D700 vs Canon 5d mkII

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br>

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.<br>

P.S. Shun I'm sure you have tested both, so I would appreciate your opinion.</p>

<p>Canon: more pixels, nikon: less noise....<br>

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....<br>

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. <br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. Shun I'm sure you have tested both, so I would appreciate your opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

You might also want to take a look at this thread in the Nature Forum, but that is focused on landscape applications: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00TOl2">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TOl2</a></p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>Just a couple of questions I would ask myself before going to a huge resolution camera.</p>

 

<p>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!</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Nikon:<br>

Good af system<br>

Good wides<br>

Slightly better at high iso</p>

<p>Canon:<br>

Better resolution<br>

Out of date AF<br>

Not so good wide lenses</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Unless you must buy now you could wait for the D700x which should give you the best of both.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You can view comparison shots here:</p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>If anyone has the MB-D10, if you could let me know how your thoughts I would appreciate it.<br>

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.</p>

<p>My main thing here is very simple....<br>

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.....<br>

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.<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>"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.'</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"If anyone has the MB-D10, if you could let me know how your thoughts I would appreciate it."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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). </p>

<p>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. <br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The MB-D10 is far better than the MB-D200, but it is also considerably more expensive.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I do not think you can go wrong with either.</p>

<p>Dave Ralph</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>