5D MK II or D700 Nikon

<p>Dear Guys<br />I am currently using D300 and D200 (Nikon ) . Because of 21.3MP I am thinking of going for the Canon 5D MK II . I am not going to make more than 24X36 prints. I have Nikon glasses and other accessories. In what way I will get better image (interms of sharpness and color reproduction) in shifting to Canon. ? One thing I am sure is the price advantage of Canon but apart from price what will I gain interms of image quality , ease of Handling / use weather/dust sealing etc..? Thanks for your kind advice and suggesstion please.</p>

<p>Dear all<br>

I am sorry, it is 5D Mark II of Canon></p>

<p>I would stay with Nikon and go to the D700. It will cost a lot to change and you will have to get used to the handling and menu systems of Canon. I have shot Canon for over 25 years and have only made one brief foray into Nikon (in the F3 days) you will find it a challenge to learn a new system for a while. The canon does have higher resolution and will print better at 36x24 (the Canon has about 156 pixels per inch at this size compared to 118 for the Nikon). I own the 5D2 and like it a lot, however Nikon makes good cameras. I have never shot the D700 but have shot both the D300 and the D3. The D300 feels slightly more solid than the 5DII but it's viewfinder is rather small (as it is APS-C). The D3 is definately a better camera than the 5DII except for it's resolution. Since the D700 is essentially the D3 sensor in a modified D300 body I would suggest that this is the way to go. I imagine that if you wait Nikon may bring out the rumoured D700x (D3X sensor in the D700 body).</p>

<p>I would think for fine art prints, 24 x 36 would be a stretch for a 12mp camera, that is the 5D MkII's strong point.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>D700 - best all round camera for most purposes and excellent high ISO performance.</p>

<p>5D2 - best outright image quality and almost as good at high ISO. AF is not as good as D700, weather sealing not as good as D700. Fantastic HD video quality.</p>

<p>As Ross says, for 24x36 prints the 5D2 may just be better. For A3 prints and smaller there will not be much difference. You need to decide if this slight advantage in image quality makes it worth changing your entire system over to Canon. I suspect it is not.</p>

 

<p>Price issue aside, I would not switch.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

<p>I would only consider switching from Nikon to Canon if Canon had lenses that I really wanted to use like the 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2. Otherwise if you are invested in Nikon lenses the D700 is a fine camera at a very cost effective price with excellent auto focus. Hang tight a little while if you're not in too big a hurry. Nikon may announce a higher mp D700X or something in the next round this fall. Good luck! </p>

<p>how invested in nikon are you?</p>

<p><em>"In what way I will get better image (in terms of sharpness and color reproduction) in shifting to Canon. ?" </em> Depending on which lenses you currently have and which Canon lenses you invest in and how you process your images (assuming you are shooting RAW), you could possibly see an improvement. Or not.</p>

<p><em>"...what will I gain in terms of image quality , ease of Handling / use weather/dust sealing etc..?"</em> After post processing, you likely will not see much if any difference in image quality, even with larger print sizes. As far as ease of handling, most Nikon users find Canon more difficult to use and most Canon users find Nikon more difficult to use. Go figure! As far as weather sealing, Nikon is probably better in that department.</p>

<p><em>"The D3 is definately a better camera than the 5DII except for it's resolution." </em> It depends who you ask and what the camera is being used for. The Nikon is better in certain areas and the Canon is better in others. And in some areas they are equal. There is no one correct answer to the question of which is better between the two.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You should wait a few more months, Nikon will most likely introduce a 24 mpixel version of D700. </p>

<p>Elliot I am a 25 year Canon user and happy 5DII owner but I am surprised that you take issue with my statement that beyond the sensor the D3 is an inferior camera. perhaps you are referring to the fact that the canon can shoot video, beyond these I can think of almost no area where the canon is superior. This should not be a surprise as the Nikon D3 was until recently their top camera body whereas the 5DII has two models above it in the Canon Range. I have shot the D3 and it is very impressive. Here is why I made that statement:<br>

Frame Rate - Nikon 9fps (11 at lower resolution), Canon 3.9 fps<br>

AF - Nikon 51 sensors, 15 cross type EV-1 to 19, Canon 9 (plus 6) sensors, 1 cross type, EV -.5 to 18<br>

Viewfinder - Nikon 100%, canon 98%<br>

Metering - Nikon 1005 pixel RGB sensor 1.5% spot, 0-20 EV, Canon 25 element SPD, 3.5% spot, 1-20 EV<br>

Durability - clearly the Nikon has a major edge here - solid build (1lb heavier!), it has full weather sealing (vs partial on the 5DII) and a 300,000 shot rated shutter (vs 150,000 for the Canon)<br>

I checked and DXOMARK sensor tests show the Nikon is about 2 db better on signal to noise ratio, has almost 1EV better dynamic range, has higher tonal range and colour sensitivity</p>

<p>I am surprised that you object to my statement that the Nikon is a better camera. They would sell very few of them if it was not - it is almost twice the price of the Canon ($4700 vs $2700). This is not to denigrate the Canon 5DII as I have one and like it a lot. Beyond the video, ability to make large prints / crop more and the fact that I can shoot at ISO 50 I am at a loss to see why the Canon is better. If you truely beleive there is nothing in it I am happy to buy a new 5DII and for you to buy a new D3 and we can swap!</p>

<p>Philip, I did not say that the that the D3 is an inferior camera. I simply stated specifically that whether one is better than the other depends on who you ask and that each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some basic examples... if someone absolutely wants video with their DSLR, the D3/D700 would be the wrong choice as those cameras lack this feature. If someone absolutely wants 9fps, the 5D MKII would be the wrong choice.</p>

<p>Many say the 5D and 5D MK II are not great cameras for sports. I disagree. I have taken many excellent sports shots with both cameras. An interesting phenomenon I have noticed when shooting indoor hockey is that the MK II handles the artificial lighting (overall balance) and auto white balance better than the D3. At 1/400, the MK II gives properly balanced lighting (even throughout the frame) while the D3 does not (many shots show color shift from one area of the frame to the other [likely due to the changing frequency of the lights] - at least at the arena I shoot at.</p>

<p>There is no simple answer to the OP's question of which body will give him better results. With good technique and good lenses, both give excellent results.</p>

<p>An excellent resource to examine and compare IQ of various cameras side-by-side is Imaging Resources:</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with the 5DII being able to shoot sports - I shoot quite a lot os ski racing and hockey myself as my kids compete in both activities (only one plays ice hockey but they all ski race - as do I). Not sure about the D3 white balance as i have not used one in these conditions but indoor ice hockey - especially in old arenas is very difficult for white balance. Even with the 5DII I have to use custom WB and set with an Expodisk in most arenas. I have seen bad colour shifts at one 1950's arena which has orange lights and is wood lined. I am unable to determine if this was the actual lighting in the arena or the 5DII (the arena is in Bieseker Alberta Canada).<br>

I think that the 5DII would be improved if it had better AF and I think Canon should have included their multi-spot metering (introduced with the T90) and a viewfinder blind. Finally the battery door and card door are obvious weaknesses. I am not saying that the 5DII is a bad camera (I bought one), just that the D3 is probably a better set of compromises unless you want to shoot video or need 21MP.</p>

<p>As a previous owner of a D700 and present owner of a 5D2, I think I may add something here. I switched for exactly the reason given above to make better 24x36 inch prints of landscapes. It comes down to just owning the right tool for the right job. I made the switch a couple of months back and have not looked back. Now I could have stitched images, but this does not work with moving subjects like flowing water so well. I could have used other techniques like image stacking, but in the end I went for the Mps. Some may say, well I should shoot 4x5 film, been there and done that. Not my cup of tea, if it is yours, fine, and lastly, MFDB, which is way out of my budget. I also wanted a camera that I could use for general shooting, which removes the last two options as well. In the end for me, the 5D2 was my choice, it may not have to be yours. </p>

<p>As far as the ergonomics that get mentioned often, for me again this was not a huge obstacle. Each system has it pluses and minuses as far as button/wheel placement. With a thousand images it won't matter either. The only thing that should push a decision is finances and end usage of the gear. The rest is just rhetoric. Simply, the right horse for the right course. IF you were making smaller prints I would agree with previous posters in that the D700 is just fine.</p>

<p>Why not go with the Sony it has 24 Megapixals. :-). </p>

<p>I found a review with a similar comparison showing the canon 1Ds mark III vs the nikon d3x:<br>

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/08/release-dates-a-review/<br>

Pretty much said the nikon D3x was a better design, but the image quality of the canon 1ds mark III won out. Kind of expected..</p>