nikond700.com
Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D
RAW files at ISO 200
http://www.nikond700.com/nikon-d700-review/compared-nikon-d700-vs-canon-5d/

--------------------------------
luminous-landscape.com
Nikon D700 review
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d700.shtml

日本dc.watch
D700鐵道攝影作品
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/08/01/8932.html

Nfoto 在 nikonGear 中陸續發表了 D70 Test Diary...
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=10771.0

July 11, 2008, 09:04:17 AM
As of today, I'm in a possession of a production-grade D700 and testing of it has commenced. My intention is to contribute scraps of information along the testing process.

The first stages of a camera test are always quite dull. I check the functionality of the camera and how well a given feature corresponds to is description (sometimes you can get big surprises ..). ISO noise checking and battery longevity belong here too.

Since my camera is "QC" (quality controlled within a factory production run, but not an object intended for sales), I didn't get the manual. This usually accompanies sales products as a localised version in print. Hence I have to scout the internet for an international PDF version to get details on battery life etc.

Firstly let me say that this is a body that exudes confidence and quality. It begs to be used.

Secondly, you need NX2 to process its RAW files. Probably a tag in the Maker Note that prevents older software from processing it as a D3-clone. I'll alter a few NEFs later with a hex editor and see if the files then are digestible with NX or Bibble.

Thirdly, here is the definite answer to the question of viewfinder coverage: the 95% figure is NOT a planar measure as it should be, but linear. Hence actual frame coverage is 90%. This figure will vary slightly with the actual lens used. I tested with the 45/2.8 PC-E. Traditionally, frame coverage is specified for a 50 mm lens at infinity.

More entries will be posted later but for now, I'm continuing with my birth day preparations Cheesy



July 11, 2008, 03:04:12 PM
D3 is confirmed to be approx. 100%, just as specified by Nikon.

According to the D200 manual, coverage is 0.95 H x 0.95 W = 0.9 area. Just checked. So the figure is the same as the D700.

The only logical way is an area percentage, since we're talking about a given fraction of an entity which in its nature is planar (framed area, 2 dimensions). That's how we would understand a statement such as "having a sensor twice as big" etc. We would object to a statement "twice as big" that really meant 4 times as much Smiley

A new confirmation: The dust reduction assemblage adds a frame structure inside the mirror box, just in front of the shutter curtain. This might be a stop for the shaking system? Whatever the explanation, it is clear that this frame will mask the finder slightly. This lends support to the explanation I got from Nikon techs earlier that the dust-removal system was responsible for the slight reduction in finder coverage on the D700, NOT the built-in flash since the prism heads appears to be large enough on its own.



July 12, 2008, 02:23:40 PM
Today's been extremely hectic, lots of shooting under different conditions. Most work done with my old '82 24/2.8 to learn how D700 handles non-CPU lenses. I discovered the first firmware bug. Not a serious one, but nevertheless, a real bug concerning how the camera responds to entry of non-CPU lens data. It appears that the first lens entered will be shown on the display, but the lens data is *not* reported in the EXIF header. You have to add another entry before the camera responds properly. Then, the first lens will magically exist afterwards. A typical case of an initialisation error in the code. However, users having only a single non-CPU lens will never be able to get EXIF data and the camera will show delta-f numbers all the time. I'll report the bug through official Nikon channels on Monday.

My old 24 behaved perfectly on the D700, exposures were generally spot on, and image quality excellent. I tested the occurrence of CA nasties by running NX2 with and without automatic CA removal, and although the lens did show a cleaner result when CA removal was on, the difference was almost academic in its magnitude. No vignetting at all was observed, so the 24 behaved again exactly as it did on the D3.

I have had extensive communication with Eric Hyman of Bibble Labs and agreed to provide him with test D700 files, in return, he promised Bibble would be supporting D700 in the very near future (i.e., even before the camera is officially available to the general public). While NX2 produces excellent results with D700 files, the software is painfully slow on my Quad G5 Mac and the workflow and UI are not exactly to my liking.

Here is a shot done in my garden with the 8 mm f/2.8 Fisheye-Nikkor;


July 13, 2008, 07:49:30 AM
All in due time, guys. The D700 now is tied up in the battery longevity test and likely will remain so for another day or two (it's approaching 1300 exposures and is likely to reach 5000 or so; with 30 sec interval between each shot, do the math to estimate the time of the endpoint Evil Evil Evil).

I've used the D700 with AFS 24-70 and didn't notice any unusual with its focusing speed. But any short-focal length lens will respond quickly anyway. For more discerning AF testing I'm using the 200 and 300 Nikkors.



July 13, 2008, 10:32:26 PM
I read the specifications published by Nikon carefully and set up an experiment to emulate the conditions as closely as possible. I control the camera remotely by an intervalometer (usually my trustworthy favourite, the MT-2) programmed to match the specified intervals and exposure durations given by Nikon literature. Then I fire up the camera and monitor battery status and exposure numbers reached as long as it takes to deplete the battery. In the case of cameras such as D3 and D700, this process goes on for a few days Evil. I graph the data all along in an X/Y plot so I can see any deviation from linearity. Usually, the battery will discharge in an almost perfectly linear fashion after an initial threshold in terms of exposures. I normally end the test when the battery level has fallen below 5 %.

In winter, I usually put the camera into snow and let it endure a second torture run there, or I may put the camera in the freezer (the last option will apply to the D700 after it has finished the first stage of battery longevity tests). Performance at low ambient temperatures is very important for photographers in cold countries.

Next, I subject the camera to the usual shooting conditions in field and look for performance of the new camera against other models (currently this reference will be the D3).


July 14, 2008, 01:42:56 PM
The normal-temperature test ended with the camera's battery dying while I was asleep. According to the linear regression model, I got an estimated 4400 exposures @22 C (jpg normal, 24-70, 30 secs intervals) which tallies well with Nikon specifications, just like the D3. I probably got nearly 10% better performance than the official figure.

The D700 is now gasping for battery power in the deep freezer (-26 C), it won't last long, probably less than 200 exposures. The final run will at at approx +2 C which a very common temperature in my neck of the woods.

All of the above numbers are to be interpreted in the proper context of course and shouldn't be used as arguments in a heated discussion over "why I'm not getting the same number of exposures-per charge that the other guy", which is a futile exercise in number playing. Battery performance can only be compared longitudinally, i.e. different cameras, same person, same pattern of shooting, same lenses used etc. Or compared to official specifications when the setup can be accurately emulated.

The D700 survived for aa staggering 607 exposures at -23 C. That's 5 hours of continuous use.

Now I'm thawing the camera, recharging the battery, and will put it through the last leg of battery longevity tests, this time at +2 C. It probably will run the whole night if the freezer experiment is anything to judge from.


不知這樣轉貼是不是違法，若是請告知啊！

很常的，我們會看到人家說Dx00 的表現和機王Dx 幾乎一樣。
但，自己買來用時又有一段落差。這是每個人的感受有差異。

這次，D700 又被大家說成影像品質及機身表現如對焦，幾乎無法察覺其中差異。
挪威攝影師 Naerfoto 也是說沒辦法分辨 D700 和 D3 在對焦上的差異，這說法真的讓人非常的期待！！！

看看 Naerfoto 之前對 D200 和 D2x 的評論：
引文:

事實上，我使用 D2h和 D200 在感受上是差別頗大的.... 也確實如文中所提到的... 除非在弱光下，否則無法察覺差異...

看看Naerfoto 對於 D3和 D700 在對焦上的評價....
引文:

這一次的評論則是更加肯定... 連註記都沒有出現，完全無法感受到差異性....

真的如此？有人可以補充嗎？

根據Nikon自己的發表

D700的AF感測器，是採用與D3同樣的 「Multi-CAM 3500FX AF」感測元件模組。

D300採用的是「Multi-CAM 3500DX AF」感測元件模組，
與D3/D700不同。

參考
Nikon官網介紹
D3
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3/features02.htm
「新開発マルチCAM3500FXオートフォーカスセンサーモジュールによる高密度51点フォーカスポイント採用のAFシステム。」

D300
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d300/features01.htm
「51のフォーカスポイントを持つ新開発の「マルチCAM 3500DXオートフォーカスセンサーモジュール」を搭載。」

D700
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d700/features02.htm
「AFセンサーには、D3と同じマルチCAM 3500FXオーフォーカスセンサーモジュールを採用。」

我個人認為 D3 對焦係統在暗處操作時壹定勝於 D700 ,

何以見得 ? 由 D3不需對焦輔助燈即知.

引文:

個人不同意這樣的推理,除非同場PK做驗證得出結果證實

基於經濟規模而共用零件的考量,同廠不同等級的產品使用相同的元件是很常見的情形.

引文:

Nikon的頂級機都不加對焦輔助燈, 從F4以來, F5, F6, D1, D2, D3都是如此. 但這是否它們在暗處就一定勝於F90, F100, D100, D200, D300, D700? 我不敢講. 我自己擁有F6的經驗是,在暗處某些場合仍然很難對,甚至焦對不起來. 這時如果加上外閃的輔助對焦燈幫忙, 那對焦則一下子就變得大大的容易了! 所以即使是頂級機, 如果有對焦輔助燈還是會好很多的!!

對焦輔助燈. 尤其是外閃上的柵狀紅光輔助燈
是個很簡單卻非常有效的東西
有的話
就算物體完全無對比
照樣可以對上

cameralabs.com
Nikon D700 High ISO Noise preview

Nikon D700 vs Nikon D300 vs Canon EOS 5D High ISO Noise
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml

thinkcamera.com
Nikon D700 Review
http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article.asp?UAN=800&v=1

dc.watch
D700人像samples

【特別企画】「D700スペシャルギャラリー」──ポートレート
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/08/08/9000.html

trustedreviews.com
Nikon D700 review
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/08/08/Nikon-D700/p1

samples
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/08/08/Nikon-D700/p6
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/08/08/Nikon-D700/p7
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/08/08/Nikon-D700/p8

cameralabs.com
Nikon D700 review
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/index.shtml

samples:
風景攝影的細結 (與D300/5D比較)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/outdoor_results.shtml

測試圖攝影的解析度(與D300/5D/K20D比較)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/resolution.shtml

感度別雜訊 (與D300/5D比較)
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml

除雜訊設定比較
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise_reduction.shtml

video tour
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/video_review.shtml

日本journal.mycom.co.jp
VR 24-120mm/24-70mm + D700 實拍比較

http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/11/d700-lens/index.html
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/11/d700-lens/001.html

引文:

日本journal.mycom.co.jp
D700 review
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/001.html
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/002.html
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/003.html
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/004.html
http://journal.mycom.co.jp/articles/2008/08/12/d700/005.html

日本photo-cafe.jp
高感度雜訊test及dynamic range test
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/2008/08/d700_02.html



imaging-resource.com
Nikon D700 Review
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700A.HTM

test samples
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700A5.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700A7.HTM

引文:

各種畫像模式的比較samples
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/2008/08/d700_03.html

kenrockwell.com
Nikon D3, D700 and D300
ISO 3,200 Comparison
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/iso-3200-comparison.htm

引文:

Nikon D3, D700 and D300
Sharpness Comparison
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/sharpness-comparison.htm