D700, 18-200 and ISO 6400 Test Shots

jonh68

First, I know it's full frame and the 18-200 crops the sensor. My intent was to test the ISO at 6400 and see if it was feasible to use this combo as a walkabout combo that could adapt to almost all situations when I want to travel light. These shots are straight out of the camera, no PP done.

The aquarium shots were AWB, my room shots were set with printer paper.

ziggy53

It looks pretty good for Web sized images. How do the originals look?

The fish seem to be impressed.

jonh68

Blown up, you can see noise, but to me, it looks about like ISO 1600. Compared to the D300, the images are MUCH sharper. The D300 smooths things out, reducing detail. As you can see, the detail remains with the d700.

Tee Why

Looks fairly good to me. I'd like to see 100% crops from the shadows too.

jonh68

Closer crop of 4th pic.

Mitchell

I'm not sure why you would want to put that lens on the D700.

You are giving up significant pixels and using consumer grade DX glass on a pro body. Why even bother? While I understand the desire for a walkaround lens, the 18-200mm seems like a poor choice.

System

Thanks for the test shots and sharing. You have gone where most fear to tread .

Good luck!

jonh68

You are giving up significant pixels and using consumer grade DX glass on a pro body. Why even bother? While I understand the desire for a walkaround lens, the 18-200mm seems like a poor choice.

Uh, because I can? If I had not mentioned the lens, would you have noticed it?

I like seeing the capabilities of a lens and camera. With the great ISO performance of the D700 which would give faster shutter speed, I hoped this would make a good combo for light, casual shooting. I think it is. My aim isn't making art prints with this combo.

Mitchell

jonh68 wrote:

Uh, because I can? If I had not mentioned the lens, would you have noticed it?

I like seeing the capabilities of a lens and camera. With the great ISO performance of the D700 which would give faster shutter speed, I hoped this would make a good combo for light, casual shooting. I think it is. My aim isn't making art prints with this combo.

If you just want a good combo for light, casual shooting, why don't you use your D50 with the 18-200mm lens? That would be a lighter setup and would give you better pixel coverage with your dedicated DX sensor.

You bought a $3000 camera and are putting a low grade lens on it. You own other pro quality glass. I don't need to convince you that there is a significant difference.

jonh68

You bought a $3000 camera and are putting a low grade lens on it. You own other pro quality glass. I don't need to convince you that there is a significant difference.

You know it can come off don't you?

This is a TEST to see if I could. I can and I will use the combo. Doesn't mean it's going to be a standard weapon combo in the arsenal, but it's nice to know it can be. If I go to an aquarium and I want to enjoy it without carrying gear but want decent shots in low light, this combo is going to be used.

Do I need to beg for forgiveness from the camera gods to do this?

bham

jonh68 wrote:

Do I need to beg for forgiveness from the camera gods to do this?

It sure wouldn't hurt.

You are satisfied with the results and that is all that matters.

Mitchell

jonh68 wrote:

You know it can come off don't you?

This is a TEST to see if I could. I can and I will use the combo. Doesn't mean it's going to be a standard weapon combo in the arsenal, but it's nice to know it can be. If I go to an aquarium and I want to enjoy it without carrying gear but want decent shots in low light, this combo is going to be used.

Do I need to beg for forgiveness from the camera gods to do this?

I didn't know there were camera gods.

Seriously, you would probably get much better results in an aquarium with your 85mm lens at f2 at lower ISO than you will with your 18-200mm at f5.

Bulldoggie

I concur, I recently purchased a D700 and the overall pixel density for DX mode really isn't that good (although no one can argue about the well noise at each site/pixel). My impression of Nikon committed photog's line-up today:

D60 for walk-around with the 18-200
D200/300 for tele
D700/D3 for low light or wide angle (in low light this sensor is unbelievable!)

dangin

cut the guy some slack. it's his equipment; he can do whatever he wants to with it. maybe he wants the range as a travel lens and he doesn't have a full frame 28-200mm?

if it's about the megapixels, i seen plenty of professional sports and newspaper shooters that shoot with the Nikon D2h or Canon 1D (original) which are both 4MP cameras.

Chrissiebeez_NL

i dont want to sound like an old goat but maybe some of you should watch this documentary (its good stuff in any case)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7jLi99lu1Y&feature=related

it's about two photographers capturing the vietnam war (one vietnamese, one american) on film. The point where the vietamese photographer is developing his crazy good photo's in the jungle river drives home my point: it's not about the equipment, it's about using it and being there. i've seen posts here from people (wont give names ) with super expensive equipment that probably never took it off 'auto' for they produced p&s quality shots.

I've missed shots because i had the wrong lens on and i've had shots that i could not have made with an all in one lens.. whats better?

jonh68

Seriously, you would probably get much better results in an aquarium with your 85mm lens at f2 at lower ISO than you will with your 18-200mm at f5.

There is no doubt, but when I want to travel light, not carry gear, and it's going to be low light, this is the combo I will use when I DON'T care about the pixel count, just the moment. The 85 mm will also miss some shots too. It can't focus within 3 ft and there will small minnows, crabs that will not be focused on. With the 18-200 and it's close focus, I can zoom at 200 mm from close range. I can then pull back at an instant and get the bigger fish swimming over it. For specific shots the 85 will be better, but spontaneous moments, the 18-200 cannot be beat. I have done comparisons of the 18-200 and the 85 at 85mm and the 85 wins. I have also compared them at 18 and 200 and there isn't a comparison.

I shoot everyday and I make decisions on what lens will work best in each situation to please my editors. When I shoot for fun, I just want to shoot. There is no way my D50 could make those shots in that light with that shutterspeed. I couldn't get the level of detail out of the D300 at ISO 6400. I value flexibility and being able to catch the moment when I shoot for fun. Any pixel difference is not going to be noticed on a 4X6 or even 8X10 print. I just don't buy into the megapixel myth more is better. When I need heavy cropping, the D300 is the camera to go with as it's packed more densely.

I bought the D700 to use with the 85, 80-200, and 120-300 for low light sports. I was also interested to see how it worked with the 18-200. Didn't know it would cause this much controversy. Do you see any glaring problems with the actual pictures straight out of the camera?

I've missed shots because i had the wrong lens on and i've had shots that i could not have made with an all in one lens.. whats better?