Question: I am going to upgrade my D200 to D700 very soon. The reason is the full frame, high ISO quality and many others.
There is one problem that may not be a problem at all, but nevertheless I would like to ask a question about.
D700 does not have ISO 100. It starts with ISO 200. Is this a problem for landscapes? I am not talking - and I don't want to talk - about long exposures for "creamy" streams, because this can be easily solved by filters, but I am asking about the clarity of details, color saturation, depth and the overall quality of image. I know the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 on my D200. On ISO 200 I am already loosing many subtle details, like snow texture, leafs, rocks etc. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 is really noticeable. Yes, it's true, but is it attributed to the quality (or lack of) of D200 sensor, and thus this should not be a problem with D700?
How big is the issue of lack of ISO 100 in D700 in landscape photography?
Thanks for answering,
Cezar
Posted by David Bostedo on August 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Cezar - I've never shot with a Nikon, but here's my take : There's nothing inherent in the ISO settings that should be used as a quality comparison. All it means is that the base exposure of the pixels and circuits in the D700 equates to ISO 200. I'd assume that the sensor designers chose a base ISO that would give you the best dynamic range or signal to noise ratio. And the fact that they chose not to cut these and offer lower ISOs (like ISO 50 on the 5D) probably means they wouldn't have gained anything. ISO200 on your D200 is probably losing detail due to noise, and that's likely not a problem on the mostly noise free D700.
Anyway, comparing image quality (outside of noise) by strictly comparing ISO is dubious at best - and from what I've read about the D700, I can't imagine you'll be dissapointed by not having lower ISOs (assuming you're happy with the IQ in general of course )
If the D700 is like the D300, It offers ISO 100, 125, and 160, just with different names. It calls them Lo-1, Lo-.7, and Lo-.3. Hope that helps!
Posted by David Bostedo on August 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Out of curiosity I took a look at the D3 on DP Review. I'm assuming that the D700 would be the same, since it has an almost identical imaging pipeline. The real ISO range is 200 - 6400, but it goes from 100 to 25600 in various modes. 100, 12800, and 25600 are done apart from the sensor circuitry though, so they're essentially "emulated" ISOs. I'd guess that 200 in this case is better quality than 100, either in terms of accuracy or likely in dynamic range. Either way, I think my first statement applies, that you'll probably be very happy with the image quality. You can check out the very in depth review on DP Review - they have a bunch of samples throughout.
Posted by Michael Irvin on August 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM
My understanding of the Base ISO, 200 in Nikons case. Is that it is ISO that provides the best image quality. So setting the ISO to 100, will degrade the IQ on the D700, D3, D300 etc....
Mike
Posted by Joe O'Hara on August 7, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Cezar,
A higher "lowest ISO", all other things equal, means that the sensor is better at collecting light (which we would expect because it's FX size and the pixels are bigger), which means that you will have less noise at ISO 200 than with a camera that has a lower minimum ISO. In other words, the
lowest ISO is a property of the sensor. Higher ISOs are generated by increasing the gain in the electronics, which brings up the noise, too.
Don't worry, I've seen 20x24 enlargements from a D3 taken at night at ISO 6400 and they are awesome.
Cheers,
Joe
Posted by Basil Greber on August 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM
That might be a can of worms, or not. Depending on the camera and the sensor. The D2X and D200 both had a base ISO of 100, and allegedly (didn't use either), the image quality was excellent at these settings (for landscape or studio). Along came the D300 with a base ISO of 200, and some people complained about grain at this setting, which went away at ISO 100. At the same time, ISO 100 loses a stop of dynamic range compared to ISO 200 (after all, the base ISO is where the sensor delivers the best performance, more or less by definition). So, there you are, with grain at 200 or loss of DR at 100. For me, it's no big deal. The files at ISO 200 are excellent, there's no reason to make a fuss about it. At the same time, the people making the fuss have a point. There is some fine grain in evenly colored shadows with the D300.
I don't think, however, that the experience from the D300 case can be applied to the D3/D700 case as well. I'd assume that - and everything I've seen and heard so far supports this (except for some snaps in a shop, I've never used a D3) - the image quality of the D3 sensor at base ISO is excellent.
Basil
Posted by Brad Hill on December 12, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Cezar,
David Bostedo was pretty much spot on re: the consequences of going below the base ISO on the D3/D700 - there is a slight (and it's only VERY slight) decrease in dynamic range. But we're talking about 1/10 of a stop reduction - so it's virtually a non-issue. In terms of noise - there may be a measurable increase in noise as you go below the base ISO (but I doubt it), but even if there is I doubt you could ever see it in a print (the D700 and D3 images are ridiculously noise-free).
RE: the general question of IQ of these cameras for landscape images. The limiting factor for most folks considering these cameras for landscape work is likely to be resolution, not image quality. With the right converter, Images shot in 14-bit RAW format produce EXCELLENT images (assuming you're using good glass, of course).
Discussion
7 repliesThere is one problem that may not be a problem at all, but nevertheless I would like to ask a question about.
D700 does not have ISO 100. It starts with ISO 200. Is this a problem for landscapes? I am not talking - and I don't want to talk - about long exposures for "creamy" streams, because this can be easily solved by filters, but I am asking about the clarity of details, color saturation, depth and the overall quality of image. I know the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 on my D200. On ISO 200 I am already loosing many subtle details, like snow texture, leafs, rocks etc. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200 is really noticeable. Yes, it's true, but is it attributed to the quality (or lack of) of D200 sensor, and thus this should not be a problem with D700?
How big is the issue of lack of ISO 100 in D700 in landscape photography?
Thanks for answering,
Cezar
Anyway, comparing image quality (outside of noise) by strictly comparing ISO is dubious at best - and from what I've read about the D700, I can't imagine you'll be dissapointed by not having lower ISOs (assuming you're happy with the IQ in general of course
If the D700 is like the D300, It offers ISO 100, 125, and 160, just with different names. It calls them Lo-1, Lo-.7, and Lo-.3. Hope that helps!
Mike
A higher "lowest ISO", all other things equal, means that the sensor is better at collecting light (which we would expect because it's FX size and the pixels are bigger), which means that you will have less noise at ISO 200 than with a camera that has a lower minimum ISO. In other words, the
lowest ISO is a property of the sensor. Higher ISOs are generated by increasing the gain in the electronics, which brings up the noise, too.
Don't worry, I've seen 20x24 enlargements from a D3 taken at night at ISO 6400 and they are awesome.
Cheers,
Joe
I don't think, however, that the experience from the D300 case can be applied to the D3/D700 case as well. I'd assume that - and everything I've seen and heard so far supports this (except for some snaps in a shop, I've never used a D3) - the image quality of the D3 sensor at base ISO is excellent.
Basil
David Bostedo was pretty much spot on re: the consequences of going below the base ISO on the D3/D700 - there is a slight (and it's only VERY slight) decrease in dynamic range. But we're talking about 1/10 of a stop reduction - so it's virtually a non-issue. In terms of noise - there may be a measurable increase in noise as you go below the base ISO (but I doubt it), but even if there is I doubt you could ever see it in a print (the D700 and D3 images are ridiculously noise-free).
RE: the general question of IQ of these cameras for landscape images. The limiting factor for most folks considering these cameras for landscape work is likely to be resolution, not image quality. With the right converter, Images shot in 14-bit RAW format produce EXCELLENT images (assuming you're using good glass, of course).
Cheers...
Brad