Joseph Carey , Jul 09, 2008; 01:46 p.m.
got my hands on it again and while I still can't seem to open the raws (i tried converting to dng - and i tried
downolading the newest acr)
I took three shots at 800, 3200, and 6400
I'd say the 6400 is less than impressive...again as before these are not art. These are just super quick tests...
Joseph Carey , Jul 09, 2008; 01:47 p.m.
Joseph Carey , Jul 09, 2008; 01:47 p.m.
Jose Angel 
, Jul 09, 2008; 02:10 p.m.
Could I ask about the lens used?
Jay Poel , Jul 09, 2008; 02:40 p.m.
I'd say for being at 6400 - it's not bad at all. At least on my cheap monitor at work.
Elliot Bernstein 
, Jul 09, 2008; 02:45 p.m.
>> I'd say the 6400 is less than impressive.
Compared to what? Looks good to me!
Joseph Carey , Jul 09, 2008; 02:52 p.m.
you know something - when i look at it on the pc monitor (i am using a mac but i have another monitor set up for PC) it does look pretty good...
as for the lens 85 1.4
JC
Shun Cheung 
, Jul 09, 2008; 02:57 p.m.
I think it is safe to say that the D700 has essentially identical high-ISO performance as the D3
(since the two are supposed to have identical electronic engines, not merely the same sensor).
The D3 is still quite good at 3200. 6400 is still fine and I wouldn't hesitate to use it, but if you don't have to go to 6400, I would stay with 3200 or lower. Of course, the closer to the based ISO 200, the better the quality will be.
I know that is vague, but that would be my suggestion.
Harold Jerome , Jul 09, 2008; 03:05 p.m.
They all look good. Maybe conduct a real test with the subject in a static position for all 3 photos, including the
same focal length, aperture, and shutter.
Dan Brown , Jul 09, 2008; 03:10 p.m.
Wow, that 3200 shot is clean, clean, clean. At 6400, the gain/grain is starting to show, but still very impressive.
