"Nikon D90 vs. Canon 5D Mark II" or "Cropped vs. Full Frame"

<p>Hi<br>

I'm about to buy my first D-SLR. now I have a "Canon PowerShot S2" and I'm really sick of the noisy shots it takes. so I want to buy a camera which has the least noise. I mostly do landscape and somehow advertising and stock work (so I guess I need more megapixels).<br>

I'm really amazed with the Canon 5D mark II, it's really an awesome camera. the only problem is its too expensive for me and to buy that I have to wait another 4 or 5 months. (I don't have problem with it's expensive lenses, because I believe quality costs money :D and the lenses will remain for me)<br>

I've heard a lot of nice things about D90 too. but the problem with that is it's a DX and has only 12 megapixel (I know it offers great quality at that much of megapixels), but I know myself and I wouldnt be satisfied by that. but If I buy this camera I should at least wait 3 or more years to buy a full frame. (money issues!)<br>

so the questions are:<br>

<strong>1.</strong> Is there much differences between "5D mark II" and "D90" in the noise and image quality?<br>

does 5d mk II worths that much price over nikon d90?<br>

<strong>2. </strong> What do you think I should do? go with a D90 and buy DX lenses which I'm sure I will throw them away years later? (I really like full frame) / or wait another 4-5 months and buy a 5D mark II<strong> </strong> which at least it's lenses will remain forever and dont have to sell'em?<br>

sorry if it got too long!<br>

Best<br>

Nima</p>

<p>nothing will happens in 5 months...Wait for 5-10 months and take only mark II..</p>

<p>Enjoy :)</p>

Why would you buy Nikon now in order to switch to Canon before too long (presuming you want more than just the kit lens)? If you need a dSLR now then why not start with a mid-to-high-end Canon crop body (or a used 5D) and invest in glass that you can carry over to a 5DII or its equivalent if and when you move up?

<p>If you want the 5DII but can't afford it now, think about buying a used 5D. It's full frame. 12 meg. Just because the 5DII came out doesn't mean the 5D has stopped being capable of recording great photos. :) That way, you'll be able to start buying the lenses you want. When you can afford the 5DII, you'll have a very nice backup.</p>

<p>Thanks for answering. :)<br>

well I'm not sure if I can find any used 5D in my country (since we don't have access to eBay and Amazon or such websites here) and even if I find one, does it costs that much less than a new 5D mk II (also considering I'm accepting some risks buying a used one). I've seen some reviews about 5d and they all show it's a noisy camera in high ISOs even comparing to Nikon D90. (it's acceptable though since it's an older camera)<br>

I think buying a canon 50D is a pretty good idea though. does anyone knows it's image quality differences to Nikon D90?</p>

<p>5Dii should be compared to the d700 than a d90. Sony also has a full frame dslr.</p>

<p>what size prints do you want to make? i used to own a d90 and found that it did quite well printing at 16x20", maybe even a little bigger. i would recommend using the 5d2 (my current camera) for <em>really</em> large prints...like 20x24" or 20x30" and up. if you aren't printing really really large then all those pixels on the 5d2 will be mostly wasted....save your money for lenses.</p>

<p>on the other hand, the 5d mark ii does have spectacular high ISO performance compared to the d90; if you're printing large from high ISO files, then the 5d2 might make sense.</p>

 

<p>Nima:</p>

<p>If your ultimate target is the 5D II, I think you'd be happy with the 50D for now. </p>

<p>If your ultimate target is the D700, then the D90 makes sense, too.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

First you pick a system, then you pick a camera.

<p>I agree with Andrew. I am biased toward Nikon, so my opinion will favor Nikon---Honestly!<br>

Pick your system based on your research, then picking a camera will be easy.</p>

<p>As mentioned earlier, the D700 compares to the 5d Mk.II, not the D90. Any of the cameras mentioned above (heck, even a D3000) will beat the snot out of your PowerShot S2 in terms of noise, so don't think you won't be satisfied with either. The D700 and the 5d Mk.II are really similar cameras: you should just pick based on the system (the lenses available), or just how much you like holding the camera in your hand and using its functions. Those two differences are more important than any minor differences in CCD performance.</p>

<p>I've been researching for more than two months now. I don't actually see much differences between two cameras in the same class form these two different brands (at least based on the tests and reviews on the internet). but actually in this case I personally prefer canon 5DII over Nikon d700. I like canon lenses more. they're more available here and are less priced.<br>

you see the problem is I cant change my camera for at least 2 years.(personal issues) so I have to make a choice that would satisfy me for the next two years. after then who knows what happens? maybe I even change my system (5D mk II wouldn't still be the king until then, would it?).<br>

this is why I asked you about image quaily differences between canon 5d mk II and nikon D90, and does it worth waiting 5 month to buy a canon 5d or by buying a nikon d90 now I would lose nothing much?<br>

oh and thank you all for taking the time to answer me :)</p>

<p>You're not comparing apples to apples though. The D700 is within the 5d Mk. II's price range and according to dxomark, has better low-light performance.<br>

I like canon lenses more. they're more available here and are less priced.<br />Well, I think that answers your question. Pick Canon. Forget Nikon. However, more important is *which* Canon body to buy.</p>

<p>You seem to be stretching your budget to get the 5D Mark II. Full frame is nice and all, but I would argue that unless you're doing really special photography, the 5D Mark II won't yield you noticeably better pictures.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate with numbers. According to dxomark, if you set the cameras at ISO 3200, the signal to noise ratio for the Canon 5D Mark II is 25.4. For the D90, it's 24.4. For the Canon EOS 500D, it's 22.7. Generally speaking, the D90 and the 500D have the same SNR ratio as the 5D Mark II one ISO rating up. In other words, a 500D at ISO 1600 has the same noise as a 5D Mark II at ISO 3200. At ISO 6400, the 5D Mark II has an SNR of 22.5.</p>

<p>Are you really willing to shell out an extra $2000 over these differences? Why do you like full frame so much? If I were you, I'd just purchase a cheaper Canon body, and get more and better lenses (buying probably full-frame lenses) that let you use lower ISO's, and only upgrade to the 5D when you're ready.</p>

<p>Thanks Philip<br>

mostly the 21 megapixels would come in handy for me, not always but sometimes I get some works for big banners and billboards here at the advertising agency and I dont think 12 megapixels would be enough for me.<br>

and another thing is, as you know a 24-105 lens on a cropped body wouldn't be giving me the same pov as it is on a 5DII. so I have to buy a wider lens too. then I guess the overall price would be the same as a 5DII with a 24-105.</p>

<p>You should ask the agency what they need. Billboards are not printed or viewed in the same way as normal prints and you really don't need as much resolution as you may think. 12Mp is good for most anything when you nail everything else like light and post work.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen some reviews about 5d and they all show it's a noisy camera in high ISOs even comparing to Nikon D90.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>5D noisy? :D<br>

Could you provide a link to a review that shows this? I mean, seriously, have you seen actual 5D images?</p>

<p>I refer you to dpreview.com, here's the link to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp">5d noise review</a> and <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page20.asp">d90 noise review</a>. you can see the differences clearly at iso1600 and iso3200. :)</p>

<p>Nima,</p>

<p>I shoot Nikon and have a very very strong bias towards Nikon cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, is you are shooting landscapes, the king camera is the 5D MkII. Personally, I would purchase a Nikon D300s or D700 over the 5D MkII, but I don't shoot landscapes and I like Nikon ergonomics better.</p>

<p>I currently shoot with a D90 and love it. I have very few noise issues, and when I do I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher.</p>

<p>As I said before, I don't shoot landscapes, but if I did I would spend the money for FF. FF opens up a whole realm of wide lenses that just don't give the same effect on a crop sensor.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. Hope it helps.</p>

<p>Thanks Richard. this is one another reason that I really like the full-frame :-)<br>

And another thing is everybody is talking about good handling and perfect ergonomics of Nikon cameras, is that that much different and better than canon? because I've heard from lots of people. I guess I should go and test those cameras at hand and see the differences myself.</p>

<p>Nima,</p>

<p>The good handling and ergonomics of Nikon cameras come into play more often when the camera is in my hands shooting sports or events... not when its on a tripod.</p>

<p>Again, I'm no expert because I don't shoot landscapes, but most people I know that DO shoot landscapes use a tripod. If you plan on shooting landscapes, save your money, get the 5D MkII, a great wide angle lens, and a nice sturdy tripod. Make great photos and don't worry about the ergonomics of the Nikon.</p>

<p>Just remember...I shoot Nikon, I know the Nikon system, I tell EVERYONE to buy Nikon... ... ... unless you're shooting landscapes more than anything else.</p>

<p> </p>