# D700 and D800 Resolution and Quality Comparison



## Raybo (Feb 8, 2012)

I currently own a D200 (it's been great all these years) and will be moving to FF.  I am concerned about all the memory (computer and memory card) required to shoot the D800 at full resolution in RAW.  So my question is:  how will a picture shot with the D800 at the medium image size setting (about 20MB) compare to a picture shot with the D700 (12MB) at full resolution?  And which option will give me more latitude to crop and enlarge to A0 format and beyond?

I don't really care about the video capability of the D800.  And I do not want to compromise on low light, low noise capability  - we already know that the D700 is a winner here).


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

welcome to the forum


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 8, 2012)

I wouldn't use the D800 at anything other than it's best quality settings, to do otherwise is silly. Buy the D700, I hjave one and LOVE it. I just ordered a D800 for a second body, may become my primary


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 8, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> I wouldn't use the D800 at anything other than it's best quality settings, to do otherwise is silly. Buy the D700, I hjave one and LOVE it. I just ordered a D800 for a second body, may become my primary



I'm still on the fence whether to order one or keep popping the D700, I'm interested to find out your take on both bodies after you've shot a few.  I'm loving the D700 and I was hoping for a rockstar D800...I'm not feeling it other than its video


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 8, 2012)

It's definitely gonna be different. Immproved RGB sensor, Expeed3, Focus. Yeah, I'm interested to see how much better I love it, or not :}


----------



## Raybo (Feb 9, 2012)

Agreed.  Given your experience with the D700 what is your feeling about how big you can print and enlarge an uncropped image and still get excellent results?  

I'm not a pixel peeper and realize that as prints get larger it's appropriate to stand further away.  I should also add that since a large part of my photo work is foreign travel, where I need to carry as little as possible, that I typically use Nikon's 18-200 VR lens.  I know that if I purchased a D700 the 18-200 would have to be replaced and I would consider the new Nikon 28-300 VRII.  Does this change your advice?


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't use the D800 at anything other than it's best quality settings, to do otherwise is silly. Buy the D700, I hjave one and LOVE it. I just ordered a D800 for a second body, may become my primary
> ...



Even the video doesn't do anything that Canon bodies weren't doing 3 years ago...

The D800 looks sweet for people who print huge, beyond that, it doesn't excite me.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

Raybo said:


> Agreed.  Given your experience with the D700 what is your feeling about how big you can print and enlarge an uncropped image and still get excellent results?
> 
> I'm not a pixel peeper and realize that as prints get larger it's appropriate to stand further away.  I should also add that since a large part of my photo work is foreign travel, where I need to carry as little as possible, that I typically use Nikon's 18-200 VR lens.  I know that if I purchased a D700 the 18-200 would have to be replaced and I would consider the new Nikon 28-300 VRII.  Does this change your advice?



The 28-300 is nowhere near sharp enough for the D800 to be a benefit to you.  The D700 will outresolve this lens.  To fully take advantage of 36mPixel, you will need very nice glass.


----------



## MReid (Feb 9, 2012)

Coming from a d200 a d700 will blow you away sufficiently.

36mp is a specialty application that comes with its own set of issues.


----------



## ghache (Feb 9, 2012)

so much hate for the d800 hahaha, its going to be a better camera than the d700 in every way.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

ghache said:


> so much hate for the d800 hahaha, its going to be a better camera than the d700 in every way.



Are you certain it will be better at high ISO?  A lot of area looks really close.  Burst rate has gotten slower...

Not hating on it cause it's a bad camera, it looks awesome.  I'm hating on it because after waiting for however many years, in many instances, it looks like the D700 is still a better choice.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > so much hate for the d800 hahaha, its going to be a better camera than the d700 in every way.
> ...



Uh-huh I was assuming my D700 would become a back-up body because the D800 would blow it away, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Might hang onto it as my main.


----------



## Raybo (Feb 9, 2012)

Any thoughts on how big you can enlarge with the d700?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

Raybo said:


> Any thoughts on how big you can enlarge with the d700?



Mine does 16x20's.  I'm about to have a 20x30" canvas produced.  Expecting it to be ok.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan



Nice read.  Also noting this was written back in 2007 and he brings it to reality and why many don't find the mega-pixels to be a "selling point" such as the D800:



> But let's  get back out to the main point I'm trying to make: if you set up a shoot  correctly (exposure, camera settings, shot discipline, etc.), use the  base or next ISO value of the camera, manage the post processing  correctly, do only modest up-sizing (if any), and pick the right options  from your printer driver, then you should be able to get that good or  excellent print out of virtually any of the currently available DSLRs on  the market at up to the maximum size the desktop inkjets can produce.  Many of us manage to do better than that. I've produced and seen 36"  prints from a 12mp camera that look excellent, though it takes a great  deal more control over every variable from shoot-to-print to do that  with any consistency.



For my upcoming 20x30, the lab asked I deliver the file from my D700 around 145 dpi if I recall correctly.


----------



## MReid (Feb 9, 2012)

16x20  and 16x24 are not problem with the d700/d3 and I have done bigger canvases. 
If you want to go huge there are upres programs that will allow you to do that.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

The D800 is making me adore my elderly tech D700 more than I already did =)

But I was looking forward to it becoming a back up body too, and the D800 being a total blowout awesome cam that would walk circles around it.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 9, 2012)

who's to say it isn't? Seriously how often are we shooting at ISO 1600+? And if need be you have a D700 WIN WIN


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> who's to say it isn't? Seriously how often are we shooting at ISO 1600+? And if need be you have a D700 WIN WIN



Indeed if I was buying my 1st full frame of course I'd be buying the new D800!  I had planned on buying the D800 in addition, but I'm going to sit on the sidelines a while on that note =)


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Seriously how often are we shooting at ISO 1600+?



Depends on what you shoot of course...

Intensely high ISO performance is opening up new areas of photography that were simply outside of physics before.  Indoor sports shots at 1/1000sec, nighttime street photography, etc...  In these instances, the more you've got the better.

It's not for landscapes, or in the studio, but there is no amount of clean high ISO that I wouldn't be able to find a use for.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

Actually, now that I'm thinking more about it.. generally speaking, cleaner performance at high ISO is correlated with wider dynamic range at low ISO, so it would be cool for landscapes.


----------



## MReid (Feb 9, 2012)

I read a semi review from one of the photographers testing the d800, he said the d800 appeared to be the equal of the d3 and d700 as far as iso performance.
...just repeating what I read.

For me...my next camera will be the D3s...iso performance is way more important to me than megapixels.


----------



## Patrice (Feb 9, 2012)

Clean high ISO and deep DR at base is also more important to me than higher pixel density and I'm pretty sure we won't be waiting a long time before we see significant improvements in this area. Think of the advancements made in sensor and processor technologies during the last decade, extrapolate this another 10 years and the possibilities are beyond imagining. How about near absolute zero read noise? How about a sensor that does not generate any heat?  How about transfer speeds that are for all practical purposes instantaneous? How about memory card capacities measured in hundreds or even thousands of terabytes? ..... It will get to a point that if any amount of photons reach the sensor, regardless of how minimal that number is, the sensor will detect and quantify their presence with near perfect certainty. Why not expand the recorded spectrum while we're at it?


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

Future technologies yes.

I'd like 30 stops of dynamic range, plskthnx.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 9, 2012)

I currently own a D700 and D3. 

IMHO, the D800 was designed to be marketed to medium format and studio photographers - the people who spend $10,000 and (way) up on a camera - hence the "E" model. Medium format photographers, who want the ultimate in resolution, already know how to deal with aliasing, so the "E" model is just there to make them more comfortable. It's going to be a shock to D700, D7000, etc photographers to have to deal with 75MB (or larger) RAW images or 36MB JPEGs.  

With the smaller pixel size, I didn't think the D800 would have very good high-ISO performance. But, I have several full-size JPEGs from the D800 taken at high ISO. The files are about 36MB each in size. I have compared them to similar images from the D700 and was pleasantly surprised. Noise levels were about the same, and if an image was downsized to 12 megapixels, the noise levels were much better than that of the D700 native size. So, noise handling seems to be about the same or better as the D700, at least from my initial tests. 

The D800 will be a more difficult camera to take pictures with than the D700. Higher resolution, and this is a BIG jump, means solid technique and quality optics become critically important. Just don't expect to get better pictures right off the bat with the D800 - I think most people will find their initial images dissapointing, if they aren't accustomed to using good technique and optics. it will take time to learn how to shoot good images with this camera. I think that the D800 will be a great camera for studio work, portraits and maybe landscapes.

Like many, I am dissapointed that the D800 isn't really the successor to the D700, which, although it's almost 4-years old, still holds its own as a state-of-the-art DSLR (ignoring video).  The D800 is a completely different camera, and like somebody else mentioned on this thread, I don't plan on getting rid of my D700 - I plan on using BOTH cameras - but for different purposes.

bert


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 9, 2012)

Welcome to the forums Bert! Nice report.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

D800 pro shoot report: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten


Image size and sensitivity to camera motion requiring higher shutter speed is a bit scarey.....but all reports it is a detail beast!


----------



## myvinyl333 (Feb 10, 2012)

I was ready to purchase my 1st full-frame DSLR about the time Nikon was phasing out the D700, so I ordered the D800, not a big cost difference and it was newer. After reading all the supposed ISO/low light comparisons to the D700 I guess the answer(s) will  be more clear when I get the D800 in my hands. I have struggled with low light issues for a while now. The D800 replaces my D90. D300s will be my other body, which I have really liked in low light concert settings, I have fast glass as well.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 10, 2012)

Nikon D800 | Rob Van Petten


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 10, 2012)

I saw this...photos are stunning. I can see why they say studio camera, but is it really?


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

Had you beat by 2 posts Derrel


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

From what I've read of those with hands on experience is that the D800 is as good as the D700 as far as ISO with improved DR at the lower end. (way better than the D300 so no worries mate) and due to it's fine resolution, minute issues such as lens quality and camera shake are ever more clearly apparent...making need of good quality fast lenses and shutter speeds...or tripod when presented with longer focal length...


----------



## Destin (Feb 10, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > who's to say it isn't? Seriously how often are we shooting at ISO 1600+? And if need be you have a D700 WIN WIN
> ...



Why don't you sell the D700 and buy a D4 with the cash from that and the money you were gonna put into a D800? I understand you'd still be like a grand short, but I'd find a way to make it happen if I was you. 

Even just upgrading to a D3s would be huge.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

because I'd still need a second body


----------



## Destin (Feb 10, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> because I'd still need a second body



D4 with a d40 backup! Duh!


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 10, 2012)

Nikon D800 Samples Photos: Low Light, High ISO Tested


----------



## KmH (Feb 10, 2012)

According to testing by DxOMark:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark - More pixels offset noise!

Essential characteristics of noise - DxOMark - Noise characterization

The paradoxical evolution of sensor SNR over time - DxOMark - SNR evolution over time


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 10, 2012)

if u go by megapixels the d800 has a bit less then twice the resoution (48mp would be double res).

Of course this assumes no camera shake and perfect optics, as the useable resolution is only as good as the weakest link in the photo taking chain.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 11, 2012)

Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image.  I've made up my mind that as soon as I can afford it I'm going with a d800 and the best glass available and that might mean going with a 24' 50, 85, and a 200mm prime and not even using any zooms.  I'm not already invested so I'm starting fresh.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 12, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image.



I don't think it laughable at all.  I only shoot RAW and can see my post-production time increasing significantly. I have a state of the art computer system with huge storage, but even now with 15MB RAW images from the D700, post production takes a considerable time, much of that time loading images into Photoshop. 

From what I can see the RAW image size from the D800 will be between 50 and 60MB - that 3 to 4 times that of the D700. Sitting down to work on 50 images will  probably take an extra hour - that's a significant amount of time in an already crowded schedule.

One of the REAL issues with the D800 camera will be post-production. 

And based on the comments I'm receiving from our customers, many are considering the D800E.  I must admit, that I did as well initially, but I don't now believe that the D800E will provide much, if any, of a difference in image quality, but will cause many images to be unusable. Although it's sometimes possible to remove moiré from images in Photoshop, it's not always possible, and it's fairly difficult - certainly not for the faint of heart.

bert


----------



## greybeard (Feb 12, 2012)

bertsirkin said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Considering just how cheap hard drive space and computer power is these days, I find it laughable to worry about the file size of a 36mp image.
> ...


I just timed it on this old Dell 1525 laptop that is 5 yrs old and is still running Windows XP.  to load a 16mb, 16mp raw image into PS, 4.5 sec.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 12, 2012)

greybeard said:


> I just timed it on this old Dell 1525 laptop that is 5 yrs old and is still running Windows XP.  to load a 16mb, 16mp raw image into PS, 4.5 sec.



Was that loading from the CF card or from a hard-drive? The big issue will be that all of the images have to be copied eventually to the hard-drive - USB 2.0 is painfully slow with 16MB images, let alone 60MB images. The D800 does support USB 3.0, which I have no experience with "yet". There are inexpensive USB 3.0 cards available, which will be required. I can't imagine copying a couple of hundred 60MB images over USB 2.0 - how fast USB 3.0 will be is still an unknown for me at this point.

bert


----------



## gerardo2068 (Feb 12, 2012)

Hard drives may seem cheap for some people, but still 36mp it's way too much for travel photography when you don't want to carry so much storage. Specially taking many photos in raw format. 

One of those photos take more space than an entire music album. Also when you have so many photos, do a lot of editing and save in psd and tiff with layers and what not, it takes way more space and transfer is slower. I have a minimum of 3 back ups of my entire library, if I upgrade hard drive because running out of space then I have to upgrade all 3 like I've done in the past. I also don't just collect photos. I have movies and a lot of music too. Everything takes up a lot of space. 

It all adds up 

Like many D800 was not I was expecting. It's a completely awesome camera for studio shoot and videographers. Not for traveling or sport photo shoots that is what I like to do. 

They should have called different. By calling it D800 people think it should be faster frame rate, higher iso than the D700

The 36mp it's a awesome feature but it is not for everybody.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 12, 2012)

Hmm, I see no delay at all in processing large Tiff files in either in CS or LR, or both simultaniously. Yes, data transfer to an external drive time will increase just by the amount of data, sure. Then again, both my laptop and PC are quad-core with 8g ram with decent (not best) graphics cards.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 12, 2012)

gerardo2068 said:


> Hard drives may seem cheap for some people, but still 36mp it's way too much for travel photography when you don't want to carry so much storage. Specially taking many photos in raw format...



Although the D800 &#8220;could&#8221; be a great travel photography camera, it&#8217;s going to require some re-thinking.

I'm going to Europe shortly after getting the D800 and I'm debating whether to bring it or my D700. I normally take multiple 32GB flash-drives for backup, but that won't do it anymore. And the 160GB SSD drive in my laptop isn't big enough. And the USB 2.0 on my laptop will require many hours of downloading &#8211; and more hours to backup to flash drives &#8211; and many more flash drives!

bert


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 12, 2012)

I agree Trever, and if processing/hard drive capacity  becomes a problem, time to rethink upgrading one's system into 2012


----------



## greybeard (Feb 12, 2012)

A computer system that can handle 36mp raw files won't cost as much as one pro grade lens.  1tb drive is under 100 bucks these days.  For sure, if your system isn't up to the task and your present equipment is getting the job done then "it ain't broke etc," I see no reason to change bodies.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 12, 2012)

bertsirkin said:


> gerardo2068 said:
> 
> 
> > Hard drives may seem cheap for some people, but still 36mp it's way too much for travel photography when you don't want to carry so much storage. Specially taking many photos in raw format...
> ...



If I had both in hand and leaving tomorrow I'd bring the D700 mainly because it's a body I'm familiar with and file storage while traveling would be (yes, while traveling) an issue. I usually carry a 500gb portable drive that needs no external power (runs off usb).

Not only that but why are you transferring data from camera to laptop using USB and not a card reader? USB 2 is way too slow.


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 12, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> If I had both in hand and leaving tomorrow I'd bring the D700 mainly because it's a body I'm familiar with and file storage while traveling would be (yes, while traveling) an issue. I usually carry a 500gb portable drive that needs no external power (runs off usb).
> 
> Not only that but why are you transferring data from camera to laptop using USB and not a card reader? USB 2 is way too slow.



Unfortunately, it's going to be tough NOT to bring the D800 - mainly due to emotional issues  - it's new, and I'll be anxious to try out the high resolution.

 I have several large external USB harddrives - they are small, and it wouldn't be a problem to bring one or two. It may be what I end up doing. 

I don't transfer from the camera - I transfer from a card-reader, but it's still USB. And unless I get a new laptop with USB 3.0, it's still USB 2.0.

I suspect I will bring the D800 with me - but it will require some re-thinking about storage and backup.


----------



## lemonart (Feb 12, 2012)

gerardo2068 said:
			
		

> I have a minimum of 3 back ups of my entire library, if I upgrade hard drive because running out of space then I have to upgrade all 3 like I've done in the past. I also don't just collect photos. I have movies and a lot of music too. Everything takes up a lot of space.
> .



Sorry this is a bit of a tangent, but Gerardo, I'm a back up nut like yourself ... Got bitten by a nasty HD failure once and now my motto is: "if it's not backed up twice, it's not backed up!"

Anyhow, I invested in a Drobo.  I would recommend checking the system out... Especially if you fill hard drives frequently. It does redundant backup in a really interesting way (ie. with proprietary algorithms) that allow me to upgrade a single hard drive bay as needed for more space.  You pop out the smallest drive, put in a bigger one and it'll take care of distributing the data in such a way that even if you had a failure you'd be safe and sound.

For me it saved a lot of cash over the long run as I fill up drives quickly working in dual disciplines (music/photo).  I only buy what I need at the time and I buy OEM drives.  Waaaaay cheaper than buying a crapload of extra GB that I won't need for the next 6 months and upgrading all my drives to match.

Just my two cents 

Lem


----------



## gerardo2068 (Feb 12, 2012)

lemonart said:
			
		

> Sorry this is a bit of a tangent, but Gerardo, I'm a back up nut like yourself ... Got bitten by a nasty HD failure once and now my motto is: "if it's not backed up twice, it's not backed up!"
> 
> Anyhow, I invested in a Drobo.  I would recommend checking the system out... Especially if you fill hard drives frequently. It does redundant backup in a really interesting way (ie. with proprietary algorithms) that allow me to upgrade a single hard drive bay as needed for more space.  You pop out the smallest drive, put in a bigger one and it'll take care of distributing the data in such a way that even if you had a failure you'd be safe and sound.
> 
> ...



Thank I will check that out


----------



## bertsirkin (Feb 12, 2012)

lemonart said:


> Anyhow, I invested in a Drobo.  I would recommend checking the system out... Especially if you fill hard drives frequently. It does redundant backup in a really interesting way (ie. with proprietary algorithms) that allow me to upgrade a single hard drive bay as needed for more space.  You pop out the smallest drive, put in a bigger one and it'll take care of distributing the data in such a way that even if you had a failure you'd be safe and sound.
> Lem



I also have a Drobo FS - had it for 1.5 years now and love it. I have 5 - 2TB drives it it, with redundency. Effective storage is 5TB and two of the drives can fail (theoretically) and I won't lose anything.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 12, 2012)

Destin said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



After the loss on the D700 it would be a 4K difference. But the big reason is I shoot mostly studio and outdoors in controlled lighting and the D700 isn't giving me a compelling reason to upgrade to anything that costs money. I'm really happy with it. If the D800 did so much more a lot better, or the D4 wasn't so expensive, I'd upgrade just to be upgrading but i'm happy where I'm at with the D700 =)   Better things to invest in right now than new bodies until the D700 really lacks.


----------

