[dylansalt]

Last night I read the DPR on the N**700.

I generally briefly read all the stuff but my main study was the pic samples provided.

Yes the ISO 1600 performance and above is a quantum leap but up to Iso 800 I could not see a quantum leap in IQ considering the quantum leap in price over a K10D, 20D especially if similar quality Pentax lens's were being used

The lenses they used were the expensive 24-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and the 85 1.8.

In fact I found the pics from 24-70 quite soft.

In fact if on a mad spur of the moment I had sold my Pentax and bought the uber N***700D at it's uber price I think I would be suffering very much with post purchase dissonance

d

[pentkon52]

What's a N***D700. Never heard of it.

I know there is a Nikon D700 out there. Maybe thats what your getting confused with.

I have been sent several files from a friends D700, high ISO and using the Sigma 24-70 F2.8, and they are stunning. Expensive or not, thats going to be my next camera.

I tend not to believe much on DPR any more.

Dave

[Wheatfield]

Last night I read the DPR on the N**700.

I generally briefly read all the stuff but my main study was the pic samples provided.

Yes the ISO 1600 performance and above is a quantum leap but up to Iso 800 I could not see a quantum leap in IQ considering the quantum leap in price over a K10D, 20D especially if similar quality Pentax lens's were being used

The lenses they used were the expensive 24-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and the 85 1.8.

In fact I found the pics from 24-70 quite soft.

In fact if on a mad spur of the moment I had sold my Pentax and bought the uber N***700D at it's uber price I think I would be suffering very much with post purchase dissonance

d

The whole idea of full frame is to get better high ISO performance combined with a fairly high pixel count. I've seen shots out of the D700 and D3 shot at moderately high ISO (1250) that are much cleaner than anything I've seen from a small sensor camera.
If you weren't impressed until the ISO got past 800, all that is saying is that Pentax has good noise performance until ISO 800, and after that it gets dodgy.
I've noticed this myself.
I wouldn't talk overly about the Nikkor 24-70 being flawed. Pentax is having ongoing softness problems with it's flagship wide zoom (16-50), and after testing the 17-70 I was beyond underwhelmed by it's performance as well.
I haven't used a D700 yet, but I have some experience with the D3 and D300, and be assured these are cameras that are performing light years ahead of the K20 performance specification.
If you haven't used a truly high performance and responsive camera, you don't know what you are missing with the rather moribund performance that Pentax bodies muster.
Whether that performance increase is worth the money to you is something you have to decide for yourself. Nikon seems to be having no problems selling D700 and D3 bodies though, so there is definitely a market for that class of camera.
What amazes me is how little demand there is from Pentax users for cameras that have more ballsy performance specifications.
It's not like as if all we take pictures of is melting icebergs.

[kenyee]

In fact I found the pics from 24-70 quite soft.

I have a friend who recently switched to digital from film for doing weddings and he got a D300 (but really wanted full frame so he returned it) and then a D700 w/ the 24-70 lens. He said he was disappointed with it when he zoomed in and pixel peeped. Then he showed me and you can see the hair follicles on people's faces, pimples, you can see the little white hairs in the follicles that you normally can't see on people unless you use a magnifying glass. The sharpness looked like results from my Kiron 105 macro lens, except this was a zoom lens!

He's not even using RAW...he's running JPEG w/ whatever the factory defaults are because he hasn't read the manual yet.

I'd suggest you take a memory card and try out a D700/24-70 combo at a store before making a judgement like that

If I were paid to do events w/ a camera, I'd be all over that combo without a second thought...well...the 24-70 was a pretty heavy lens is the only negative (heavier than my Kiron which is my heaviest lens)...

[Wheatfield]

I have a friend who recently switched to digital from film for doing weddings and he got a D300 (but really wanted full frame so he returned it) and then a D700 w/ the 24-70 lens. He said he was disappointed with it when he zoomed in and pixel peeped. Then he showed me and you can see the hair follicles on people's faces, pimples, you can see the little white hairs in the follicles that you normally can't see on people unless you use a magnifying glass. The sharpness looked like results from my Kiron 105 macro lens, except this was a zoom lens!

You gotta wonder what he was expecting to see.

[kenyee]

You gotta wonder what he was expecting to see.

He's used to looking at negatives w/ a loupe

[patrickhh]

I would buy a D700 immediately if I could mount the FA Limiteds on it.

[Jasvox]

Patience Grasshopper, patience. We shall to be able to wax on and wax off with a Pentax FF eventually.

Jason

[KjetilH]

Regarding quality improvement of full frame cameras, here is two pictures. One is taken with a D3, the other with a K20D. Try to guess before you check the EXIF. Surprised?

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=255765

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=255767

(Lenses used are 24-70 f/2.8 for the Nikon, FA31 f/1.8 Ltd. for the Pentax).

(High ISO performance is another story, of course.)

[kenyee]

(Lenses used are 24-70 f/2.8 for the Nikon, FA31 f/1.8 Ltd. for the Pentax)

mmm...creamy smooth bokeh for both. The extra DOF of the APS-C cam gives it away though...

[deejjjaaaa]

Regarding quality improvement of full frame cameras, here is two pictures. One is taken with a D3, the other with a K20D. Try to guess before you check the EXIF. Surprised?

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=255765

http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=255767

(Lenses used are 24-70 f/2.8 for the Nikon, FA31 f/1.8 Ltd. for the Pentax).

(High ISO performance is another story, of course.)

very-very easy - 24-79 has rounded blades in aperture and 31 does not - so just find a highlight and see the shape... you can cleary see that 31 makes a rough 9-sided and 24-70 is smoother

[Wheatfield]

Regarding quality improvement of full frame cameras, here is two pictures. One is taken with a D3, the other with a K20D. Try to guess before you check the EXIF. Surprised?

What surprises me is that someone would bother making this sort of meaningless comparison.
I am reminded of a person years ago who questioned why I would bother with a Pentax 6x7 based on the similarity between proofs off it and my 35mm camera.

(High ISO performance is another story, of course.)

Perhaps you should test that instead, since it is the major advantage of going to full frame sensors.

[Spex]

Omg...
What you give us is just a detail by which you can realize which picture is taken with which camera! But can you see the difference at first sight? NO! The point is that in this case you could easily mix pics of same shooting taken with D700 with those taken with K20D, and anyone would hardly see any difference
Or go and check this
Kidding

There are certain differences in all of cameras in the market, but technology is going so far that on smaller print there's no difference between 500$ and 35,000$ cameras. But what's the point of such comparasions except showing technology development? There are reasons why one costs so much over another. As there are reasons why someone would buy FF camera over APS-C one. But it's sad when so much people ar going crazy about FF cameras while not being able to actually give some good argument for their switch to FF from APS-C. Why would anyone buy FF camera for shooting in dark scenes once out of 10 shootings? I don't see any other reason than hype, or maybe wanting to spend some extra money on something, so let it be some uber cool bad ass camera

[Duplo]

The whole idea of full frame is to get better high ISO performance combined with a fairly high pixel count. I've seen shots out of the D700 and D3 shot at moderately high ISO (1250) that are much cleaner than anything I've seen from a small sensor camera.
If you weren't impressed until the ISO got past 800, all that is saying is that Pentax has good noise performance until ISO 800, and after that it gets dodgy.
I've noticed this myself.
I wouldn't talk overly about the Nikkor 24-70 being flawed. Pentax is having ongoing softness problems with it's flagship wide zoom (16-50), and after testing the 17-70 I was beyond underwhelmed by it's performance as well.
I haven't used a D700 yet, but I have some experience with the D3 and D300, and be assured these are cameras that are performing light years ahead of the K20 performance specification.
If you haven't used a truly high performance and responsive camera, you don't know what you are missing with the rather moribund performance that Pentax bodies muster.
Whether that performance increase is worth the money to you is something you have to decide for yourself. Nikon seems to be having no problems selling D700 and D3 bodies though, so there is definitely a market for that class of camera.
What amazes me is how little demand there is from Pentax users for cameras that have more ballsy performance specifications.
It's not like as if all we take pictures of is melting icebergs.

Funny you should mention that...

Melting Icebergs...

The D3 was a great help shooting just that, not to mention the calving glaciers. focusing on light blue ice exploding off a lightblue ice wall is actually quite an AF test

[jeffkrol]

What surprises me is that someone would bother making this sort of meaningless comparison.
I am reminded of a person years ago who questioned why I would bother with a Pentax 6x7 based on the similarity between proofs off it and my 35mm camera.



Perhaps you should test that instead, since it is the major advantage of going to full frame sensors.

More (meaningless) comparisons:

Phase One P45+ back vs Canon G10
Kidding