D700 vs Canon 5d mkII

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bsd230, May 20, 2009.

  1. I was going to buy an ultra wide angle lens but after long thought I decided just to apply that money towards a new full frame sensor. I only own 2 Nikon lenses and would likely have to buy a new lens for the D700 as I will be selling one of my lenses with my current D200. I keep going back and forth between these two bodies. I really like features on both. I like the AF, speed, built in flash, high ISO performance, and ergonomics of the D700, but the Canon has is pluses too--mainly resolution and I love Canon's lens selection. (video might be kinda fun to mess with) Another plus is that the Canon will likely be around longer before it is updated. I was wondering if you could put up some good links comparing the two? I am not trying to start a war between Canon and Nikon. I have owned both brands in the past. If you have used or compared to the two I would be interested in your opinion.
    My only gear right now is a D200, Sigma 24-60 2.8, 50mm 1.4, SB-600. As I said I am selling the Sigma with the body so really all I would have left is the 50mm and the flash which I could easily sell on eBay.
    If I buy the D700 I'll use the 50mm until I decide on a main lens, probably the Sigma 24-70 HSM. If I buy the Canon I buy it with the kit lens 24-105 f4L. Of course I'll have to buy a flash too.
    By the way, I am leaning toward the D700. I think it will be a slightly more versatile camera. With the speed and AF would make help for taking photos of my son and dogs. Whatever I buy I plan to keep for 4-5 years so I want to make the right choice.
    P.S. Shun I'm sure you have tested both, so I would appreciate your opinion.
     
  2. Canon: more pixels, nikon: less noise....
    I don't understand this part in your post: "Another plus is that the Canon will likely be around longer before it is updated." Who cares if Nikon introduces a D800 while you are creating great pictures with your D700....
    Since you already have some Nikon related stuff, I would go for the D700. The differences between the two will be minimal, and probably only noticable when you try both camera's side by side.
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    P.S. Shun I'm sure you have tested both, so I would appreciate your opinion.​
    Actually no, I have never even used the 5D Mark II. I understand that it uses the same old AF system as the original 5D. That would immediately rule it out for me; plus I have no Canon lens anyway. I have tested the D3X and I feel that having 24MP is only a moderate advantage over 12MP.
    But everybody's shooting requirements is different. If you only shoot still subjects and need more resolution, the 5DII seems to be a good choice.
    You might also want to take a look at this thread in the Nature Forum, but that is focused on landscape applications: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TOl2
     
  4. I am completely biased on this issue and won't pretend not to be. However, I am one who will question the benefit of increased resolution above 12mp. Other than just being able to wow yourself with detail sharpness of a photo by zooming in on it, will this really add anything to your pictures when they are seen or displayed in a normal manner? And do you have the processing horsepower to work such files with impunity?
    Just a couple of questions I would ask myself before going to a huge resolution camera.
     
  5. Glenn, but zooming in to an image and going "wow" is pretty fun if you're a pixel peeper like me :) Seriously, I love high resolution images. I am totally looking forward to owning a 24mp camera someday. Hard drive space is cheap. Big prints are awesome. Give me a Nikon D3x and you'll see one happy photographer!
     
  6. either one would be fantastic. and i do like canon's line of L-series f/4 lenses. i wish that nikon had an analogous line. pro glass is nice at 2.8 constant, but it kills my wallet. it'd be nice to pick up a 24-70 f/4 with the build of the 2.8 or a 70-200 f/4 like canon makes would be so nice. oh well. i absolutely love my d700. can't say that i wouldn't enjoy the 5dmkii though. but i think shun has it right about the autofocus. coming from a d90, that autofocus is out of sight, out of mind and perfect most of the time. just forget it and make pictures is what i'm doing now. but i've only owned it for one day.
     
  7. Nikon:
    Good af system
    Good wides
    Slightly better at high iso
    Canon:
    Better resolution
    Out of date AF
    Not so good wide lenses
    I'd seriously look at the Sony A900 which is what I would pick if I was to do it again or didn't have much invested in lenses. Cheaper than the 5Dmk2 too.
    Unless you must buy now you could wait for the D700x which should give you the best of both.
     
  8. After doing the math I would probably save about 5-600 going with the Nikon which makes it even more appealing. I agree that 12mp is adequate for anything I would print. The only advantage to the 21mp would be the ability to crop and still get a good print. The biggest decider besides the price is the AF system, which from everything I have read is superior to the Canon. With a grip the Nikon is a pretty decent sports camera too. Even though I like Canon's lenses, I have grown quite fond of Nikon's bodies-- they just feel better in my hands.
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Before all the Canon users get excited, keep in mind that the D700, like the D300, D3 and D3X, has Nikon's top-of-the-line AF system. I am sure Canon's best AF system is comparable. The problem is that the 5D and 5D Mark II use an AF system that is now even inferior to the 40D and 50D's. And AF capability is the one big difference between the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II. Otherwise, the two use pretty much the same sensor while the price difference is close to 3 times. I assume Canon puts an inferior AF system in the 5D II on purpose or it would have totally killed 1DsIII sales.
    Any one camera body will probably last you 2, 3, 4 years. If you switch to Canon, it'll likely be a longer-term commitment. Canon also makes excellent cameras and lenses in general. Had I been a Canon user, I am sure that my images would have been fine also, but think it through before you switch. The implication will likely be more than just one camera body.
     
  10. You can view comparison shots here:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
     
  11. You could get a D300 and 17-55mm f2.8 for about the same price. The AF covers much more of the view. I have and enjoy the D700 but I suspect a D300 would have worked just as well for me. Never used the Canon and I am not worried about replacing the D700 any time soon as its good enough.
     
  12. I agree, if the 5d had a same AF system it would start digging into their high end sales. As for the D300, it is definitely a good camera. If I were to consider the 300 I would just wait for the new model probably due out this year. Quite honestly I can't wait that long, I enjoy shooting in the summer and have the opportunity to sell my camera now for a good price.
    I am mainly going for the D700 for the ISO performance and full frame. I plan to keep this camera for a long time so I willing to spend a little more. I think the D700 with grip is an impressive camera. Not to mention it is as close to a pro camera as I am likely to get unless I win the lottery.
    The 21mp of the Canon would be nice, the video would be interesting to mess with. But I think the D700 is more versatile. It really covers all my photography needs with the AF and FPS will cover any sports and action photography I might do.
     
  13. If anyone has the MB-D10, if you could let me know how your thoughts I would appreciate it.
    I had the MB-D200 grip and sold it because I didn't like how it felt. I don't know what it was but it just wasn't comfortable. I used to use a grip on my Canon and loved it, but the D200 just felt odd.
     
  14. My main thing here is very simple....
    Camera build. I got to hold & play with the older version of the 5D a few weeks ago. And without thinking about it the minute I held it I said out loud - "feels like a piece of plastic". My friend, the owner, got a tad hurt..... :-( I did not want to further his pride by putting my D700 in his hands.....
    If the build is like that of the 5D - - I wouldn't buy it for anything.... but I just love the build of my D300 & D700. I'm actually even impressed with the build of my recently acquired D70.
    JMHO
    Lil :)
     
  15. "keep in mind that the D700, like the D300, D3 and D3X, has Nikon's top-of-the-line AF system. I am sure Canon's best AF system is comparable. The problem is that the 5D and 5D Mark II use an AF system that is now even inferior to the 40D and 50D's. And AF capability is the one big difference between the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II. Otherwise, the two use pretty much the same sensor while the price difference is close to 3 times.'
    well said, shun! this comment really speaks volumes about why the d700 and d300 are what they are and the basic difference in philosophy between nikon and canon. IMO if the original 5d had better AF it would have been unbeatable, so it's a little disappointing its successor doesnt improve in this way. if i was a canon user, i'd be a little mad if my $3000 camera had worse focusing capabilities than a camera which currently costs 1/3rd the price. i'd be a little concerned about build quality too, after reading about the antarctic mishaps on luminous landscape, where 25% of the 5dmk2's stoped working.
    i personally am only interested in better high-ISO performance than my current d300; a 25mp file would scare me. the original 5d was a high-ISO champ, but it doesnt make sense to me to get a FF camera for low noise/high ISO performance if it underperforms for action/event shooting.
    "If anyone has the MB-D10, if you could let me know how your thoughts I would appreciate it."
    as far as the mb-d10, the big difference between that and the d200 grip is build quality: its mag-alloy, same as the camera body. on the d300 it's very comfortable and ergonomically well-designed--there are contoured handgrips, etc, so it feels like an extention of your hand. it also actually improves fps performance too. the fact that the grip is removeable seems like a big advantage for the d700 over the d3, though some prefer the one-piece bodies. as a d300 user,it's nice to go fully dressed or 'naked' to save weight and bulk when that matters.only thing that's a little cheesy is the af-sensor point knob thingy, but at least it has one.
     
  16. The D700 should perform better in low light (due to its larger pixels and lower pixel density). It's faster, especially with the MB-D10. Its AF system is top of the line; unlike the mid-grade system on the 5D Mark2. The D700 also uses the better (according to many) Nikon flash system and is usable with lenses made before autofocus come around. Being a Nikon, you can use some of the system's unique lenses, such as the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 200-400 f/4 VR with the D700.
    On the other hand, the 5D Mark 2 seems to be very respectable in low light for its very high pixel count. It allows a lot of flexibility if you want to print large or crop extensively. It also features HD video: apparently a better version of the feature than what the D90 has. The Canon system does provide quite a few excellent and cost effective lens choices: especially the telephoto lenses, the low-cost pro-grade lenses, and an whole collection of fast and modern prime lenses (such as the 35 f/1.4L and the 24 f/1.4L).
     
  17. I own both of these cameras, shutter count on my D700 is close to 10K and my MKII is closer to 3k, I use D700 as my everyday workhorse and MKII for situations when I want to pull lots of fine detail from a distant landscape scene. Both cameras have excellent sensors with great low light performance, of course MKII has more resolution plus the low pass filter is very light and sharpness is fantastic, IMO MKII has the highest IQ of any Canon camera ever made. But with a lens like 24-105L you will not be going to exploit the advantages of MKII's juicy sensor, the corner quality is very poor while fringes and vignetting are recored high with that lens, in fact photozone rightfully ranked it "three stars" in the optical department which means poor. I used to have a 16-35 f/2.8 MKII and I also tested the 24-70 f/2.8L, the results were not up in par with my standards, at the end of the day D700 + 14-24 and 24-70 would produce a better overall image, So if you are going to use any of the mentioned lenses I would not recommend Canon. If you are going to use primes like 50 f/1.4 or telephoto zoom /super telephoto lenses like the excellent 70-200 f/4 L IS, 400, 500 or 600 then MKII can produce amazing images no other DSLR will match. I haven't tested the new D3X but from the full size NEF files I have downloaded from Imaging resource website it seems to be a relatively noisy camera most suited for ISO100 tripod situations. MKII is certainly not a ISO100 tripod camera, it can shoot at 3200 with ease and still have lots of detail.
    Regarding AF, most of my experience is birds (in flight and landing shots), I found MKII's AF inadequate for this purpose but for less demanding situations like tracking a kid or a dog it is sufficient if you use the center point only, it is also good enough for street photography even in low light, *IF* you only use the center point with f/2.8 or faster lens. my 50D has better AF than MKII and that's why I use it for BIF despite its somewhat inferior image quality.
    D700 AF is very good and certainly the best of all the cameras I have had, if you learn how to customize and use it with the right lens (AF-S f/2.8 or faster) it will perform very well.
    Any ways I guess there is thread like this once or twice a week in both Canon and Nikon forums, you can find more info if you search, the bottom line is either of these cameras can produce stunning images in the right hands so you have to pick the one that has the right features for your purpose.
     
  18. To me the AF is more important than the MP. Obviously more would be better, but I shoot more moving objects than landscapes. My son is a focus of a lot of my photography and he is very hard to catch sitting still. I need the better AF system for capturing him and my dogs. The high MP would be nice for cropping but if I missed the shot because the AF couldn't focus fast enough, then cropping won't matter much.
     
  19. I think the fact the MB-D200 was plastic is why it didn't feel right. It made my D200 feel top heavy. It is good to hear that the MB-D10 is metal and feels more like it is one solid piece.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The MB-D10 is far better than the MB-D200, but it is also considerably more expensive.
    Arash, I hope you'll get to try out the D3X some time soon. Your comments on its high ISO capability is quite different from my experience, but the the D3X is off topic for this thread anyway.
     
  21. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml
    A very interesting review of the 5DII on the Luminous Landscape. This is from a serious and knowledgeable Canon shooter who was on the Antarctic trip where something like 20-25% of the Canons had failures under the damp conditions. BTW, he does not think that is much of a problem for purchasers of the camera. The camera can produce fantastic images when used with proper lenses and good technique, with pretty high ISO abilities. The author has some interesting comments regarding the ability of Canon lenses, not all but apparently a lot of them, to be up to the demands of the 5DII's sensor.
    For my own bias, I have a collection of very old AI and converted AI, and some new pro, Nikon glass. So, I recently added a D700 to my D300. I definitely wanted the high ISO and low noise and low light abilities of the D700. That was more important to me than the size of the sensor. The higher the pixel count, Nikon or Canon or Sony, the higher the demands on the photographer to use more perfect technique to take advantage of those pixels. Being already familiar with the controls and menus of D70s and D300 bodes to make learning to use the D700 a very shallow learning curve for a very complicated machine.
    I do not think you can go wrong with either.
    Dave Ralph
     
  22. I own a 5d (non-mark II) and love it -- no regrets. Bought it right before the mark II came out, so I got it for essentially $1700 (after several rebates, manufacturer and otherwise). One of the reasons I own Canon is it was a better value at the time I started buying a dslr system. However, if I were in your situation, buying the D700 is a no-brainer. It's the same price as the the current 5d, and you already have a lens and flash for it. I think the pixel count is a non-issue (anything above 10 MP is enough). I don't have an opinion about video (that's what my camcorder is for). The only thing I could think of is that the lens selection is bigger for Canon, but not really if you're looking for lenses faster than f/4. Get the D700...
     
  23. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    A couple of months ago, the EOS Forum had a long thread on the Luminous Landscape Antarctic trip. People just kept citing that some 25% of the 5D Mark II failed.
    Last month when I went to the Frans Lanting workshop, I met a participant who was on that Antarctic trip. So I asked him about those 5D Mark II failures. He pointed out that those photographers simply did not take care of their cameras at all; they exposed those 5D Mark IIs outside under snow and rain and of course those cameras didn't do too well.
     
  24. If this thread was posted in the Canon forum, the comments would most certainly be quite a bit different, especially with regard to the speed and accuracy of the the 5D/5D Mark II's autofocus system. As an owner of both systems and having used both extensively, I disagree with many of the comments made about the 5D - some are simply not even close to being correct.
     
  25. Agree with Elliot. I use both systems too. D700 have more AF but 5DM2 can get the same sharpness and focusing with 9AF, if the user know how to handle it. This "5MP, 10MP or 12MP resolution is enough" kind of thinking when considering a camera is to me quite outdated. Higher resolution sensors are becoming so common now and we should take advantage. It is 24MP now, perhaps 30MP next year? CF cards now cheaper than when they first release 10MP cameras. External HDD for storage easily available in the market. So, there is no problem in shooting at High Resolution raw. Crop and edit as you like while maintaining high IQ.
     
  26. Besides the AF component weakness, Canon also tends to be rather heavy-handed with noise reduction to the extent that some times portraits have the plasticky look in terms of the skin tones.
     
  27. Shun, I look forward to reading your D3X review when you post it on PN.
     
  28. Hi,
    Interesting thread.
    I did'nt read all the posts on this thread, but would like to share my experience on both the systems.
    I have used Canon for a very long time. Since last year I have been shooting with both 5D Classic and D700. (After buying D700 seldom shoots with 5D). Quite recently I also had the itch to try 5D MKII, and tried it for 2 days with 24-105 f/4 (L)ens.
    Canon 24-105 Lens is impressive. Its light, sharp (not as sharp as my Nikon 24-70 thou :)). After using D700, any canon (non 1D) feels like toyish. Comparison between quality could be made using the example of iphone (D700) and any cheap plastic Motorola (5D Classic and MKII both) phones.
    D700 :
    1. Much cleaner files at high ISO. (Yes I emphasis much cleaner)
    2. Much better AF accuracy. (In my test, 2 out of 8 shots on Canon was OOF. Wheras same all 8 were in perfect focus when shot with D700 under same conditions.)
    3. Metering is better with D700
    4. Ability to use remote flash is something, which I missed in 5D immensely. (No I do not want to carry an additional piece of hardware ST-E2 for remote flash)
    5. Auto ISO is much much usable on D700. On 5D its a joke.
    6. I have big hands, and using D700 without grip is a little uncomfortable.
    5D MKII:
    1. Didn't like noise in high ISO. D700 noise is much pleasant to eyes and do not degrade the image quality as much as Canon.
    2. AF. Less stellar than D700. (No of AF points I don't care)
    3. Much inferior camera body quality.
    4. No flash. No native remote flash capability.
    5. Poor Auto ISO implementation
    6. Impressive light professional grade lenses.
    7. I was not able to produce sharp images. Althou raw files looked very sharp in provided software - Digital Photo Professional, but when converted to JPG lost all the sharpness. I am sure it was an OP error. But using NX2 with D700 was more predictable, and I never had this problem.
    Hope this mini review would be useful for someone looking for a quick and dirty comparison.
     
  29. Christ almighty Shun, are you Nikon's shill or the forum moderator?
    I see Arash has bought another D700 after selling his first one to buy a Canon.
     
  30. http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TJ4h
     
  31. That was very helpful. I guess it comes down to if the strengths of each camera are important to you. If your strickly shooting landscapes you could make the argument for the Canon. For just about everything else I think the Nikon is better. The Nikon strengths are important to the areas of photography I shoot most. Once you go Nikon it really is hard to go back.
     
  32. Haha that's right Thomas, you keep good track of the history here on PN, D700 was good enough to buy me back, to make you happier I have two here right now ;)
    Cheers!
    00TQCI-136553684.jpg
     
  33. I just bought the Canon 5 II but I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would switch from Nikon to Canon at this time, especially if one already has Nikon lenses. Sure, the 5D II is a good compromise camera if you want a lot of pixels with relatively low noise, but it is not the best in any category.
    By contrast, if you want the lowest-noise DSLR, then go with the D3 or D700. If you want the best studio/landscape DSLR, go with the D3X.
    There is little dispute that the Nikon cameras are also in general much faster in terms of frames per second, not to mention the speed and accuracy of autofocus. The general build quality seems to be better, too.
    That said, the 5D II is quite a versatile camera that does a lot of things very, very well at a good price. For me, however, the overriding consideration was the fact that I had bought quite a bit of Canon glass since I first moved to Canon EOS in 2006, when Nikon was clearly behind in terms of (1) not having a full-frame DSLR and (2) not having the best low-light, high ISO cameras.
    Things have changed--a lot.
    --Lannie
     
  34. Oh Lannie, they'll come out for you now...(most agree with you though!)
     
  35. Played around with a 5DII a few weeks ago belonging to a friend and was very impressed in general.
    Although it feels slightly cheaper and more insubstantial - and I do mean slightly - the resolution advantage over the D700 was obvious and for what I photograph (landscapes) I would certainly like to have that resolution advantage. Didn't really test the AF much because I mostly don't care but did try high ISO which ordinarily you would think was good but compared to the D700 was comprehensively outclassed. This oft cited problem of 5DIIs failing in inclement weather is a worry though - even though Shun says this guy claimed they were misused in rain and snow I have misused my D700 plenty in rain and snow in alpine conditions without a single problem. So - a question mark on that issue anyway.
    In short I think the 5DII is an outstanding camera but in a narrower way than the D700 is. If the 5DII was a Nikon camera then I would certainly buy it over the D700 because of it's resolution advantage in spite of the fact that in most other departments it is at a disadvantage to the D700. However, as Nikon will doubtless release a D800 in the coming months that will address the resolution issue and retain the better body, better AF etc I will stay just where I am and wait not so patiently.
     
  36. I am a canon guy with a 5D 12mp. Its a great camera. I would love canon to upgrade that with the autofocus system and build quality of the D700, I would only go the 5D MK11 route if you need the larger prints other wise I would choose the D700.
     
  37. I have a 5D MK1 and do not really need to upgrade although if I had the money I would. This time I would go for the D700 for the reasons already mentioned. Canon never seem to listen to what people are saying and put corporate strategy first. Strategy with the 5D MKII includes below market competitive AF and I believe they also held back on many features of the video. They will then trickle these through in susequent models to keep people buying. A change in corporate strategy will be needed to keep up with Nikon I think but even then Canon will hold back on the technologies it is ahead in just to keep people waiting for subsequent models.
     
  38. I think the solution to which of the two you buy revolves around what you intend to use it for. I use a Nikon D300 for nature and photographing my baby daughter....because of the focus system and high frame rate with the battery pack (I only have telephoto zooms and primes for this). For serious landscape or portrait photography (and weddings if I still did them) I use the 5D Mark 11. As good as Nikons 24-70 is, it is heavier (33%), whereas the Canon 24-105 has a very usable extra reach and is quite light (yes, it does exhibit some fringeing but it is easily curable). I am a big fan of IS or VR as well and Nikon's 24-70 doesn't have it. You can turn it off if you don't want it, but you can't turn it on if you don't have it. Nikon don't do a lightweight 70-200 either (full frame) for tramping around the countryside, Canons 70-200 f4 is great for this...with 4-stop IS allegedly.
    Your choice is, perhaps, a case of 'fitness for purpose,' you choose your camera body to suit your need. Stabilisation and weght are very important to me. From what you say above, autofocus is important to you. I'd go for the Nikon D700.
     
  39. I feel compelled to respond yet again in defense of the Mark II to some of the most severe erroneous statements made about it even though I feel like I am walking on thin ice being this is the Nikon forum. Disclaimer : My 5d Mark II comments are meant solely to correct inaccuracies in statements regarding the Mark II and in no way are meant to imply it is better or worse than the D700. The two cameras are different and use different lenses and it is difficult to compare them directly.
    ssnkssnk ssnk gives an opinion of the Mark II based on 2 days use. (I assume some of the other comments are made by others about the Mark II based on zero days use). Two days is not enough to evaluate any camera (IMO).
    "In my test, 2 out of 8 shots on Canon was OOF. Wheras same all 8 were in perfect focus when shot with D700 under same conditions.)" I have taken many, many thousands of shots with the Mark II, and like my D3, it is EXTREMELY accurate - I see no difference in focus accuracy between the two cameras. I generally only use the center and center + 'hidden' focus points with the Mark II. I do the same with the D3 (generally only use the center and 9 point focus mode using only the center 3 columns of cross type focus points.
    "3. Metering is better with D700" I don't agree.
    " 5D MKII: 1. Didn't like noise in high ISO. D700 noise is much pleasant to eyes and do not degrade the image quality as much as Canon." When shooting RAW and post processing both [Nikon and Canon] images, there is virtually no difference in noise even at the highest of ISOs. Perhaps I will post some side-by-side test results in the future.
    "7. I was not able to produce sharp images. Althou raw files looked very sharp in provided software - Digital Photo Professional, but when converted to JPG lost all the sharpness. I am sure it was an OP error. " You are correct - OP error. DPP, when used correctly, is an excellent program and gives exceptional results. I typically save to TIFF when top image quality is desired as there is no loss at all in IQ as compared with JPG (this applies to DPP or NX2).
    Landrum's comments are perhaps the most useful to this discussion... if you have Nikon glass, stick with Nikon. If you have Canon glass, stick with Canon. Most Nikon uses find Canon's interface difficult to master. Most Canon users find Nikon's interface difficult to master. 'Landrum's Rule' applies...
    Can I recommend one over the other (D700 vs Mark II)? No because they both give great results and are both great cameras. Can I state one is clearly better overall than the other. No because they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps someday there will be a 5D Mark D700...
    Ultimately the photographer still counts most when it comes to obtaining the highest quality images.
     
  40. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Thomas Hardy, May 20, 2009; 11:14 p.m.
    Christ almighty Shun, are you Nikon's shill or the forum moderator?​
    Hi Thomas, if there are comments I make that you disagree with, just point them out and provide your own (different) opinions. It would be very helpful if you have some facts to back up those opinions. Otherwise, making such personal comments without citing any particular point is not at all helpful.
    By contrast, if you want the lowest-noise DSLR, then go with the D3 or D700. If you want the best studio/landscape DSLR, go with the D3X.​
    Lennie, Nikon indeed tries to position the D3X as an excellent studio/landscape DSLR, and it certainly is. But you also wonder why you need to have such excellent AF capability for studio/landscape. It is good to have some weather sealing, but its excellent build is certainly an overkill for studio and probably also for landscape. I definitely don't care for its bulk for hiking. But of course everybody knows the biggest drawback for the D3X is its cost.
    If you want 20+MP and the best AF capability and construction, either Canon (1Ds Mark III) or Nikon (D3X) will cost you somewhere in the $6K to 7K range. The 5D Mark II has a clear price advantage but then naturally there are some compromises in certain areas.
     
  41. I went a head and ordered my D700 so the decision is complete. I think they are both quality cameras and there are good arguments for both. In the end the D700 fits my photography better.
     
  42. The D700 is a brilliant camera, if you can tolerate the viewfinder. Going from a D300 with more or less a 100 percent viewfinder to the D700, with it's ~90 percent one was a real shock! I hate stray junk coming into the corners of my images, and I was always having to second guess what was on the edge. Really slowed me down at times. That and the flimsy CF card door are the only two complaints I have for the 700. Image quality is brilliant all the way up to ISO 6400. In fact, I can remember when I first began using my fathers Nikon F FTn, and saw the ISO dial on the top right of the meter that went all the way up to 6400. I couldn't comprehend a film with an ISO that high (I was 12 years old at the time). Now it's a reality.
     
  43. Yeah I wish they would have kept the latching door, but I can live with the less secure door. The viewfinder is 95% on the D700 which it would be nice if it were 100. I don't think my D200 is 100% but I could be wrong.
     
  44. I am going to add a new camera to my collections, the Nikon D3X, I also plan to add a new lens which is the 24-70 F2.8 nikon also, I have a big collection of Sigma latest Lenses, infact some are repeated ones, like the 150MM F2.8 macro, I have 2 of them for canon and nikon, I do like the sigma lenses they some how worked ok for me but I can not compare them to Nikon, the Nikon are much better built and with very great coatings, that why I also plan to buy the 24MM PC lens.
    I have the 5D mark one, to be honest, it did not work ok with me, I still have some sort of trouble having the camera controls set correctly.
    My friend, what ever you decide I wish you a good luck.
     
  45. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon calling the D700's viewfinder "95%" is quite misleading. In terms of area covered, it is about 89% but the bigger problem is that it is not quite centered. I showed my test result as a follow up to my D700 review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D700/review/

    The D200's viewfinder is certainly not 100% and even the D3X is not quite 100%, but it is very close: http://www.photo.net/photo/9171023
    However, live view will give you 100% of frame coverage for those DSLRs that have that option.
    I never understand why people complain about the D700's memory card door. It is a non issue to me.
     
  46. Can't say if the Nikon or Canon is the best. But, I find the LL report of the failures in Antartic to be suspect. They had reported the exact same percentage of failures for the 1D II in their previous trip. Kind of makes me think they find amusement in reporting Canon issues. Or find other manugactue issues to not be issues. As I have not heard of substantial 1D II sealing issues, I don't think we will see much with the 5D II either.
    Nikons are great, would be happy if I had one of their full frame 20+ mp cameras. But, as I have a lot of Canon lenses its a Canon body. I've heard I can mount Nikkor lenses if I should choose to do so, which is a plus. So, I plan on having the 5D II for several years at least. It is a very impressive camera. I'm sure the Nikons are as well.
     
  47. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Back in February, there was a very long thread in the EOS Forum on the 5D Mark II LL Antarctica incident: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SNBR
    I checked with Ellis Vener about that, and he pointed out that several Canon-sponsored professional photographers were on that trip. The report that 6 out of whatever 5DII failed is definitely not fiction. And that was also confirmed by the person I met last month (he is an MD here in California and was on that trip).
    The problem is that such threads have a tendency to turn into sensational debates; people keep saying 25% fail without knowing the details. The 5D II is certainly not as well weather sealed as the D700, D3, or Canon's 1D series, but as long as you don't abuse it, I wouldn't worry about that.
    I have taken my N8008 to the Antarctic and my D100 and Contax 645 to the Arctic. None of those cameras has any weather sealing and none had any problems in the cold. But I am pretty careful with my equipment.
     
  48. The nicest things about Nikon cameras are the little things.
    For instance:
    Two control wheels -- one for aperture, one for shutter. And if you're in aperture or shutter priority, the other wheel becomes an exposure compensation wheel. Very handy.
    On/Off switch -- Canon inexplicably puts its on/off switch at the bottom right corner of the camera, whereas Nikon puts it about two millimeters away from the shutter. Unless you never turn your camera off while it's on your shoulder, this is a big deal.
     
  49. Regarding mechanical quality of MKII, the first MKII that I bought locally from Fry's electronics back in Dec. last year (not the best place to buy camera gear but it was sold everywhere else at the time) failed after less than 50 shots, mirror was not retracting properly with error code 30 on the rear LCD, for worse, this was an interment error because the next day everything was working when I was trying to return it to the store. I had a hard time proving to the astonishingly uneducated sales' person that the camera was unreliable as it stood and get a refund.

    The 2nd one I got from B&H is good but has a noticeable flex in the CF door, I can hear a squeak sound when I hold the camera with a lens like 70-200. I even tested putting a few drops of water at the flex location with an eyedropper and it got through, so at least my copy is not weather proof and I will not use it in rain or intense dust. IMO built quality is not good enough for a $2700 body but most likely it will live long enough to outlast your desire to keep it. Ironically 40D and 50D both have thicker doors that close firm with no flex, unfortunately it is not possible to swap the doors!
    Ergonomics are personal and I actually prefer Canon's layout. Nikon has more buttons but that doesn't mean it is easier to use, with Canon you can change ISO with one hand without needing to take your hand off the lens, changing EC is quite easy too, just rotate the big rear wheel.
     
  50. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Arash, so you returned a Canon 5D II as well? I recall that you had to return 2 out of 3 Nikon D700 bodies: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sw57
    And you also had problems with a brand new Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8. You've got to be one of the most unlucky person in this forum.
     
  51. I cannot talk about the Nikons, whose I respect, but I can talk about my experiencies with Canon. I am a concert photographer and I have used the 1D MkIIN for three years. Since a month, I am using my new 5D MKII. I have made pictures under heavy rain (the day I started to use it, ooppss) and in low light /low contrast concerts. I cannot criticize the AF accuracy. In fact, believe it or not, it deliver in practise as good if not better than the 1D one. And also, I have taken pictures in ISO 6400 and even 12800 and they can be published without problems. It's a night and day experience, for better. I am not planning to use the 1D in concerts anymore.
    You can believe me or not, but these are my experiences.
    Best.
    00TQYA-136707584.jpg
     
  52. Great image oscar.
     
  53. That's true Shun, I am not lucky when it comes to bodies, The D700s that I returned had permanent hot pixels at as low as ISO 400. The 24-70 had also some non-uniform sharpness issue at 24mm when I carefully tested it against a rental copy and a copy of one of my friends, so I returned it and I have been waiting to receive my replacement since then, the lens went out of stock at B&H just the same day I returned mine.
     
  54. On the MD10... I love it... for 2 principal reasons: I have big hands, and it takes AA batteries.
    I find being able to just carry AA batteries and a 15 minute AA charger, makes life a LOT easier on the road.
    On the controls... honestly I never use the controls on the MD10, even shooting vertically, habbit I suppose, the few times I have used the grips shutter release I found it a bit touchy, and typically I leave it turned off, since just bumping it can knock off 8 frames.
     
  55. Besides the AF component weakness,​
    There is no "AF weakness" - thought there may be user weakness.
    Canon also tends to be rather heavy-handed with noise reduction to the extent that some times portraits have the plasticky look in terms of the skin tones.​
    That has never been true, and it's certainly not true of the 5D Mk II - I've seen more "plastic" shots coming from Nikon cameras than I ever have from Canons.
     
  56. Since auto-focus was brought up, I'm disapointed with the auto-focus performance on my 5D while attempting to focus on birds in flight.
    I'd love to try out a Nikon system for birds in flight.
     
  57. Hi Elliot Bernstein ,
    Thanks for your comments. But you no need to correct my comments, because they are based on MY own personal experience, your experience might have been different. I have used Canon for many years, and am completely comfortable with its menu and its handling. I have been using Nikon infact only for last 1 year.
    D700's AF superiority is nothing new, and I found exactly to be the case when comparing between D700 and 5D. I do find Nikon's metering (D300 + D700) better than 5D (using 3d Matrix and Evaluative Metering).
    DPP was a bit underwhelming for me as compare to using NX2.
    I didn't like the noise in 5D, even when working with RAW CR2 files.
    Again no need to correct, because these are my own personal experience.
    Thanks
     
  58. " I only own 2 Nikon lenses".. so, you are not a lens buyer? or I am wrong, perhaps.
    "but the Canon has is pluses too--mainly resolution and I love Canon's lens selection." - then you can have many more lenses to purchase, True. Will you get them ?, or will you just say that perhaps something like this : "I only own 2 Canon lenses".
    Before switching ask yourself realistic question, how many Canon lenses you will get, and what they are?
     
  59. Don't forget about renting lenses. You don't have to buy to use a given lens if you can rent it.
     
  60. Iwas just experminting with the ISO using my Nikon D2X setting the ISO at 800 and this is the result of it, camera was hand held and the lens was Sigma 70-200MM F2.8 set at F2.8, it did not show high ratio of grains as I would have expected.
    00TQst-136873584.jpg
     
  61. It's a big topic and many will mull over these matters this year. The fact that the D700 is even in the game is a testament to its outright quality and the Nikon approach to prosumer DSLRs. Crystal ball time: how will the large Mp DSLRs be accepted over time? Are they just too fussy re lens performance, taking into consideration diffraction effects, technique (tripod, cable release, etc) and end use (large prints essentially). And any photographer who scans medium format can laugh at the issue of file size, MF produces files measured in hundreds of Megapixels; so that is a furphy, especially given modern PCs.
    Other big issues: the elephant in the room - the forthcoming Nikon 5D2 competitor; the lens lineup and Nikon's ability and willingness to produce high grade f4 zoom lenses to run against Canon's f4 duo: the 24-105IS and 70-200IS; Canon's less than ideal QC, build quality, less good deep shadow noise and poorer ergonomics; relative cost of the two cameras, but most of all, end use. If I was not interested in large prints, the D700 would already sit in my bag. As it is, it is still a very strong contender. The 70-300VR is a fine lens, preferred by many pros to the poor-on-FF and too heavy 70-200VR, the older 35-70/2.8 is much better than many realise, and we have a few good AIS wides plus Zeiss' ZF lineup. Then post processing: Capture NX produces great results.
     
  62. That is a good question Frank. I should have said I sold off most of my lenses and now only have have 2. I tend to buy and sell lenses a lot until I find the ones I really like. eBay makes it very easy to break out of a lens with little loss.
     
  63. That is good to know about the 70-300 VR working pretty well with FF. I do not make any photos larger than about a 11x14. That is why the 12mp wasn't a real deciding factor. 12mp is plenty for the size photos I shoot. I'm more interested in the AF system. I will be curious to see what the D700 replacement will be. I don't think it will be this year since it hasn't even been out a year. Even with its undersized mp it is a toss up in most shootouts with the Canon. I think they will wait another year and get more money out of the D3 sensor.
     
  64. "The D700 is a brilliant camera, if you can tolerate the viewfinder. Going from a D300 with more or less a 100 percent viewfinder to the D700, with it's ~90 percent one was a real shock!"
    If it's such a problem, then run a batch process and crop the image to match the finder. It won't cost you many pixels, and you'll then have a 100% finder. Maybe Nikon should have done it themselves and called it a 10.8 MP camera. Sheesh! Such angst about a complete non-issue!
     
  65. I guess they had to give up a little viewfinder for the dust removal system. It won't be much different for me since I am coming from the D200 which is 95% also. It will be nice to have such a large viewfinder even at 95%.
    My D700 should be here any minute. It's like Christmas. Wooot!
     
  66. I got my camera, charged up the battery and snap a couple pics in the back yard. Initial impressions are pretty good. The metering is awesome. I have a dog that is black and white and in high noon light she is very hard to get a good picture of because of the wide dynamic range. Snapped a couple of her and was pretty impressed how well it did. Looks like I'm going to have to go shooting this evening.
     
  67. Congrats Brian, we look forward to seeing your photos on PN.
     
  68. Thanks all,
    I'm an Olympus 4/3 shooter and I love the system. I've been eying the D700 as well as the 5D (old and new) since they offer better high ISO possibilities. If I add another system (I plan to keep my Olympus gear) I'd go for a a FF with one or two primes. The lenses would likely be a wide angle and a short telephoto. I'm leaning towards the D700 since I've heard (and have seen examples) of better high ISO quality, but I'd reckon either of them would be better than my old E-300 in that regard. I think both systems offer plenty of lens options and 3rd party support is excellent. Thanks again all even though the decision is still a tough one!
    Jesse
     
  69. Thanks, Arash I have already posted one picture, a test shot with my 50mm 1.4. I will probably keep this camera for a very long time. It was a great upgrade from my D200. Certainly noticable in all aspects. Not just the ISO performance but the image quality is better and sharper straight out of the camera. That would probably be my only complaint I had with the D200 was that images were a little soft straight out of the camera.
     
  70. Of course this "debate" could go on forever. I'm just going to make a couple of points based on having owned the 5D with L lenses and now the D700 and lenses.
    I purchased the D700 about three weeks ago in preparation for a week's trip to Angkor Wat in Cambodia. The last time I was there was seven years ago when I shot strictly b/w film using a Canon 1V and a Leica M6.
    This time I brought a M8 and three lenses, the CZ 21, Cron 35 and the Lux 75 and the D700 with the 14-24mm and the 135mm. Figured the D700 was complement the Leica and so on.
    I probably shot about 500 frames with the D700 before the trip so that I wouldn't be unfamiliar with it. The camera is an impressive tool and I found it easy to use with a versatility beyond my expectations. Bottom line is that I like it.
    I was thoroughly impressed with the 14-24mm. It's a spectacular lens although I felt that the zoom ring was not as smooth as those on the Canon. Build quality seemed ok. But it didn't matter as the results were great.
    Within 10 minutes on the first day in blazingly hot and humid weather, the D700 stopped working. No power whatever. Did the usual battery swap etc. with no change whatsosever. I called the service center and the shop where I purchased the camera and the consensus was that the electronics had failed and that there was nothing they could recommend to rectify the situation. It was disappointing for a awhile but then I moved on and was able to take pretty decent photos with the M8 although the focal length was from 21-75mm only. I mainly used the 35mm.
    Bottom line is that all cameras can fail and Nikon is no different. The M8 has a reputation, perhaps deservedly so, as being a bit idiosyncratic with QA issues, however, neither the M8 nor 8.2 failed me in the last two years in harsh conditions. Nor had the 5D. In fact my 5D with L lenses was used by one of my friends during this trip in exactly the same conditions as the D700. No issues whatsoever.
    I learned long ago to plan for camera failure and always carry a second camera just in case. This is the first time, camera failure was an issue.
    Leo
     
  71. Postscript: The dealer replaced the defective D700 within three hours after I returned from Cambodia. The "process" took ten minutes. Now happily playing with the "new" camera.
    Ray
     
  72. About the LL and 25% failure thing... Maybe its just the fumes that the LL people pack with them on their trips :) ( its happened before 3 years ago when the D200s on the trip didnt fail and 5Ds failed) I know many people take their Canons out in conditions described in the LL expedition and they have not failed..
    However, I am glad I use Nikon. I am hoping to go to Antarctica some time in the future. Got to start saving ....
     
  73. I noticed my D200 handled adverse conditions way better than my old Rebel did. I'm sure the weather sealing is even better on my D700, but hopefully I'll never have to find out.
     
  74. If 12 MP is enough, then this is a no-brainer: get the D700.
    If you must have 20+ MP, it is likewise a no-brainer: get the 5D II.
    What do you want?
    Lannie
     
  75. It's been solved I bought the D700 Friday. I couldn't be happier. 12MP is more than enough for me. I will likely own this camera for several years. My biggest drive for upgrading was better ISO performance. I certainly got that. This is the first camera that I have been satisfied with the images I get using high ISOs. The images I get from 3200 are better than the images I got from my D200 at 800.
     
  76. I would go as far as to say the images from the D700 at ISO 3200 are better than the D200 at ISO 400. Better meaning lower noise and higher resolution. But I'm tired of comparing this camera to that camera. Show me a great photo taken with a D200 and a not so great photo taken with a D700, and I'll like the great photo taken with the older camera every time. There has to be a point where the megapixel wars stop, and the format wars stop. I decided I didn't really need high ISO performance so the D700 became a little too much camera for my needs. I'd rather use a flash or VR to compensate for low light with a $600 camera, than not with a $2500 camera. It's all perspective. I remember when upgrading to professional film was a way to get better color, when Fuji Reala film came out it was like another world, colors were so much better than before. With the same camera you could upgrade your resolution. Not any more. Now you're stuck with the same resolution until you spend a couple thousand dollars. Yikes. I'll stick with my D200 for now and buy a few new lenses down the road and see what they do. Being a pixel peeper is dangerous, but I found that even the resolution from the D700 didn't satisfy me when I zoomed in. So I'll retire from the upgrade wars until something really amazing comes out, like a 24mp Nikon SLR for $600! Maybe in 5 years.
     
  77. Hi Brian,
    Congratulations on your excellent purchase! You have echoed the exact feelings I had , when I saw high ISO images from this camera. I am very satisfied with my purchase too! I see myself using this camera for a long time to come and now I can stop wasting my time and money on body upgrades.
    Congrats once again !!!
     
  78. Can someone help me with their knowledge about d700 if it can store a tamper proof image from image capture to prints processing?
     
  79. Canon: More megapixels, larger selection of lenses, usually at lower prices or in lighter weight designs. Too many complaints about problems.
    Nikon: A robust body with AF, AE and Auto ISO that just works, lowest noise available and fast frame rate.

    Presently I have a D300. The major deterrent to my buying a D700 is the lack of a standard zoom of reasonable weight and size. The 24-85 AF-S is discontinued and the 24-120 VR is a poor performer. I simply cannot schlep a 24-70, not to mention it costs $1800. The tamron 28-75 is a thought, but it has to be treated as an f/4 for best results. On the wide and tele ends, I am OK with the selection, in view of my needs.
    Don't give Shun a hard time. He is one of the few around here who are both knowledgable and sensible.
     
  80. Chandan- The D700 it does allow you to put in copyright information, but I have not used it yet.
    I agree Ron, I wish Nikon had more selections for the range you wrote about. A quality 24-105 VR f4 like Canon makes would be great. Sigma makes some pretty good lenses in that range too, their new 24-70 2.8 HSM is pretty impressive.
     
  81. I think the 24-105 is the missing lens in Nikon's zoom lineup. I'd buy it in a New York second if it came into existence, particularly if/when I move to FX.
     
  82. I agree, I don't know why Nikon ignores the popularity of the f4 L series of lenses. It's a major gap in their lens lineup. Give me pro lenses with f4 apertures. They finally got around to making a true 24-70 instead of a 28-70. Now they need to breakdown and make a 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4 VR, 70-200 f4 VR. Give me those 3 lenses with the quality of Canon's versions and I'll be a happy camper.
     
  83. Coupled with similar lenses and setup, even the Canon 5D mk I had slightly more resolution and sharper results (at low-iso) than Nikon D700. Let alone mk II. How can anyone compare a 21mp camera with 12mp? D700 only excels in high-iso noise & ergonomics. While the expected D700x will be a direct competitor to 5D mk II, in almost any aspect.
     
  84. Rumors seem to be it'll be a D800 soon. Personally, I am waiting a little bit to see if that happens.
    If it doesn, and pricing is competitive with the 5DMkII, then I'll go for the Nikon. If not, then it is the Canon.
     
  85. Has anyone else used the copyright feature in D700 or any other camera
     
  86. Has anyone used the copyright feature of D700?
     

Share This Page