EOS 5DMKII vs Nikon D700

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

"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

If I would have start all over again, I will go to D700, because of the weather seal and AF points.

Well, the Nikon can use DX lenses in a crop mode. The 5D MkII still can't use EF-S lenses in any mode.

"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?

"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.

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.

"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

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

"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!

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.

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.

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.....

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"

And "type" should have read "typo"

Srory!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.<div></div>