D700 Vs. 5D MK- II

I want your comments on this please. ( I am not creating a controvery of Nikon Vs Canon.) Please let us disscuss only the merits in the statement.<br /><br />"Ideally, perceived noise levels (at a given print size) generally decrease with larger digital camera sensors (regardless of pixel size)."<br /><br />"No matter what the pixel size, larger sensors unavoidably have more light-gathering area. Theoretically, a larger sensor with smaller pixels will still have lower apparent noise (for a given print size) than a smaller sensor with larger pixels (and a resulting much lower total pixel count). This is because noise in the higher resolution camera gets enlarged less, even if it may look noisier at 100% on your computer screen. Alternatively, one could conceivably average adjacent pixels in the higher pixel count sensor (thereby reducing random noise) while still achieving the resolution of the lower pixel count sensor."<br /><br />This was quoted by one of best online Tech Expert in Digital Photography ( I presume)<br />Can I say that Full frame D700 with 12.MB is much better than Canon 5DM-IIwith 21 MB when both D700 and 5D MK II having the same sensor size?

<p>The above statement is inaccurate at best, noise per a pixel is not a function of sensor size but it is the function of effective photo receptor area, or the pixel area. Pixel dimension is 8.4um for D700 and 6.4um for 5DMKII. In a modern sensor with low noise sense amplifiers and carefully designed readout circuitry most of the noise is from the photon detection itself (Shot noise) which is proportional to ~ 1/sqrt(N) where N is the number of photons absorbed. Assuming both sensors have identical internal quantum efficiency the sensor with larger pixels will have lower shot noise. Also the larger pixel has a higher full well capacity thus dynamic range D~log(FW/noise) will also be higher. You can refer to the article below if you are interested to learn more<br /><a title="Click to open link in a new browser window" href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/... .../does.pixel.size.matter/index.html</a><br />In practice though different sensors have slightly different designs and the transmittance of the various coatings and layers on top of silicon photo receptors are different thus the assumption that the internal quantum efficiency is identical does not necessarily hold. However in the case of 5DII vs D700 it seems that this wisdom is correct at least to some degree. I did a comparison between D700 and the 5DII and found that D700 does have a noise advantage over 5DII especially at ISOs above 800, in particular in shadows and underexposed areas of the image, the noise performance of D700 is truely spectacular. But you have to also take into account that 5DII has twice the number of pixels so it can deliver more detail *IF* it is attached to a lens that is optically perfect across the frame.<br />In choosing between D700 and 5DMKII there are factors other than mega pixels including AF, speed and frame rate, features and handling and most importantly the Lenses. So depending on what you want to do with the camera either one may be suitable for you.</p>

 

<p>It's much easier than that - just buy the camera that fits the lenses that you own!</p>

<p>Mr.Arash,<br>

This is a great answer to my question. Thanks a lot and I do agree with Mr.Robert version also.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p>My head hurts after reading that. Post Chrisman hangover? Just look at the recent comparison between D3x and D3 and see that for the same sensor size, the D3 has better noise - within very similar systems. The 5D MkII is of course sightly different, but I presume that there isn't any magic involved.... it will be similarly plagued by higher noise than if it had less, but larger pixels.</p>

<p>The statement is based on the premise that a larger sensor requires less enlargement, hence the same amount of noise is less visible.</p>

<p>I disagree to the extent that noise at low light levels is pervasive, and tends to cause shadows to block up. This loss of shadow detail is objectionable regardless of the print size (I have a D2h - tell me about noise).</p>

<p>That said, full-frame sensors constitute the current state of the art, particularly for image processing. All else being equal, one would expect that larger cell sizes would produce less random noise. In a world subject to Moore's Law, however, few issues remain "equal" for long.</p>

<p>I shoot Nikon myself. My brother-in-law shoots Canon. And yet we get along fine and enjoy holiday dinners together. He's even able to produce some nice shots with his 5D (1st gen). Nikon does, however, produce better cameras ;)</p>

From DXOmark comparisons, I was surprised that the Canon managed to score so high on the high iso with low noise measurement. Actually a 21mp camera with top 10 percent rating in sensitivity and low noise is very good, and usable. Good enough for noise ninja to clean up if needed. In less severe conditions it should be clean.

<br />

I myself don't see you need more than say 18mp if you print at 250dpi. In fact most good lenses can't do more across the whole frame edge to edge than 60lpmm.

<b>(Copyrighted photos and information deleted. Please do not reproduce copyrighted information from other sources. Post a link to the original source.)</b>

<p>No, but you could say the D700 is a little better with noise. Probably 1 stop. However, when you compare two identical size prints for noise that have the same high ISO you would be hard put to see a difference. On the other hand, the D700 does have superior focusing in all light conditions. The 5D II has more detail. Take your pick.<br>

I have a Nikon SYSTEM so the solution is easy. I also prefer the ergonomics. Otherwise, it might be a tough call.</p>

<p>From reviews I've read, it seems that the D700 performs adequately or "as well as" the D3. I suspect there are some upgrades involved, when it comes to the D3x. I did just compare noise (very quickly and only in the camera) between my Canon 5 D and a D700 display model at a local Ritz camera, and I was shocked to see that the Nikon D700 that I have been wanting does not perform ANYWHERE near what I hoped for. It seems to produce MUCH MORE noise at ISO 3200 than my Canon 5d. Anyone else comparing these two cameras should test them side by side. I suspect that the new technology in the 5d MkII will give the Canon an edge, even though it is a higher resolution camera. In my opinion, I am now considering JUST the speed of shooting advantage of the Nikon vs. the video capability of the Canon, because I have a 12-24mm Sigma lens for my Canon, and it performs adequately (I would LOVE the Nikon 14-14mm f2.8, but it is unnecessary for me now). I am still edging toward the Nikon, but the new tilt-shift lens Canon just announced may make my desicion for me.<br>

I like the joystick method of navigating a zoomed image, and I like the ergonomics of the wheel on the back of the Canon, but I suspect both cameras have their advantages. (The single-button double-push delete feature on the Nikon is NOT an advantage in my opinion. I rarely delete images.). I would like to try the new Nikon 35mm lens, and Nikon offers lenses that I just can't get from Canon. Since I have a Canon already, I will have both (more versatility), if I get a Nikon, and that is part of my decision process too. I believe in 12 megapixels. I don't see the need to go higher. If I did, I'd be considering a medium format body with a 30+ megapixel sensor. They are for those who are after the ULTIMATE resolution digital camera.<br>

Good luck with your decision! Wish me luck with mine (if I get the money - otherwise there will be no decision to make).</p>

<p>The largest difference between these two cameras is how they feel to use. Both can make gorgeous images in a wide range of situations. However, the D700 "feels" like a professional body to me. They are fast and intuitive, and seem like they could do double duty as hockey pucks. I like Canons just fine, but to me, their 5DII just feels a bit inferior to the D700 in most ways that someone who loves shooting would care about. It having near-double the pixels of the D700 and how this affects noise are perhaps the least important and least distinguishable differences between these two cameras.<br /> <br /> One could talk about theory and peep at pixels all day long and not have the real practical answer for their own work. We'd have to rent one of each, and make prints from each to know if there was a real-world difference in image quality for anything we shoot. This technical comparison between cameras has been ridiculous for some time. How much more do those of us on photo forums have to peep at pixels? What more do we need? There isn't a bad camera made these days.</p>

<p>Being that I still shoot the 10D, and have no plans to upgrade any time soon, since it meets my needs for a digital camera perfectly, I would say that either of these newer cameras you mention are above and beyond what 90 percent of photographers need for their image quality needs; one should pick the one that is most within budget, is most intuitive to use, and which will accept ones favorite lenses.</p>

<p>IMHO, we passed the point of gluttony with digital cameras years ago. What else could 90 percent of people possibly need on one from this point forward? To get a camera that you love using, and will last you and satisfy you day in and day out for at least a decade is what I suggest. For 90 percent of us, getting any less than 10 years of good, hard service from one of these new cameras before upgrading is just silly.</p>

<p>Would any one consider 'more glass for buck for canon' especially for tele zooms as a deciding factor .BTW i have been a Nikon user for 15 years and have obviously a collection by now .</p>