5dII vs D700

<p>A few days ago I asked here whether I should get a 5DII or a Nikon D3X. You were pretty much in favor of the Nikon. I did not listen and got the Canon yesterday. By the way, it came from Adorama at much lower than the going price, + almost $200. worth of needed extras. Thanks, Adore. I did a shoot of a few hundred pictures today and would like to share my opinions about it vs. my Nikon D700. This will not be too positive for Nikon. I have gotten used to my D700 and like it better than when I got it. These are personal opinions, not based on digital expertise, which I do not have. They are simple impressions based on experience. The Canon is easier to use. The Nikon menu drives me crazy. Too many unnecessary options, so when you do need to do something, you can't find the control. The Canon is simpler, more sensitive and easier to use. The Canon focus is better. My Nikons (D90, too) do not focus accurately and quickly. The Canon is not perfect in this respect, but it is better. The exposure meter is more accurate on the Canon. I gave up on the Nikon meter because it regularly overexposed. I took to using a handheld Minolta flashmeter. The Canon meter is more accurate. I guess I could have used the Nikon meter by setting it to a higher speed, but did not bother. Lenses: I love the 85mm f1.2 Canon. Nothing comparable from Nikon. The best lenses overall are from Zeiss, for both. I always got poor results from the D700 when using autofocus and auto exposure. Both of these functions are accurate on the Canon. The anti shake feature of the Canon does indeed work. I may be able to go back to hand holding sometimes, with the 5D2. And of course, though both cameras have full sized sensors, the Canon has 20 megapixels vs 12 for the Nikon. Additionally, the Canon body is lighter. A very significant difference. Yo, Nikon, how come you are not competitive in this area?</p>

<p>good hear that you are happy with youe choice.</p>

<p>Good decision Bruce. There is so much hype out there and so few evidence-based facts. If you want to know how good a camera is, test it yourself.</p>

<p>Take a look at my post of comparison shots of a Leica S-System ($27,000 for the body and 5-8,000 per lens) and see if you can tell the difference between it and another camera (I'll let you in on a secret...the other camera costs way less). Camera's are much closer in IQ than all the hype suggests. You made a good decision. Cheers, JJ</p>

<p>If you want some strong replies you should post this in Nikon forum.</p>

<p>Chinmaya, you made me laugh!</p>

<p>Hi Bruce,</p>

<p>Whilst your experience of the Nikon is greater than mine, I have used both too, though I came at it from a long time Canon user to trying a Nikon. I found quite the opposite, the Nikon AF was faster and locked on firmer, the AE was very good, particularly with back light, and the flash metering was way way better than Canons.</p>

<p>Now I own Canons and hang out on this forum a lot, but in a choice between the two (if I had no lenses and didn't need the 21mp) then I would go for the D700 every time.</p>

<p>To me the D700 adds up to a much better general camera, how often do we need 21mp as opposed to 12? The build is better and the basic camera functions, AF and AE, are, IMHO more accurate. The 5D MkII is an amazing camera, and if you need the MP count is the best available but I don't think it is the better general camera.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

 

<p>"how often do we need 21mp as opposed to 12?"</p>

<p>Every time you make a 12x18 print. It was a real pleasure moving from 240 ppi to 300 ppi. For those of us who actually make prints, Nikon remains a generation behind.</p>

<p>IMHO, as a convert from Nikon film to Canon digital, both companies make great bodies. Different, but both very capable. But bodies by themselves are just doorstops. Canon has a much wider selection of high quality glass, which, for me was the deciding factor. </p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>I agree, I own a 21MP camera and upsize often. But I would guess that of the billions of images shot with 21MP cameras a lot more than 99% never make it to print of any kind and of the owners of those cameras many thousands either never print at all or only occasionally and even then at not impossible sizes for 12mp to be adequate.</p>

<p>Well this isn't quite true is it? <em>"Nikon remains a generation behind"</em> their Sony chipped D3X is 24.5MP and no slouch in iso when compared to either the 5D MkII or the 1Ds MkIII. But this is not a Nikon Canon points scoring contest, most people on this forum are Canonites, but Nikonistas are just as over protective of their cameras. Sure the 1Ds MkIV will have more pixels and better video etc etc than the D3X but that is not the point.</p>

<p>My point was, for most people most of the time 12mp on a full frame is more than enough, to display that image full screen on a HD screen you are throwing 9 million or so of those 12 million pixels away! And my experience of the D700 was very positive and was at odds with Bruce's findings. How many threads have you seen here commenting on the 5D MkII's lackluster and certainly underspeced AF? Nothing like that on the Nikon forum about the D700. How many people are totally at odds with Canon flash and it's strange flash exposure algorithms? Nikon CES just works better in many peoples opinion.</p>

<p>I am not maligning anybody or their gear, I just had an different experience to Bruce.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What anti-shake feature of the 5dmk2 do you reference? Are you talking about IS lenses ?</p>

<p><em>"What anti-shake feature of the 5dmk2 do you reference? Are you talking about IS lenses ?"</em></p>

<p>Most likely the OP is talking about the advanced prototype 5D Mark III he is testing.</p>

<p>Otherwise it's I.S. (Canon) and VR (Nikon).</p>

<p>Anti-shake is reserved for the cheapie P&S cams.</p>

<p>In the long run, comparisons between Canon and Nikon largely come down to personal preferences, frequently - though not always - based on what you are most familiar with. Also in the long run, it matters little if at all to your photography which brand you use.</p>

<p>I happen to shoot Canon, but I'm quite certain that if I woke up tomorrow and found that all of my gear had magically morphed into Nikon equivalents my photography would be essentially the same.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>"Anti-shake is reserved for the cheapie P&S cams."<br>

I though Sony DSLR had Anti-shake? Are they cheapie?<br>

On another note, I shoot Canon and I used to be mad that WB on Nikon was so much more accurate than my Canon's but after getting the 7D, I'm finally happy with the AWB. I'm fully aware how to change the WB in post or with a expo disk, now I just don't worry about it anymore. v/r Buffdr</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I though Sony DSLR had Anti-shake? Are they cheapie?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are 20 Nikon and Canon bodies I'd take before a single Sony, so "yes" in a way.</p>

<p>Wow! That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the 5D2's autofocus is better than Nikon's. I'd like to hear more about how that test was executed. That certainly hasn't been my experience.</p>

<p>I own both of these cameras and find that BOTH of them overexpose highlight details. You have to be very careful with either one of these bodies. On the plus side for the D700 is that it seems to have a little more dynamic range. Exposing the 5D2 (which I LOVE, by the way) reminds me of exposing for slide film; I find that I have to expose high-contrast scenes very carefully. Exposing with the D700 made me a bit lazy, because you can pull so much clean data out of the shadows.</p>

<p>I can't say that one camera is easier to use than another. The D700 has more menu items, but then again it has more features (the Canon is more complex in the video department). The Nikon's menu items are more consistently presented. With the Canon I press a button and get confused as to which wheel to turn. I frequently end up changing the f-stop without meaning to do so. On the other hand, the Canon has some useful shortcuts. The dedicated button for shooting mode is nice as is the real knob that switches between exposure modes. My favorite is the combination of exposure compensation and exposure bracketing which is nothing short of brilliant.</p>

<p>Both the D700 and 5D2 have a My Menu feature where you can put your most-used menu items. And of course cracking the old user manual can help with menu navigation, too.</p>

<p>Yes, the 5D2 is lighter, but the D700 is more rugged. Yes, the 5D2 has higher resolution and video, but the Nikon has a slight edge in high ISO performance (especially with NR disengaged). And yes, they're both brilliant cameras.</p>

 

<p>If the Canon is so far ahead, why bother with your Nikons. Get rid of them if the Canon is better in every regard ? Why ask when you have already arbitrarily answered ?</p>

<p>it's always heartwarming to hear that someone is happy with the result, after making a major purchase like the OP has. no rainy-day parades here!</p>

<p>the only advantage of the 5D2 over the D700 can be written in a numerical form, a number: 9.<br>

that's it. everywhere else, the D700 IS a better camera. even die-hard canon fans agree that the build, AF, gadgets (no pop-up flash, oh dear), high-iso, burst, dynamic range, white balance of the D700 are superior to the 5D2.<br>

9, the megapixels that the canon offers over the nikon. i work for a photo studio that uses D3 and D700 for large prints on canvas or paper on a mamoth canon printer, and so far, 70 cm by 1m prints don't seem to be lacking detail from those well exposed, well-processed 12 megapixel files. the studio manager is seriously considering a 40-50 megapixel hasselblad system for commercial and fine art work, but that is a different story all together.<br>

i congratulate you for your purchase, i hope you will take many great pictures with it.</p>

<p>Hi Bruce, your right with your expession, that the best lenses overall are from Zeiss for both! That's why I got the mirror cut a little bit on my Canon 5DMkII to be able to use my eleven (11) Contax/Zeiss lenses perfectly with adaptor on it. O.K. no autofocus etc. but I've compensated it with a excellent focusing screen from Brightscreen,U.S.A. Even my 15mm and 18mm Distagon work perfectly on the 5DII.</p>

<p>I used to shoot with both....and I can frankly say - D700 was too heavy! the only difference in IQ I've observed was ability to make really noisless pictures over ISO6400 by D700. 5D MarkII was much more pleasant in overall use.</p>

<p>At school we used to see who could pee the highest up the wall.</p>

 

<p>Graham,</p>

<p>Then we grew up, got cars that go 140, houses that are too big to heat or cool, pools only the dogs use and we aspire to get the biggest white lenses out there :-)<br>

Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Wow! thanks for the response guys. Wolf: Good to hear from you. I am thinking about the 18mm Zeiss. Peter Kerverac: I intend to keep the Nikons as backup and to use lenses that I do not have for Canon. To those of you who say their autofocus is better on Nikon, I do not understand. I rarely use it on the D700 because it jumps around refocusing several times, and the picture, which if it is action is gone already, is often out of focus anyway. The Canon does much less of that. Maybe I have a defective Nikon. About the anti-shake, they call it something else (probably image stabilization-the nomenclature from the manufacturers is unmemorable), and it seems to work with some lenses and not others. As far as the comments about the extra pixels being unnecessary, I strongly disagree. I got the camera for the 20megapixels, and am still not entirely satisfied that I made the right decision. A 4x5 with 40 MP back would be a lot better, but I am not interested in spending that kind of money on digital. I still consider my self a LF film photographer. Overall, I am having a lot of fun with this excellent Canon, and enjoying it rather than putting up with the D700. In case you think this is an anti-Nikon crusade, it is not. This is my first Canon. I have had at least 8-9 film and digital Nikons and liked them very much, except for the D700, which for me is needlessly and frustratingly complicated.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

I'd think twice about that 18mm Zeiss. Testing show it not much better than the 17-40L. But keep the 5D II. If you judge your results on paper, it's unmatched.</p>

<p>Bruce<br /> <br /> You don't really make yourself sound like you have a worthy opinion when you say things like "The Nikon menu drives me crazy. Too many unnecessary options". Honestly I am not going to get into a whole Nikon/Canon thing but why do you think they are unnecessary, and why do you think they will remain unnecessary as you learn more about photography. <br /> <br /> Use the "My Menu" feature on your D700 and place all the menu items you need there, then you will be able to find them. And as you learn more about digital photography you will no doubt put some more menu items in your "My Menu" that you previously thought were unnecessary. <br /> <br /> Is there any particular menu items you deem unnecessary and drives you crazy that you would like to tell us about, I am sure we can help you by telling you what they do.</p>

<p>Phil</p>