D3X or 5DMKII?

<p>Hi: I am using a d700 (among many cameras). I want to do larger prints with no quality loss. I have been considering a 5DMKII. The alternate is a Nikon D3X. Either will give me the desired results. Costs are comparable because I will have to get the Canon lenses. I already have 7 Nikon lenses. What would you do? Any help appreciated. The primary use is macro and closeups within 10 feet of the subject. No sports or action, and simplicity preferred. The camera weight and size do not matter.</p>

<p>I say this as a committed Canon user (and owner of a 5Dii) but I would go with the D3X. If you already have the lenses you need (are you sure they'll cover full frame?) then sticking with Nikon will mean you end up with the same optical options and a better body.</p>

<p>Absolutely the D3X! Why are you even considering the 5DII?</p>

<p>If you have endless amounts of money there are reasons to have both systems. ie very specific lenses that are available in Nikon or Canon but not both.</p>

<p>When I decided which way to go digital, I didn't have a lot of 35mm gear but what I had was Nikon. I went with Canon because I felt they were a bit ahead of the game ( a lot at the time) and am still puzzled over Nikon trailing so much in the MP race--yes, I know the D3x has more MP than any Canon, but it is the only one!</p>

<p>Anyway, my concern about Nikon is just whether they will keep up or why they haven't. Other than that, I would stay with Nikon if I had much invested in the lenses.</p>

<p>From another Canon user; D3X all the way. Better low light, image quality, more megapixels more everything! its the best DSLR ever made(maybe except for the new Leica medium format). But, but consider this, its a damn brick. I am an athletic guy and when I rented one, it felt very unconftarble around my neck after a while.</p>

<p>(whisper) you did not hear this from me. But Nikon is about to release a D3X light, same sensor smaller camera pretty soon. I would wait if I were you.</p>

<p>I had the same decision to make last year. Mine was a 5D mk2. I tested both side by side, with a wide array of lenses and, to my eye, the differences were not as large as everyone seemed to want to say. I would say overall that the D3X was slightly better in real-world terms but much too big, heavy, too many knobs and buttons, and too expensive. In the real-world I want to use a 5D mk2 and spend the left-over on making images.<br>

But if Angel is correct, wait for the the D3X light. Now that would be really nice to have.</p>

<p>Happy shooting, cheers, JJ</p>

<p>Thanks gentlemen (no insult intended). I will take your advice and report back.</p>

<p>I would have recommended large format but you're obviously quite well versed in it. Not knowing what mix of lenses and bodies you have, I'd guess you'd be better off with the D3X, but I'd seriously doubt you'd lose more than the 5K difference in price selling your nikon gear and buying canon equivalents. </p>

<p>D3x advantages:<br>

- Slight IQ advantage<br>

- Better dynamic range<br>

- More vibrant color<br>

- Better flash system<br>

- Better weather sealing<br>

- Built-in interval shooting timer (as with other top Nikons)<br>

- Best wide-angle lens made for 35mm digital cameras (14-24 f/2.8 G)<br>

- Better medium to long perspective control lenses (45mm and 85mm)</p>

<p>5DmkII advantages:<br>

- Better high-ISO performance<br>

- HD video<br>

- lightweight body (considerably lighter than the D700)<br>

- a sharp walk-around lens with IS (24-105 f/4 L)<br>

- better long lenses (but the gap seems to be closing)<br>

- f/4 versions of quality lenses to save cost and weight (17-40, 24-105, 70-200)<br>

- more and better prime lenses<br>

- better wide-angle tilt/shift lenses (17mm and 24mm)<br>

- easier to operate while wearing gloves<br>

- FIVE THOUSAND BUCKS</p>

<p>I don't think there's a right answer or a wrong answer, but I agree that this might be a good time to (**ahem**) procrastinate.</p>

 

<p>One small point. Adapters for Nikon F mount lenses to the Canon EOS bodies are cheap and plentiful. You may not have to sell all your lenses if you switched. I have some old manual focus Nikkor lenses that are my favourite choice on my Canon 5D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From another Canon user; D3X all the way. Better low light, image quality, more megapixels more everything!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Better low light? I assume you mean high ISO performance. If so, not a chance.</p>

<p><em>Better</em> image quality? I can't say there's much difference at all at low ISO, at high ISO the 5D2 is clearly superior.</p>

<p>More megapixels... wow, you're right there, but so has the Sony A900 at a quarter of the price.</p>

<p>More everything? You're partly right again... more money and more weight for a start.</p>

<p>The 1080p HD video on the D3X blows away the video on the 5D2 and the huge Nikon lens and accessory collection makes Canon's line up look paltry in comparison too. Wait a minute, I think I might have been sarcastic there...</p>

<p>Both are magnificent cameras. If this is going to be your working tool, choose the one that feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>It might be wise to try to understand why the D700 is not living up to the OP's standards. With a good lens, proper shooting discipline, and proper post-processing (sharping, resizing, etc.) a D700 image looks quite sharp at 30x20 inches and RAZOR sharp at 16x24. 24x36 is acceptable if you're willing to stand back a few feet.</p>

<p>A 20+MP camera buys you about 1.4x more per side, so you can go from a 30-inch print to a 42-inch print at the same resolution.</p>

<p>IN OTHER NEWS...</p>

<p>I've done some scanning on the web, and I can't seem to find any examples that show a clear IQ advantage for the D3X over the 5D2. In one example, the Nikon looks slightly better, but in the next the Canon beats it. Usually the difference is determined by depth-of-field issues and where the focus is placed in the frame, i.e. not the most carefully executed tests I've ever seen.</p>

<p>By the way, (a) HD video rocks, and (b) you could buy a 5D2, donate it to charity, and run out and buy another 5D2 and you'd STILL pay less than you'd pay for a D3X.</p>

<p>Thanks again. I know the D3X would make more sense, but I do not need most of it's features. I use a digital camera as if it were a view camera. Always on a tripod, manual focus, and a hand held meter. Also, it begins to seem that it is likely to be updated soon, or so I gather from some of the above comments. I want the Canon for the 85mm f1.2. 85 is my most used lens, and shooting wide open with that 85 would be a thrill. But for the time being I am putting off the decision and will test the project with 4x5 Ektachrome. The film and processing bill for this project will be well under $1000., there is a good lab nearby, and the quality will be better. Laziness made me want to use digital, it is just so much easier. I may end up with the Canon anyway. </p>

<p>So after asking for your advice, and promising to follow it, I went and got the Canon. With an 85mm f1.2 and a 50mm Zeiss macro. Adorama had the best price by far, and threw in many good extras. They deserve the plug. They just sent it over. Will try it tonight and probably have lots of questions figuring it out. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Lucky you, I would love the 85mm f1.2. Have fun with it.</p>