EOS 5DMKII vs Nikon D700

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by hawkman, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. I made a short list of 5DMKII features in comparison with Nikon D700, looks like Canon's main strong point is the 21
    mega pixels vs 12 of D700, however D700 has proven image quality, we need to wait and see how good 5DMKII
    RAW files are
     
  2. "looks like Canon's main strong point is the 21 mega pixels vs 12 of D700, however D700 has proven image quality"

    Is this a troll? Read the dpreview.com article. There's lots more. About the only think I see Nikon doing better is offering more frames per second for action photography.

    --Lannie
     
  3. If I would have start all over again, I will go to D700, because of the weather seal and AF points.
     
  4. Well, the Nikon can use DX lenses in a crop mode. The 5D MkII still can't use EF-S lenses in any mode.
     
  5. "looks like Canon's main strong point is the 21 mega pixels vs 12 of D700, however D700 has proven image quality"

    Is this a troll? Read the dpreview.com article

    But this is what dpreview.com says, D700 has classleading high ISO performance. what are you trying to say?
     
  6. "better is offering more frames per second for action photography"

    Obviousely you have never used a Nikon Camera, I happen to have a Canon 40D AND a Nikon D300 at my possession, Nikon metering is second to none-Canon has advantages too.
     
  7. Right now, all I want to know is how much will the price of D700 come down. If it comes down enough, then the Nikon offering will be very
    attractive.
     
  8. "Well, the Nikon can use DX lenses in a crop mode. The 5D MkII still can't use EF-S lenses in any mode"

    Right Bob, but Canon's answer will probably be that we never actually made a "L" or pro EF-S lens so those lenses will not appeal to target market of this "high end" camera
     
  9. If you look on canons website it says it accepts EF-s...
    they have not talked about it much so it COULD be a typo...

    See below copy/pase directly from canon US site.

    "Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories."


    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662#ModelFeaturesAct
     
  10. "If you look on canons website it says it accepts EF-s... they have not talked about it much so it COULD be a typo... "

    I think it's a typo they also say it has built-in flash!
     
  11. For me, more MP is a disadvantage and the D700 looks a lot more interesting. I have more or less accepted the fact that in the near future I will be playing it both ways. I hear it's more fun this way.... :)

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  12. I have come from Canon 30D to D300 and wanted to upgrade to full-frame and been waiting for this announcement. The new 5DMKII doesn't excite me at all. Nikon D700 = Better AF, Built-in flash commander mode, better FPS, Better weather sealing, Better metering, Auto ISO. Buying D700 first thing tomorrow.
     
  13. Mount issues asside, my understanding is that it is physically impossible for the EF lenses to work on a full frame camera because of the shorter back focus, the rear element may protude further into the body and thus interfering with the mirror. It seems sigma stole the march a wee bit on Canon by using the same physical mount as regular EF lenses and making do with a crop (not a problem on the desingated APS-C format bodies the DC series lenses are designed for) there may be other benefits to the EFs system (more telecentric?) but it seems a slightly clumsy move by canon.

    In response to the earlier poster on this point the Nikon D700 isn't actually all that much better off. Yes you can use DX lenses on the D3 and D700 but at vastly reduced resolution (5MP as opposed to 12). Now I know its not all about megapixels but.....
     
  14. Apologies for my type, the first line should read:

    "Mount issues asside, my understanding is that it is physically impossible for the EFs lenses to work on a full frame camera because of the shorter back focus"
     
  15. And "type" should have read "typo"
     
  16. Being a Nikon user for the past 5 years, I was waiting to see what Canon would do to trump Nikon in the escalation of DSLR.

    For me - and I did once consider buying a Canon 5D (even after I had Nikon) the 5DMii does little if anything to get me to switch over....

    1. No weatherproofing / sealing - advantage D700
    2. Movie Mode - Don't do video - advantage D700
    3. High ISO - Haven't seen Canon's images at 25600 - So I'll go Draw
    4. Frame Rate - advantage D700
    5. Lens Compatibility - advantage D700 (from the standpoint that you can mount every Nikon F lens built since the 70's.
    6. Megapixels - advantage Canon

    Conclusion - I'm sticking with Nikon and hoping that they introduce something new and cool or at least drop D700 price (doubtful).

    Dave
     
  17. I see a different tally:

    David Haas said:

    "1. No weatherproofing / sealing - advantage D700"

    Canon said:

    "With a magnesium alloy construction, environmental protection and shutter durability of 150,000 releases, the EOS 5D Mark II is equally suited to location or studio work."

    1 each

    DH said:

    "2. Movie Mode - Don't do video - advantage D700"

    Canon said:

    "Full HD movie recording
    The EOS 5D Mark II complements outstanding still imaging capabilities with Full HD (1080) video recording. Users can even shoot video to memory card without losing the ability to capture still images. An HDMI connection allows High Definition playback of footage and images on an HDTV."

    2 each (maybe 2&1/2 canon as they utilise the higher 1080 standard)

    David Haas said:

    "3. High ISO - Haven't seen Canon's images at 25600 - So I'll go Draw"

    I say: very fair minded, I'll knock that 1/2 for the 1080 video off.

    Even stevens at 3 each.

    David said:

    "4. Frame Rate - advantage D700"

    Yep. Fair enough. Nikon 4 Canon 3.

    "5. Lens Compatibility - advantage D700 (from the standpoint that you can mount every Nikon F lens built since the 70's."

    This is a canon forum and as such this is probably a disadvantage as most people here (apart from trolls) will use modern canon lenses. Would it be important to a new buyer spending this kind of cash on their first camera? Doubt it. They will make their choice of system and be done with it. I doubt the option of fitting junk shop or mouldy old manual lenses on a DSLR will be top of their prioities. I say a draw. The EOS 5mk2 is no more likely to flip long term serious nikon users any more than the D700 is likely to flip canon users. This camera is at the serious users end of the market.

    "6. Megapixels - advantage Canon" And how.....















    2. Movie Mode - Don't do video - advantage D700 3. High ISO - Haven't seen Canon's images at 25600 - So I'll go Draw 4. Frame Rate - advantage D700 5. Lens Compatibility - advantage D700 (from the standpoint that you can mount every Nikon F lens built since the 70's. 6. Megapixels - advantage Canon
     
  18. The dpreview.com preview of the 5D mkII includes a diagram of the body weather seals on page 5. Looks pretty well
    sealed to me.

    I have to wonder how much of a real difference there is in daily use between the Canon and Nikon AF modules. It
    seems to me that the only situation where that many AF points is useful is when tracking a flying target (plane
    or bird) against a blue sky.

    Personally, I think that the 5D mkII is the best buy among the three compact FF models. Canon seems to have two
    winners on its hands with the 50D and 5D mkII. I know I'll be buying one and saving up for the other.
     
  19. As a 5D user, I have to say this new body seems to be just the upgrade I would want. I look forward to seeing some reviews. That said, I still rate the 5D
     
  20. Why would you compare these two cameras? They're targeted at completely different markets. The
    5D is more geared for landscape, portraits, weddings...while the D700 is more a high speed sports or
    journalism camera. This is a silly thing to debate.
     
  21. Many people are actually interested in using manual focus lenses on the Nikons - and there are many places to buy
    clean ones from, they're not all moldy. And using a genuine manual focus lens does make manual focusing easier
    and more enjoyable. Special-purpose / very fast manual focus lenses can be comparatively inexpensive.

    The image quality of 12 MP full-frame cameras is already excellent, and while it can be advantageous to have
    more, the larger file sizes can cause the need for early computer upgrades. Canon's sRAW formats seem like a good
    idea to make the use of the camera practical for high volume work. For me I have found that as a mostly people
    photographer, 12 MP full-frame is already great. I would not at this point pay additional money to get 21 or 24
    MP in a 24x36 based camera, but in 3-4 years no doubt the computers will be so fast that this becomes more
    practical and interesting. For those mostly doing tripod based work, even today 20+MP is very attractive but
    one needs to also consider that medium format digital backs start popping up on the 2nd hand market. I heard of
    someone getting one for 700€. I would consider such systems seriously if I were a landscape photographer. But of
    course the versatility of 35mm-based digital is a benefit, just that the pixel level quality is probably not up
    to medium format when we go up with the pixel count. I hope that the manufacturers cool down on the desire to
    pack more pixels into a small area - hopefully they'll stop before 30MP. There are diminished returns as pixel
    spacing gets smaller. MF has been at a disadvantage due to the extremely high cost of new equipment but with the
    current low prices of second hand gear, especially Hasselblad V gear, MF digital becomes more and more
    affordable and the pixel count limits with MF are in the stratosphere.

    My reason to prefer Nikon equipment to Canon is body ergonomics, in particular the viewfinder. I don't know how
    it is with the 5D Mk II but the original didn't have sufficient eye relief for me to see the whole image without
    moving my eye around. This on the other hand is easy on the Nikon FX cameras, though these are not as good as
    many older film Nikons. On 1D Mk III the viewfinder situation seems to be good but cost and size are a bit on
    the high side, and it's not 24x36.

    Canon has a big advantage in having f/4 L zooms, and many fast primes with USM. These are what I would think are
    the most important reasons to
    get Canon equipment, instead of pixel count, which to me is largely fluff and hype.
     
  22. Ok here's my take:

    1. Megapixels: Canon has more MPs which IN GENERAL = a more saleable image, advantage Canon.

    2. Price, Nikon D700 = $3000 Street Price, Canon 5D II = $2700 MSRP, preliminarily advantage Canon.

    3. Noise: Unknown at present.

    4. Color Rendition: Unknown at present.

    5. Can take stills while shooting digital video, advantage Canon.

    Preliminarily the Canon wins BUT it depends on how well it handles in practice. For stock photographers #1 will be an issue, for wedding photographers and photojournalists who need to produce both still and video #5 will be important. Portraiture shooters will probably want whichever camera means less mucking around in photoshop. Sports shooters will have to agonize between faster fps and more MP's allowing for more cropping of the photo (remember most sports shooters use fast, primes).

    We are fast approaching the point of silly high resolution.
     
  23. I'm totally stunned at the assumptions people have posted about this camera (the 5DII) given that none of you has ever held one. We've seen no image samples, either JPG or RAW, seen no usage tests, no AF tests, and no comparisons to teh D700 or any other camera, yet many of you have drawn hard conclusions. Unreal...
     
  24. I have updated the chart since spec has become more clear. Canon 5DII is basically a slightly improved 5D body with 21Mpixel sensor and video recording, it is not a smaller 1DSIII. It will appeal to many who do low ISO landscape and studio shots, but for some, the AF (same as 5D) and rather sluggish shutter lag/mirror black out time will be a limiting factor. Currently if you are a Canon users and you want to shoot a variety of subjects you need at least 2 bodies-a 1DMKIII for briding, sports, PJ and a 5DMKII for wideangle and landscape.
    00QsmP-71541584.jpg
     
  25. Re: Nikon's "legacy lens" advantage, it's been my observation that very few Nikon FX shooters use film-era
    lenses, the shortcomings of which become quickly evident when shooting full-frame. In the early 90s I can see
    photographers choosing a Nikon SLR over a Canon so that they could use "all of the millions of Nikon lenses ever
    made"; 15 years later that's not a very appealing prospect.

    In fact, the shallower Canon mount can actually accommodate a lot more manual-focus lenses from other
    manufacturers (including Nikons!) than the Nikon mount can.

    Couple that with Canon's lineup of fast primes and wrt lenses, it's at least a tie if not "Advantage Canon."
     
  26. "Currently if you are a Canon user and you want to shoot a variety of subjects you need at least 2 bodies."

    Yes; you really shouldn't consider yourself a serious photographer at all unless you need at least 4 bodies for different functions!

    The statement in quotes is pure nonsense, as are comments about "sluggish" shutter lag etc.
     
  27. actually there were a picture sample and video sample taken with 5DII. I've downloaded them.

    and about the manual focus lenses.. Zeiss is coming:)
     
  28. Ralph, it may be that people don't know this but many 1980s primes (28/2, 105/2.5, 180/2.8) beat current
    nano-coated wonders in optical quality and are far smaller. It is an extremely appealing option for those of us
    putting value on the small size of lenses. The modern lenses have their advantages, but universally better? No
    way, side by side tests reveal considerable advantages to many old lenses if you know what you're doing and can
    use manual focus. The laws of optics haven't changed and the only lenses of old that have difficulty with modern
    digital are the truly wide angles (FX: 24mm and shorter). Personally I have used many modern f/2.8 zooms and am
    using them less and less on my D3 and D700.

    The Canon mount doesn't support automatic aperture on Nikon or non-ZE manual focus Zeiss lenses. And the Zeiss
    line of Nikon mount lenses is already quite extensive, with 9 lenses, again, with matrix metering and full
    automatic aperture.
     
  29. Right now, all I want to know is how much will the price of D700 come down. If it comes down enough, then the Nikon offering will be very attractive.
    i was surprised at how Canon was able to release this with that whole video thingy and still price below the D700.
    i'm hoping the price of the D700 drops as well.
     
  30. Nikon guy here just wanted to add to the flame war... :)

    21 megapixels... there's a point where more megapixels isn't doing your subject any favors. Do you want to see
    the subject's blown-up pores at 100%? Ah-no. I'll pass. That's like just begging for more time in photoshop ;)
    More pixels taken --more pixels to fix! ;)

    In all seriousness tho, the 5DmkII looks like an amazing camera. Congrats. Rejoice, I should say :)
     
  31. The most interesting statistic for me was the list price.
    • US: $ 2,699
    • UK: £ 2,299

    The UK price is equivalent to $4,171.66. Why the hell do we Brits put up with this?

    It's not just Canon. The D700 list prices are:
    • US: $ 2999
    • UK: £ 1999

    The UK price in dollars is $3,626. Slightly better but we're still getting ripped off. I wonder how US buyers would respond if faced with this kind of crap? I'll bet you wouldn't just lie down and accept it like we do.
     
  32. What is the compression format of the video? Is it AVHCD? That's really rough to edit. Looks like a very nice camera, though the <4fps is rather dissapointing, but that's a heck of a lot of data (20+MPs) to stuff into a flash.
     
  33. I would like to have one of each.
     
  34. I love the Canon announcement. I am a Nikon user and rejoice over the price pressure this new camera will put on the D700. We
    don't know yet how the new 5D will handle high ISO shooting and what kind of dynamic range it will offer but the megapixel
    difference is surely a strong marketing advantage even if it doesn't translate into actual image quality improvements.
    The market drives prices and we all know how this one can be illogical. Most of the consumers know what megapixels mean but few
    understand the concept of dynamic range or even noise.
     
  35. A Nikon D700x with 24 mp would be all I need. No need for HD video at all . . .
     
  36. " but that's a heck of a lot of data (20+MPs) to stuff into a flash." Not so, we use compact flash cards all the time on location
    at work with a P30+ (31MP) and a P45+ (39MP). Yeah, you don't get 200+ images per card but it's not a big deal.


    Here's a question to everyone......

    who cares? Does having the latest and greatest from the respective manufacturers really make you a better photographer?
     
  37. I wonder, if I don't print big (A4 max) and if I don't crop much, what advantage will I get with high MP count? My understanding is that I won't have any but I might have missed something.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  38. High MP advantages are only for larger prints or major cropping. Optimal recognized print resolution is 300dpi (dots per inch), the
    new 5D will allow that type of resolution on a print as large as 16" x 20".

    But there also another factor to take into account, the lens resolution capabilities. If the sensor has more resolution that the lens can
    deliver then the advantages of a higher MP will be lost.
     
  39. "[W]hat advantage will I get with high MP count?"

    This is a very reasonable question to ask. I think that in the days in which film ruled, an analogous question might have been, "What advantage will I get with medium format [over 35mm]?"

    I think that, issues of print quality aside, larger formats (medium and large) tend to appeal to resolution freaks such as myself--the difference being that I would love the highest resolution out there but cannot afford it. I did manage to get a fire sale price on a 1Ds II back in January, and that gives me 16 plus megapixels. Do I need more? No. Would I like to have more? Yes. Why? I'm not sure. If the photo is shot correctly, with mirror lockup on a very stable tripod and mount, one sometimes gets shots of such great clarity that one can enlarge substantially, either for larger printing, or just for admiring the detail in certain subjects (not facial pores, but perhaps leaves on trees in the distance, or brickwork on a church).

    I also felt that there was a certain sense of higher quality in the old medium format and large format prints, even though some persons assure me that, at modest print sizes, there is no difference. Yet, yet something does seem different. I don't know why more megapixels would not give one a similar effect, but again some persons say that there is no real difference in image quality, unless one prints very large.

    I don't know. I just like high resolution prints, even when the print is not all that large. They seem smoother somehow. Is that an illusion, or is it real?

    I'm wondering if the day will come when a poor man like myself can afford a fifty-megapixel sensor, large enough that the pixels have enough space on the sensor to avoid overcrowding and thus noise. It is a dream of mine, and perhaps at least the next generation will live to see such capabilities at a reasonable cost.

    Perhaps the people who shoot large format can tell us what it is that makes them go to the trouble to get such incredibly fine resolution. I have never gotten anything like that with digital, but I wish that I could.

    For others, a point and shoot will do, and for others the commercial question is primary: what size sensor and what number of megapixels will make me more money?

    I don't see the megapixel race stopping anytime soon. Someone will always be willing to pay for the capability to print massive files, and they will do so with the same care and zeal that the large format people demonstrate in their own efforts.

    I will be eager to see just how good the quality of the 5D II images really is, especially in terms of noise, both at normal ISO and at high ISO. It is obvious that the D700 (and D3) are way ahead of it for certain types of work requiring many frames per second. Actions shooters will revere such speed and may likely never care about the number of pixels. Persons such as myself will not care quite so much about speed. Things don't move when we are shooting landscapes.

    Comparing the 5D II and D700 will thus always be like comparing apples and oranges. Both will have their strengths, but the reality is that they are designed for different applications. People do who not see that will continue to talk past each other, to no particular end.

    --Lannie
     
  40. Both systems take great pictures. If I was invested in Nikon gear and lenses, I would shoot Nikon. I'm currently
    invested in Canon gear so I'm buying Canon. Nikon makes great cameras. Canon makes great cameras.

    I get that debating this is sort of fun for some but bottom line, if you know how to use your tools, you'll be
    creating incredible imagery with either system. So take what you have and go shoot!

    Yea! Everyone wins!
     
  41. Shouldn't we compare D700 with 1DsMIII rather than with 5DMKII? D700 is a more complete camera than any version of 5DI/5DMKII. 5Dxxx is seriously lacking in features required not only for sports, but for average non-commercial/domestic use too. I cannot even image taking 5D to my daughter's basket ball game. It's half a camera with full price and hype. IMHO
     

Share This Page