Looking back at work from older cameras, especially re-editing photos taken with what was once a groundbreaking sensor, has made me think about the technological evolution in the last couple decades. My Nikon D700, a camera from 2008, was —like its bigger brother the Nikon D3— revolutionary at the time. These were the first Nikon full-frame workhorses that sent shock waves through users and competing brands alike when they first hit the market.
Mine was an upgrade from the older D200. It delivered more than I could have asked for back then. I remember feeling for the first time ever that a camera could produce shots that felt substantial, as if the sensor could absorb more of the world I was seeing. It was the first digital camera I used that I didn't have to complain about, and this was huge. All the digital cameras I owned before the D700 had some kind of major limitation that was painfully noticeable, even at that time.
You'd be tempted to remind me of the futility of comparing this ancestor to the modern GFX. You wouldn’t be wrong. The D700 is way behind now (stemming from a time when video mode wasn't even a newly added gimmick). Smaller sensor cameras perform better with more than double the resolution now, and it is absolutely dwarfed by the GFX. I would not recommend it to anyone unless people came across it for cheap. It could be a really nice learning tool, but not a smart investment as DSLRs are on their way out (unless of course people would plan to upgrade into more recent ones, such as the D7500, D500 or D850 whose sensors are still used in mirrorless cameras today).
This little post however isn’t about recommendations, facts, tests or spec sheets —but more about reminiscing. I remember being blown away when editing the D700’s raws and pretty much thought I had reached an end-game scenario, much like I feel now owning a couple Fujifilm medium format cameras. If anything that is a good sign for my wallet, as I went on the keep the D700 as my main for a little over a decade before it met its end at the hands of my son. Barring this last bit of toddler-on-camera violence, I wish I’ll be able to say the same about my GFX in the future.
With nearly three additional stops of dynamic range (four when compared to my even older D200), the GFX allows for images that breathe and exude richness and nuance. Worlds (or even universes) apart from where the D700 was at.
Editing those D700 files now, I’m reminded of the limits of the early CMOS sensors. They were vulnerable to noise and couldn’t handle much manipulation before quality began to deteriorate. In today’s workflow, where edits often go several layers deep, D700 files hit their breaking point quickly. The colors had quirks too —strange casts were common, especially in landscapes where precision in tones makes all the difference. These quirks seemed natural at the time, but the GFX makes it clear how far sensors have come, now navigating tones and hues with a precision I didn’t realize I was missing.
Then there’s the sheer resolution: a massive leap from the D700’s 12 megapixels to the GFX 100’s 102. For detail, it’s not just an upgrade —it’s a transformation. The D700 files are barely filling my computer screen at 100%, and while they carry nostalgia, they feel cramped by today’s standards. The GFX, on the other hand, captures an almost excessive amount of detail, providing room for a comfortable 2x crop without any noticeable loss in quality. The difference in resolution is immediately apparent when revisiting D700 files: what once felt crisp now appears rough at 100%, with fine details fading in a way that feels undeniably dated.
Ironically, though, that lower resolution sometimes was an advantage, especially in post-processing. Cleanup tasks, like cloning out stray objects or smoothing distracting elements, were far easier when dealing with only 12 megapixels. Without ultra-fine detail to consider, editing could be approximate yet yield good results. Small adjustments blended naturally, almost forgivingly, in a way that’s much tougher to replicate on a 102-megapixel file. With the GFX, any compositing must be precise to the pixel, or even minor edits become glaringly obvious on such a large, sharp canvas.
To go back to the D700 after using the GFX 100 is like returning to an early draft. The images still hold all the ideas, the moments, and the vision, but lack the clarity that newer technology brings. While those files are still capable of telling a story and while they will look alright printed at a reasonable size, (especially with the help of some AI denoising) they will still crumble under the heavy editing that today’s files handle so easily. (In this case I’m not necessarily referring to 16bit 102mp medium format files).
I will readily admit that if this dive into my archives brings a sense of nostalgia, it really doesn’t make me miss those "good old days". Not one bit. Although I had previously toyed with the prospect of getting a Nikon D3s — purely for the sake of sentimentalism — I now know that I will pass on the idea as it would be investing in a pretty expensive paperweight, which I couldn’t reasonably justify.
Comments