considering the D700...

I dont know about TIFF size since I never use it but if you want to know print sizes, all you have to do is divide the pixel dimensions by the DPI you want to print at...

So 4256px/300dpi=14.18666​in
14.18666in*2.54cm/in=3​6cm

Of course this is only matters if you want to stick to some myth that you must print at 300dpi. I, and many others have made rather large prints (24x36) using only 8Mpx to begin with.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9728848
I dont know about TIFF size since I never use it but if you want to know print sizes, all you have to do is divide the pixel dimensions by the DPI you want to print at...

So 4256px/300dpi=14.18666​in
14.18666in*2.54cm/in=3​6cm

Of course this is only matters if you want to stick to some myth that you must print at 300dpi. I, and many others have made rather large prints (24x36) using only 8Mpx to begin with.

yeah I downloaded a file from the Nikon site, thanks anyway. I have done a 24*36 that i love from my old Canon D60 as well.

Thats not the worry its the client that is the worry, these days they all have so powerfull computers and like to pixel peep even though they dont know how the out put is going to look like.

zincozinco wrote in post #9728884
yeah I downloaded a file from the Nikon site, thanks anyway. I have done a 24*36 that i love from my old Canon D60 as well.

Thats not the worry its the client that is the worry, these days they all have so powerfull computers and like to pixel peep even though they dont know how the out put is going to look like.

Well if thats the case, just the use the math up there. D700 is, IMO, the best camera out there for the money right now.

strong argument, my bet is the 1ds2 - which i just sold....

jhoag wrote in post #9727035
Well he is using Darth Vader as his avatar...I'm just saying....

Actually, I doubt that over 10,000 posts constitutes a Nikon Fanboy trolling his way around - unless he's a recent convert

I haven't converted. I'm shooting both.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9729346
Well if thats the case, just the use the math up there. D700 is, IMO, the best camera out there for the money right now.

I agree - probably best all around camera for the money.

worth ditching the 7d for? (I am not a happy owner of the 7d BTW)

not really the same camera, the d700 is full frame... id get the d300s that would still leave some money for cool nikon glass

OK,

for no other purpose than to provide material on which objective informed decisions can be made:

This is a D700 image and this is the same scene from a 7D, both at 3200 ISO with no NR.

Download them at full res then equalise them (or use a browser that allows you to do this) so that they're the same size.

Then look (I mean really look): the D700 has no obvious noise advantage whatsoever, but the 7D has a ton more detail. Just look at the cranes and warehouses towards the back of the scene.

They're part of a huge set of test images by the photographer incidentally, so you can do this test with any of his files: here are 6400 ISO files from the 7D and D700 and it's the same result when equalised - the D700 looks like an oil painting and I'd actually say that the noise is worse than from the 7D.

Oh - and both sets used the same Nikon lens, manually focused.

On the basis of examples - evidence - like this, I'm not at all sure that there's any legitimacy in any claim that the D700 is the "best all round camera for the money": I can make images with my 7D that the D700 wouldn't get close to.

For me the real test is the one I make by using it in my every day work. I use both systems and have done so for the past 3 years. Nikons in that period D100 - D300 and D700. Canons used 20D, 5D, 50D, and 7D. Based on my personal use and may I repeat "MY personal" use and experience I like the D700 over all of these. I have not owned the 5D II so I can't comment. The worse was the Nikon D100. I have made large prints with great detail from the 5D and the D700 with equal quality. The HI ISO feature in the D700 is for me a great advantage in much of what I shoot. I am not afraid to, and have done so, enlarge prints to 24 x 30 and beyond if printing is done right. If I had to have one it would be the D700 becasue of the built quality of the body its features, weather sealing, HI ISO to name a few. However, The D700 has not made me a better photographer and in most cases I don't capture any better shots. I have used them all for magazines, web, sports, portraits and calendars. The best camera for anyone is one they feel comfortable with and like. As to using two systems, it can be a hard thing to switch back and forth. It took me almost two years before I could do so with out thinking. It can be done but not in a few weeks. Have fun and go take photographs.

Mac

Thanks, Keith R.

It took a while but I was able to get them close enough for a good comparison. You could see more detail in the 7D shot. However, the colors were much better from the D700 (7D had too much green) and I can see from those two shots what people mean when they say that Canon noise is "chroma" noise. That comparison gave me more confidence in the 7D but also showed me not to be afraid of only 12mp in the Nikon.

Which means I'm no further ahead in the decision for myself, but again, it was a great contribution to this thread. Nice job. Is there a way to get the D700 shot on Flickr? They seem to offer more sizing options. I only got one zoom level in the D700 shot.

The colour difference might be a monitor thing, Optiq - I've viewed these images many times, on my calibrated monitor at home and my non-calibrated monitor at work, and don't see any superiority in the D700 images: and besides, colour balance and chroma noise are trivially easy to fix (for chroma I recommend Capture One's chroma noise reduction - it's excellent - or the LR 3 Beta equivalent).

The fact remains that there's no significant noise advantage to the D700 in any of those shots (or indeed in the whole gallery's worth) but the 7D provides massively more detail - as I say, look towards the back of the D700 3200 ISO scene and see how smeared and lacking in detail the cranes and warehouses are.

There's just no escaping the fact that the 7D is doing a better job of balancing detail, noise and overall IQ than the D700: I see this kind of result in a lot of places I've found D700 images, and I've certainly seen it in D700 NEFs I've downloaded and converted/processed myself (and as an ex Nikon user, I'm pretty familiar with how to process Nikon files).

Then remember how much more "reach" and "croppability" the 7D provides over the D700...

Those images were in cam jpegs right? With the right processing I can get a 7d iso 6400 image to look sharp and clean....once again, just for laughs, i'm not trying to actually say the 7d is as good at high iso as the d3s, that'd be ridiculous, but... 100% crops (but the 7d has been resized to 12mp size, so to the equiv size)... One of them is the 7d, one is the d3s, from iso 12,800. The 7d shot has been ran through mah happy noise reduction action I use...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

my 3200 doesn't come out real clean on the 7d when blown up.

rjg5 wrote in post #9735927
my 3200 doesn't come out real clean on the 7d when blown up.

So get better at converting and processing the files - maybe look to a new converter: ACR and LR really aren't much good, and despite what you might expect, DPP is far from being the best 7D converter out there.