a tangent.
> 
> FWIW, if you ever decide you need some real reach, buy a TC20E. Then take a Dremel with a grinding wheel to a little tab on your TC14E. I just got around to performing that bit of surgery on my TC14 and it went a lot easier than I expected. Then attach the TC14 to the camera body, stack the TC20 on it, and attach the 300 and presto, you have an 840mm/f8 lens (1.4 * 2 * 300 along with one stop for the TC14 and 2 stops for the TC20). Surprisingly it even autofocused in the somewhat dim light - f5.6 is supposed to be the magic number for autofocus.
> 
> ...


:rofl: plan on using it to stalk girls


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> :rofl: plan on using it to stalk girls


Full frame pokies 

Nah, I'm thinking more along the lines of moon or planetary photos, or sports like surfing where it's tough to get in close.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Yes, you don't need the D90. If it were a D300 or D7000 it would be superior for wildlife, but the D90 would just trade pixels for AF speed and low light.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

D700 no post processing except slight color correction.

with 300mm f2.8 1/800 sec ISO 3200









with 70-200mm f2.8 at 200mm 1/320 sec ISO 3200


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

enough


----------

