High ISO Noise Comparison Between the Nikon D700 and Z8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- I compare High ISO noise between the 16 year old Nikon D700 and the 1 year old Z8. With downloadable sample images.
email me: jlvphoto@yahoo.com
Link to the test images www.jlvphoto.n...
Interesting comparison. The loudest complainers about ISO performance of older gear comes from amateur clickers that take 50 pictures per year. I have two D700 bodies and have yet to find a situation where ISO becomes even a whisk of an issue. ISO improvements provide marginal benefit for 95% of photographers and is a marketing tool to artificially inflate the need for GAS.
Or the wishes for better ISO come from people who actually need good high ISO for their work. Your gatekeeping mindset is way worse than any GAS.
"marginal benefit for 95% of photographers and is a marketing tool to artificially inflate the need for GAS" This can be said about literally any feature on any tool in existence. It's like saying that 13.5mm concrete drill bits are just marketing because 95% of homeowners don't need them; That IN NO WAY invalidates the needs for the users who actually do need them. 95% of camera users don't use flash, should the hotshoe just be removed from all cameras then? At what percentage of users do you draw the line? You're basically saying "I don't need X so it shouldn't be made available for anyone else either" and what you're really saying is that you can't think outside your own use case. You're actually arguing against development, unbelievable.
I think nowadays it's more about the far greater range that modern sensors are capable of. Shadows fall apart MUCH easier on older bodies (my D200), this does matter to many pros. Example, the Zf (and before that, the Z6II) is easily the best low-light body I've ever used - super clean at higher ISO's for the stage event work I do. Even compared to the Z8.
Thanks for the review Jules, I love my D700 and hope to keep it for many years to come. One thing worth mentioning is how effective modern noise reduction software is, especially that built into Lightroom. It makes the high ISO noise discussion a little less relevant than a few years ago in my opinion. Thanks for the great videos they are always informative.
Thank you Carl. Denoise is amazing for, the only issue I have is that it takes about a minute per image on my MAC. That’s a problem when converting lots of images.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696I use some old version of Imagenomic Noiseware plugin on a 2012 MacBook Pro, and it takes only 3 to 5 seconds per image. And that’s for the 24mpx files of my D600. A minute per image is too long. Something must be wrong. In fact I have actions in Photoshop in which Noiseware is one of many steps, and again, only take seconds to complete an image.
My opinion is… I will never sell my D700!
You may change when you get old. Modern AF systems are a blessing, most of the time. and you can always make the camera focus as an old rig.
@@jaimeduncan6167 Absolutely! I also own a Z9 and used to own a D850.
Enjoyed the video. Nicely done. The content seems reasonable, practical, and non-sensationalized. You really did come across as very practical and supportive of both camera bodies and I don't believe you attacked or were very negative about anything, which is huge in my mind. So many reviews love to belittle or place a piece of equipment on a podium, when in fact, it is just that one is better or not as good in a particular area. Again, well done. As someone else mentioned, it would be nice to see a RAW comparison.
Thank you Clifford. Actually when I shot the test images, I shot both RAW and jpeg. I used the jpegs because I needed jpegs to put in the online gallery and also so there would be no doubt that the settings I used in the RAW conversion were not the same for both cameras. Anyway, i converted those images in Lightroom with the same noise settings and they are very close as far as noise. The Z8 images are sharper however. I’ll be doing a video on this soon. Thanks for watching
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696better than 20 minutes in LR!
It is incredible that the D700 is a camera that almost does not age and it also has a softness in the colors that make it unique. Another amazing camera is the D200. Please see user comments on Nigel Danson's comparison between the D200 and the Z7. On the other hand, the "noise" of the D700 is a texture that I love and I know I'm not the only one.
Thank you, I will check out that comparison. I had a D200 but sold to buy the D300 which was a fine camera.
Still have my D200 & vertical grip, not much use anymore but I'll keep it forever.
I kinda regret selling my D700 because I didn't get much money from it anyway. The pop of the colors was somewhat special.
@@fotografalexandernikolis There are many cameras I regret selling over the years, but the money I received helped to buy some of the ones I still have. Thanks for watching.
@@fotografalexandernikolis
A shame because, in addition, those that remain have increased in resale value.
Thanks for the video.. I have a D700 as well as a D600 and the Z5 and Zf. I’m impressed at how well the older camera keeps up and I need to give it more respect and use. Thanks!
It is impressive. Thanks for watching
Thanks for the video...I love my D700 and will happily shoot it up to iso 6400 if the need arises. One can still print big enough too !!
It is great that a 15year old camera can be in the conversation with the latest cameras.
If I remember correctly, the D700 raw image after 2500 ISO starts to fall apart. I never used the jpg so I don’t know how much better it is with automatic camera-denoising than RAW. I absolutely love the Z8 but I was dreamed of Nikon making a modern 12MP full-frame camera as well, the raw files of the D700 are simply marvellous.
It really depends. If the image is properly exposed it holds up pretty nice even at 6400.
Jules, thank you for taking the time to do this comparison. For sure the technology in the Z8 is leaps and bounds better than the D700 it is no wonder that the high ISO comparison is so drastic. That said, it is so interesting that in today’s world of large sensors we forget that the D700 with 12 MP is still relevant as long as you are shooting in a moderate ISO range. I still have my D100 with only 6 MP while it sits on a shelf the images that I have from that camera are wonderful. Thanks again.
It is still relevant, pretty good for a 15 year old camera. Thanks for watching.
Shooting RAW and pushing the colors and hue separation through editing will tell the truth about how crap the image qualities of the modern sensors are...
The number of iso is not the point of comparison.I can go to 25600 with my D700 just using AI denoise software and just one click.
The points for comparison are hue discrimination, color accuracy, 3d pop, microcontact (tonal resolution), and smooth tonal shift (among others)
The Z8 can't even come close to the light gathering of the D700 sensor as well as the quality of the D700 CFA!
@@user-zv6qu4ks1p Ya know, I can't disagree with you. I just love the colors coming out of my D700 compared to modern sensors of the Z series. But the whole "light gathering" advantage of the D700 and similar cameras I've never fully understood. Yeah, the D700 has larger photo-sites than the Z9 for example, but the Z9 has _more_ photo-sites. So why does the advantage go the lower MP sensors?
DxO Pure Raw really helps the D700 at very high ISO levels 🥰
I need to compare raw files using Lightroom. Thanks for watching.
100% DxO Pure Raw is a game changer in pre-processing my images.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696yes the in camera denoising is better in newer camera, try raw to see the real difference between the sensors
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Always a pleasure to watch your videos Jules and even better when it shares some Nikon love 🥰 The other thing which as I understand it is DxO Pure Raw can apply DxO’s great lens correction profiles. Indeed when you first start using it… it will look at what lens you have and offer to download the correction profile for you. So it’s a bit more then just noise reduction. I believe they offer a fully functional trial Jules. Do look into it if you can!!!
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696. i am looking forward to your high ISO RAW comparison in Lightroom.
Have the 750 and 810 and love them.
Jules, thanks for doing this test. I have a D700 and a Z8 and love them both. Obviously with technology improvements the Z8 is the master of all genres of photography. As I am getting older the focusing modes, articulating screen and 20 frames per second make this camera fun to use.
I agree Edward but I’m impressed with the 15 year old D700. Thanks for watching.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696
Shooting RAW and pushing the color and hue separation through editing will tell the truth about how crap the image qualities of the modern sensor are...
The number of iso is not the point of comparison.I can go to 25600 just using AI denoise software and just one click.
The points for comparison are hue discrimination, color accuracy, 3d pop, microcontact (tonal resolution), and smooth tonal shift (among others)
The Z8 can't even come close to the light gathering of the D700 sensor as well as the quality of the D700 CFA!
Can’t spend 6000 for a camera. Will stick to my old cameras.
$6000 US? Which body is $6000?
you got to be kidding to compare this two body .. it just insane
@@kamarules Thanks for watching. Why is it insane?
I'm going to make this brief (especially because you were organized) - and I just finished ragging on a video on a similar topic that performed all its testing uncontrolled. Appreciate that you took care to mention all the controls to make the shooting equivalent. My head doesn't hurt anymore. This said, when making this type of video could you print the images and see if the noise is as visible in the printed output at the same sizes? Gracias!
@@dance2jam Very good idea. I no longer have a photo printer, but I can cans the images to a lab. Thanks for watching and your comments.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Appreciate your videos. The only reason I suggested printing is because many times the noise visible on the computer screen isn't appreciated in the print. I don't want to make you send photos off! LOL. I need a good printer myself, but I do have access to excellent printers at the Houston Center for Photography - and I need to print more.
Sir, your review makes me love my D700 even moreeee. Many thanks
Yes you should love it more. Thanks for watching.
so, you can use old camera 8 times cheaper then new one and still be happy?
Yes, but it depends on what you shoot.
Shooting RAW and pushing the colors and hue separation through editing will tell the truth about how crap the image qualities of the modern sensors are...
The number of iso is not the point of comparison.I can go to 25600 with my D700 just using AI denoise software and just one click.
The points for comparison are hue discrimination, color accuracy, 3d pop, microcontact (tonal resolution), and smooth tonal shift (among others)
The Z8 can't even come close to the light gathering of the D700 sensor as well as the quality of the D700 CFA!
Hugh ISO capability has made photographers really lazy. It's also made manufacturers lazy with their new mirrorless lenses. As a professional photographer I could afford any camera out there within reason. But I use a D700 and AF-D lenses for all my portraits and fashion, and ISO is irrelevant, but colours, micro contrast and skin tones are. When the D700 came out, Nikon was migrating film users over to digital and so AIS and AF-D lenses combined with the D700's Panasonic sensor gave the closest rendition to film that Nikon could manage. THATS why the combination works so well. A Z8 image is flat in comparison, and when I am photographing models in the studio wearing $20,000 gowns, it has to look real like you can reach into the image and touch it. You get that with the D700. There is only one other camera that comes close and that the Canon 5D Classic but its autofocus is unusable.
Hi Steve! What AF-D lenses do you use? I use the 35mm f2 AF-D and that combo really captures images of people filled with "life" 🥰
You get better highlights from the d700. I moved from the d700 to a z6II this winter and I am really struggling to get the same kind of controlled high key look that was easy on the d700. It feels like there are fewer levels at the top of the z6II raw than there are in the d700 raw. Probably not, but the d700 raws are just easier to push in post.
I need to do more with the D700, but my main camera is a Z8 and I don’t think the images are flat. Of course it depends on your settings in your raw converter.
I love when people pull things way out of proportion. Unusable? If you can't get a sharp image with the 5D classic, there's either something wrong with your gear or your ability. I shot with the 5d classic & didn't struggle with the centre point.
If you have the time, repeat this in B&W. I've found some digital cameras noise in B&W isn't always bad.
I may give that a try. Thank you.
All these years and pretty much the main improvements are in high iso noise. I may be too old school to care because I never really shoot more than 200 iso. In the film age I used 100 color and 32 B&W! I'm too used to fine grain to ever need or want to shoot high iso's. Art school ruined me for life.
Very funny this first photo showing that the form factor is very similar to:).
I shoot and love the D700, but "me 'at's off" to the Z8. I wouldn't have thought it to be /that/ much better.
If you convert RAW images from the D700 you will see that the noise is much better, almost as good as the Z8. Thanks for watching.
Jeez, the D700 is the 🐐
The Z8 pictures are slightly more exposed. I prefer the blue color of the sea from the D700 but while remaining perfectly usable for photography, it is showing its age not even mentioning the absence of any video function.
A few comments. First - 'high ISO noise' is something of a myth, down to a misunderstanding if what ISO is. Actually it's 'low exposure noise'. The ISO control by itself actually generally reduces noise as you raise the ISO, but it also lowers the exposure (if you meter according to the camera meter) which in turn causes the noise. So, these only make sense if you make sure that the exposure is the same for each camera when comparing. I don't know whether or not you have, but it used to be a common dodge by some manufacturers to game the meter so that high ISOs metered larger exposures than they should have, which ended up looking like they had better 'ISO noise'. Also, you seem to be comparing JPEGs, so a lot of the work is down to JPEG processing NR. The big jump in sensor performance was with the D3s - D700 had the old D3 sensor - so that would be an interesting comparison. Since then, what has improved is the read noise, which manifests as deep shadow noise.
I have the D700 and the D3S. With the D3S it's never dark night, it's surprising how well it reproduces color and they say that the D4S is even better, I haven't tried it.
I understand the jpeg comparison. However with lightrooms new AI-denoise feature a D700 raw file at 6400 is significantly better then the same photo a few years ago.
I agree. Denoise is amazing. Thanks for watching.
While the Nikon D700 is a beautifully crafted heavy duty camera, it needs to be shot in RAW/NEF and every file, depending on lighting conditions needs to be post processed to obtain superb results. The problem is that the camera jpeg processor doesn’t provide exact WB and the older CMOS sensor can’t reproduce color fidelity as it as a heavy tendancy of blowing out the magenta and yellow channel so the files need to be tweaked in Capture NX2 (which has a better algorithm than Lightroom) to obtain great results.
I agree that the D700 doesn’t have an 100% correct WB in jpeg mode, which is a bit annoying. I’m still very pleased With my D700 and I don’t Think that I will sell mine.
If you choose RAW, the Quality of the D700 is noticable better. The JPG from the Z8 are much better than fron the D700.
I guess I need to compare RAW files. Thanks for your comments.
Shooting RAW and pushing the colors and hue separation through editing will tell the truth about how crap the image qualities of the modern sensors are...
The number of iso is not the point of comparison.I can go to 25600 with my D700 just using AI denoise software and just one click.
The points for comparison are hue discrimination, color accuracy, 3d pop, microcontact (tonal resolution), and smooth tonal shift (among others)
The Z8 can't even come close to the light gathering of the D700 sensor as well as the quality of the D700 CFA!
Hi Jules! Ya know I luvs ya and ya channel, but I might add, whilst not knowing the exact source for the D3 ( I’m thinking it was Sony? ) The D700 sensor was Matsushita sourced. Put the picture control on ‘Vivid’ and the D700 will knock yer socks off! 😆
The D700 will no doubt go down in history ( if it hasn’t already ) as one of Nikon’s best cameras! The D3/D300/D700 were quite a trio in their day, and can produce good photos even today!
Please REMEMBER those who served, and those that gave their lives, so we all can be on here, and have the freedom to express ourselves, and the opportunities we all share. THANK YOU!
DP Review in their review stated that the sensor was the same as the D3. They are usually accurate, but maybe not in this case.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Hi Jules, I do know the output is a bit different from the two, based on what Ive seen and have experienced. There is a source online, that I cannot recall, that lists out the sources of sensors in all makes of cameras. If I recall, the D3, and maybe it was the D3s, was Sony, but I have it on good authority that the D700 was Matsushita based. This would explain the great output/ colors so many speak of with regards to the D700!? I have always liked the output of the 700, but then I am also a fan of Panasonic! 😊 Take care.
Excellent video
Thank you. In a few weeks I will be publishing a new video on the same subject but using converted raw images. Look for it.
I have D7100 and D200 . The D7100 JPEG pics looks so much better on back of the LCD then my D200 . But i when i process the RAW images in Lightroom its the opposite. The D200 looks more pleasing to my eyes.
Interesting. I had a D200 but sold it when I bought the D300. Thanks for watching.
The D200 has a terrible screen... What you see is definitely not representative of the photo you took
@@jd5787 I didn’t thing it was terrible, but the D300 screen and later screens were better.thanks for watching.
I guess its the picture controls available for D200 which makes it pop. e.g D2X -1 , D2X-2, D2x-3 . I do mostly portraits and even the standard profile looks more pleasing on D200 than the d7100 images, which looks flat in comparison. It takes less than a minute of post processing for the D200 to get the skin tones right for portraits.
@@matskay1971 I think you hit the nail on the head. Picture controls play a major role in Colors and contrast and of course you can modify the various picture controls.
Have a D3 as well.
The first Nikon full frame digital. Thanks for watching.
All these claimed imrovements are just marketing tricks to get you change your gear. Happy with my D780 and will keep it .
I’m glad you are happy with your D780. But I see real improvements in the Z8 over any other camera I have used. Thanks for watching.
I can’t see any difference in noise on my iPhone screen. The D700 color is better. The later camera looks too clinical.
@@bradl2636 Thanks for watching and your comments. I prefer the color on the Z8, but it’s not a huge difference. There are many other advantages to the Z8.
Great video,please compare raw images
I sold my D700 years ago, because I bought a Sigma dp2 quattro, the reason was the absolute fantastic iq of the sigma. Apart from the iq and tje lovely colors the sigma was soooo sloooow. Nothing for me at the end.
Because I have still a beautiful Nikon 135mm f2 DC, I'd like to buy again a Dslr, D700 or 750 or D3s or Df, what's your thoughts
It really on what you shoot. The DC won’t autofocus on the Df because it’s a screw drive lens. I would suggest either a D700 or D810. Thanks for watching my video.
Thank you, I didn't know that the dc lens won't fit
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696I have a DF, and the 135 f2 DC autofocus perfectly with it. Same with my 85mm f1.8D, my 50mm f1.4D and all the screw drive lenses.
@@frankwieczorek5112Don’t worry. I have both (DF and 135 f2 DC) and the autofocus works flawlessly.
@@RafaelMercadoSalas I was wrong saying it won’t focus on the DF. I was thinking the DF was a Z mount camera. Sorry for the confusion.
Are these raws? How are you converting them?
They are jpegs right out of the camera.
I had a D700, a great camera. I wouldn’t bother doing a review though, there’s literally hundreds already out there.
People over-estimate (1) the effect of more MP. And (2) people over-estimate the effect of a larger format. Posted this as-is here, in another channel today.
I've been to photography school - pro curriculum, a BSc today - in the film days and after 10 years a pro, shooting primarily Hasselblad (real medium format) but also 4"*5" and 8"10" (almost Letter or A4 size single shot sheets of film). After these 10 years, a.o. studied AI software engineering.
(1)
MP are an area (two dimensional) unit. Your 24MP sensor has 6,000 * 4,000 effective photosites and this gives 24,000,000 photosites. Replace millions by M and you get 24 MP.
But, known since photography's early history, human perception of sharpness follows "linear" (one dimensional) lines. So we express display resolution in Pixels Per Inch (PPI), printer resolution in Dots Per Inch (DPI) and film/sensor/lens resolution in LinePairs per millimetre (LP/mm).
Shooting at X*Y=MP sensor resolution, you may want to acquire better. To make a significant improvement that you will appreciate, you need to "linearly double".
This means 2X*2Y=4MP. So for 2 times linear improvement, you get 4 times area improvement. It still remains 2 times to your eye/brain. Less than that and you will be disappointed about the gain.
This explains why people can still be surprised about "how good an old 6MP or 12MP camera's images are today". Or how little they gained from the step from 24MP to 45MP.
That's all under the condition of "ceteris paribus" (aside from the single thing you compare, everything else must stay the same) and under the condition that you have lenses that can render the best really well.
The problem in most comparisons where it seems like the addition of MP does more than I pictured above, is that "ceteris paribus" is violated without people doing so knowing that it's the case.
The most serious violation of science's ceteris paribus requirement is that people compare a camera with OLPF to a camera without OLPF. That OLPF was a filter layer added into the Bayer paradigm to make the guessing of missing colours easier on the software that had to do so. At very low resolutions it was probably not needed, and at relatively high resolutions the cons outweigh the pros. If you want to know what it does, why it was there, ask me.
Make proper ceteris paribus comparisons to se the impact of more MP and presence/absence of the OLPF as follows.
0- Stick to full frame in the entire exercise.
1- Go to DxO Mark website and find the sharpest ranking lens with Nikon F-mount and stick to that lens in all the following steps.
2- With that lens on the camera, compare the 36MP Nikon D800 (with OLPF) to the identical D800E (OLPF Eliminated). Shocking, right?
3- Compare a 24MP Nikon (600, 610, 750 - with OLPF) to the 36MP D800 (with OLPF). Disappointing? Well it's precisely as predicted.
4- Compare a 45MP Nikon (D850 - placeholder for Z 7, Z 7ii, Z 8, Z 9 - without OLPF) to the 36MP D800E. Not exciting, right?
This OLPF/yes/no problem plays a big role between format comparisons. A 20MP Nikon D500 (DX or APS-C format) has no OLPF, so comparing it to 24MP full frame with OLPF is a violation to the ceteris paribus code of honesty.
Leica was about the last to offer a full frame sensor as it had taken them several years to develop an OLPF that would shoot good images with their old lenses. That first Leica full frame OLPF was a compromise, though. Lens design for sensors in the mean time has changed significantly and while it was difficult to get a performing lens of more than 3 elements, say, 100 years ago, today 120 elements is no big deal (it will cost ye though).
It has become easier to verify a design with "ray tracing" AI - for which a current graphics adapter (the RT in NVIDIA's RTX product name is short for ray tracing) delivers boat loads of power. The best known supercomputer in 1990 would be a Cray One - it likely had its own building, support staff and connection into the electrical grid. That power could be had in two NVIDIA GTX 1080ti cards, a handful years back. When you need the ray tracing acceleration then 1 top card today is enough. With good software you have to develop yourself, you then can review your lens designs. But you will have to come up with designs yourself - unless you also were able to develop "generative AI" that invents smarter - hopefully - lens designs for you.
The biggest problem with the absence of an OLPF was that camera manufacturers and software developers (in the camera house or 3rd party) broke the secret Bayer social contract, or gentlemen's agreement, or conspiracy. When a camera without OLPF has images that show noise, call it Bayer noise and blame the deBayerisation software. With AI DeNoise, Topaz, and with DeepPRIME, DxO, have improved on that Bayer noise. Years ago. Adobe followed in 2023. (DeepPRIME is an option in PhotoLab that competes with Camera Raw/Lightroom Classic, separately sold by DxO in a plug-in for LrC called PureRAW.)
(2) larger format follows the same principle as (1). People often forget that going to larger format with film means that, in colour film, from 135 confection to 120 you go from 100 LP/mm to 80 LP/MM and at large format to 60 LP/mm. Still, you gain some advantage in the end. But the real reason we went to larger format was not "sharpness" or "detail resolution" (as opposed to "gradation resolution" or "bit depth"). It was because in enlarging a film image you enlarge not just the grains, but especially the empty space between the grains and this waters saturation down, hence gradation, hence impact or vividness. But it can create artisty low light shots - I loved 120 confection Kodak Tri-X (B&W film, ASA400 at regular processing) for that. Beyond 8.5 times linear enlargement, colour prints would get desaturated too much if you wanted to retain the saturation. That means for a full frame shot at 8.5 times linear you are at 10"*8" size (almost A4). Whereas the 8"*10" shot can be printed in contact without any loss.
In digital, this works differently. When you print larger than 100% - meaning you need more dots than you have pixels - the software layers between your imaging software and what you get on the paper, together invent new detail and you don't lose saturation. You can gain digital artefacts, or lose sharpness, though, but better AI means you will not see this easily, today.
This works from the assumption that there is no empty space between photosites in the sensor, and if one pixel needs to become 4 dots linearly (i.e. it becomes 4*4=16 dots) that this can be done in a smart way that extrapolates detail into those new 16 dots.
Between the D700 and Z 8, a major difference is that the D700 has an OLPF and the Z 8 has not. The OLPF was introduced to make deBayerisation easier. As we shoot digital colour in the Bayer paradigm, we get raw files that have monochrome (mono=single; chrome =colour). So each data element has the EV in one of the RGB colours, and misses the other two. When a raw image is processed (converted) then software doing so makes guess for the two missing ones.
In this comparison, the photos we see stem from in-camera raw processing - they're SOOC JPEG. What we see here, is more raw processing comparison than anything else. A raw comparison would be interesting - we never see "raw" images in their "raw" guise - as in post we can look in a deeper way than what we see from the SOOC JPEGs.
As the Z 8 is a constant ISO camera, it has two amplification levels and the switchover point is at almost ISO 400. Consequently, it has similar noise at ISO 400 as at ISO 100 and at ISO 1,600 you are at "almost 400" noise level again.
The 12MP compared to the 45MP - if ceteris paribus, but that is violated here - would make the Z 8 about twice as sharp, as explained above, because 4 times the MP, but the Elimination of the OLPF in the Z 8 makes the Z 8 significantly better than that. Which brings me to the point that we need a lens that can actually show the difference, and while I shot Nikon since 1975, starting with an F2 and prime pro lenses, thus being able to confirm that the 50/1.8 F-mount is a very fine lens, it is by far not as sharp as the Z 50/1.8S.
In the film days, a good detail resolution would have been 100 LP/mm (line pairs per millimetre - that's 200 lines, black and white alternating) and if we treat each line for one photosite then at 36mm * 24mm frame size, we get 7,200*4,800= 34.56MP - the ballpark of the D800/D800E. As to lenses in the film days, the best lenses would easily go above 100 LP/mm in the center but would dive under that in the image corners. In direct comparison, way back, a top Leica lens might have been sharper in the middle but less in the corners - a design choice and I chose Nikon. The 50/1.8 hovers around that 100 LP/mm.
That is meaningless, IMO, w.r.t. noise, so if we only look at noise, then LP/mm are less significant - they impact contour sharpness as does the OLPF, but here the OLPF helps reduce Bayer noise.
Another difference is that the D700 has a discrete AD conversion circuit. The photosites in the sensor are analogue (and colour blind) and their EV measurements are read analogue by the AD conversion and converted into a digital integer number. That's not better or worse, just part of innovation and Moore's Law. The Z 8 has more intelligence in the sensor and a chip stacked to the physical back of the sensor with loads of contact points to make readout as fast as can be (Z 8: 4ms - Z 7(ii) 64 ms - milliseconds). Running its eVF at 120 FPS means that the Z 8 actually shoots 120 images per second for the eVF only.
Oh, FFS! How hard is it to understand that one needs to reduce ambient light to make a relative comparison in ISO performance. Increasing shutter speed and ISO is not a right way. Light transmits "data" to sensor. There fore you must limit quality of data signal and not a time in which sensor is exposed to high quality light stream.
Shooting RAW and pushing the colors and hue separation through editing will tell the truth about how crap the image qualities of the modern sensors are...
The number of iso is not the point of comparison.I can go to 25600 just using AI denoise software and just one click.
The points for comparison are hue discrimination, color accuracy, 3d pop, microcontact (tonal resolution), and smooth tonal shift (among others)
The Z8 can't even come close to the light gathering of the D700 sensor as well as the quality of the D700 CFA!