Nikon D700 camera (Page 3): rude or what? the last part of your statement is obviously true of yourself...

sailor2545 Loc: Victoria, BC

rude or what? the last part of your statement is obviously true of yourself

ken hubert wrote:

Nobody cares what you think. All trashman think their garbage is gorgeous.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I regularly make 12x18 prints, but could easily do 24x36.
--Bob

Kiron Kid wrote:

What size of quality prints can I expect to get from this camera?

Thanks

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The D700, D300, and D90 all came out around 2008. For sure the D700. All had 12 megapixels which were amazing at that time. Now we have the D810, 36 megapixels, Sony a7r2, 42 megapixels, and the Canon 5dsr, 50 megapixels. What a change in just only 8 years. And I've read Canon has a 120 megapixels sensor. Imagine the jumbo prints you can get from that?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As usual, there are a few on here who just want a fight and add nothing to the discussions. I can recall having a Nikon D1H, shooting sports and making some really really big prints with those files and appropriate software. Captain C has more actual experience than most on here and I have never seen him mislead. One of the very best features of this new version of UHH is the ability to squelch the trolls with a single click!

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

f8lee wrote:

I am another who has sold a number of images from my D700 that are 24x36 inch and printed on aluminum - apparently some folks know everything "in theory" but are clueless as to how things really work.

I have several shots from when I had a D700 that printed quite well at 24X36.

rjpimages

I totally agree. Apperantly the ones making those comments have never shot with the D700.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

With Bicubic Magnification(10% at a time, repeated), there is no reason you can not make mural size images. Will they have as much detail as a file from a D810-NO. But
viewed from an appropriate distance for viewing a mural they will be great. Remember-photo labs can increase file sizes much more efficiently with their software than you
can with what is available to you OTC.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am with with Captain C with this one. 12.1 megapixels are enough to make 20x30 enlargements assuming the operator has used good photographic techniques
I never go to those sizes but when I had the D300 with the exact number of pixels it was no issue going 13x19. I also went to 13x19 with my D2H and no issues either and the D2H only had 4.1 megapixels.
In short, even with cameras of the past like the D70 going to those enlargements posed no problems.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

camerapapi wrote:

I am with with Captain C with this one. 12.1 megapixels are enough to make 20x30 enlargements assuming the operator has used good photographic techniques
I never go to those sizes but when I had the D300 with the exact number of pixels it was no issue going 13x19. I also went to 13x19 with my D2H and no issues either and the D2H only had 4.1 megapixels.
In short, even with cameras of the past like the D70 going to those enlargements posed no problems.

You bet. I had the D2H also at just 4MP and made several 12x18 and 16x20. True, those were not as crisp as the 36MP images now, but at normal viewing distance, they looked fine.

Those silly tables that purport to tell us how large one can print are bogus - or at the least, very misleading. Yes, at 300ppi, a file that is 2832x4256 (the D700/D3) will print at about 9.4x14.1. But by increasing the pixel pitch or up-sizing or both, we can go to 16x24, 20x30, and larger, easily.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

CaptainC wrote:

You bet. I had the D2H also at just 4MP and made several 12x18 and 16x20. True, those were not as crisp as the 36MP images now, but at normal viewing distance, they looked fine.

Those silly tables that purport to tell us how large one can print are bogus - or at the least, very misleading. Yes, at 300ppi, a file that is 2832x4256 (the D700/D3) will print at about 9.4x14.1. But by increasing the pixel pitch or up-sizing or both, we can go to 16x24, 20x30, and larger, easily.

Isn't it amazing how well all got along with, and were awed by, the first generation of Digital? Life went on, and today, digital has surpassed film (IMHO). I have always said that I was really waiting for the D5 to replace my F5, and now, here it is. Will very possibly be my last professional upgrade. (Don't worry Nikon, now that I'm getting older I will need to replace all my fast glass with light glass. Just waiting for the 400/4E PF!)

jmunny Loc: Buena Park, CA

30x40 with D700

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

ken hubert wrote:

He is a total idiot. Check out HIS posts in the attic. All his 'knowledge ' would fit in a thimble.

I think I would go along with The Captain on anything regarding photographic excellence. I don't think I have ever seen his posts in, The Attic. He tends to put them in the, Excellent Photography, section.

Dennis

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

CaptainC wrote:

Well, I disagree. Strongly.

I have made gorgeous 16x24 prints and larger would be no issue. Going larger will NOT pixelate the image if you know what you are doing.

Knowing what I'm doing is a major effort.

jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon

I donated a 20 x 30 print taken with a D700 to a non profit organization. They auctioned it off for $3000. The D700 is a fine camera. Don't resist buying it because of worry about enlargements.

Jack

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

NoSocks wrote:

Knowing what I'm doing is a major effort.

True of all of us. You know, I did not mean. "...if you know what you are doing." in a disparaging way. Just that one needs to know that the image needs to be good in terms of focus/sharpness and then how to use the various software programs that do a great job.