D700 vs 5D Mark II

[sandysocks]

I have a D80. An 8x10 is pretty solid from an inkjet printer. But when I go up to A3, oddities begin to occur, especially in the details. Keep in mind that the pixels on a 21mp sensor will be larger than those on your D80. Also remember that your DX camera will challenge your lenses more than than the 5D will. How high you need to go with the ISO may need to be factored into this as well, but nobody knows for sure yet.

[philip_wilson]

Amazing how many people appear to have tested the 5D Mark II and concluded that it has noise issues. I assume they must all be professionals that have the camera on trail from Canon. Or perhaps they have never tried the test. The sample images on dpreview and dphotojournal do not suggest that it has the noise problems suggested above. i was also unaware of any relaible magazine tests - Amateur Photographer has done a brief test (but not a full one) and they suggest the Canon High ISO performance is very good. Can Xavier Farre please share the name of the publication that has done the D700 vs 5D mark II test so we can see just how far Canon has fallen!

[digimage]

if you need 8x10 only I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE to ELLIS VENER at the 1st answer . NO

[captain_jack]

High ISO noise should not be the only factor in selecting between D700 or 5DMKII. There are other features which defines the quality of your pictures. D700 has the latest auto-focus engine, which dwarfs 5DMKII auto-focus in a big way. You cannot even start comparing the build quality between the two. Other features like remote flash system, better exposure metering, weather sealing, high fps etc.. make D700 a much better choice. D700 is a photographer's dream camera. It is built for photographers in mind and photography as an objective.

 

You should compare D700 with Canon IDsMKIII (and not 5DMKII) for its features. Which means you are getting much more in much less, if you go with D700.

 

 

Btw, I had been a canon user for a very long time and recently sold my Canon gears and bought D700. This move alone has made me a better photographer. I get focused, properly exposed images, with right amount of flash light EVERY TIME.

 

All the best in your purchase. Whatever you decide, I hope will add excitement in your photography enthusiasm. :)

[ty_mickan]

Check this out. It seems as though DXo have invented a testing benchmark for cameras in real world conditions. I knew the D3 would be the best, but I assumed that the 1Ds would be second.

 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

[vikneshn]

The whole problem is noise.... not the camera but in us.

Too much info is also as bad as too little info.

 

Personally, photography is never about the camera.

Both N & C make good DSLR & lens and our job as photographers is to make good photos.

 

Please don't get caught in the battle of specs.... the whole thing is how we achieve balance between our wants, needs and desire.

 

D80 is definetely good for 8x10" prints.

[shuo_zhao]

The two cameras are actually quite different when it comes to their respective design philosophies. The D700 is somewhat of a simplified and compact derivative of the D3, a high speed sports/PJ camera w/ a moderate pixel count and very low noise. It does have the top of the line AF and overall set-up, which all made it a unique choice. With a MB-D10, the camera would become very much like a D3.

 

The 5D Mark 2 is a high resolution landscape/architecture camera. From all of the materials about that camera I have read so far, it seems that Canon wants to make the camera excel in general image quality, instead of dedicated high ISO performance. Some suggested (I read it off an older thread on photo.net) that Canon's marketing department was behind the decision to put in the 21 MP sensor into the camera, obviously for "propaganda purposes"; and that Canon's engineers claimed that the camera would have done better with high ISO noise if the MP count had been more moderate. Although obviously the 5D Mark 2 will suffer from noise due to its large amount of pixels and their relatively sizes, we got no reason to say that its noise control technology/performance is inferior to the D700's.

 

A 21 MP 5D Mark 2, a 15 MP 50D, and a 14 MP G10...chances are Canon's really applying their technology the wrong way as far as sensor design goes.

[jun_cordero]

Stick with Nikon. I too have a D80, and instead of buying a newer model, I got a good deal on a used D2Hs (which

only has 4 megapix - but better AF). Comparing 8"x10" fast-action shots from a 10 megapix D80 and a 4 megapix

D2Hs - I am happy with results from my used D2Hs.

[joseph_snively]

It is true that the 21MP has no effect on the quality of an 8x10 print, BUT the fact that you can crop out probably 12 seperate and distinct 8x10s at excellent quality from one 21MP photo is nice : ) As one friend of mine told me, he wants to one day able to crop away all but the center 3% and still have a high quality photo: ) That way you only have to worry about center sharpness of the lenses you buy.

[paul_russell1]

The simplest difference is that the Nikon camera works with Nikon lenses, and the canon camera works with canon lenses.

 

If you are already in a system then stick with it. At this stage of the game, and with the class of camera you are looking at, I'm

guessing you have some nice kit to go with your cam, it would be uneconomic to ditch once system and buy into who ever is ahead in

megapixel matters this week.

 

What happens next week when somebody else is ahead?

 

An SLR system is as much about the system as the SLR.

 

I use canon and won't be changing, I've spent too much on it, I know how everything performs I'm happy with my lot. And I've only got a

scabby old 10Mp camera. What an inadequate luddite am I?

 

In fact I've been spending more money on the system than the body and will continue to do so.

 

I was intrigued by the video capability of the 5Dmk2, as that is my primary work, but it's not going to do what I want so I can live with A3

prints for now.

[evphotography]

Some are saying nobody has had chance to compare the new 5D markII noise issues, so it will have noise problems like 50D, please don't belive that. In fact somebody has had a chance to test it, check out what Digital Pro talk had to say about it, then tell me it suffers from high noise problems. Here is a quote:

 

"Everybody knows I'm a speed junkie so for me the big question is how much can I "goose" that ISO and still capture a good picture? So how far could I go with the 5D Mk II? OK, folks - here it is - how about 3 stops higher than 800 ISO!!! Let me re-phrase, as Law and Order Jack McCoy would say, at 6400 ISO, I'd say I see the same noise characteristics as I see currently see on my 40D at 800 ISO. When I run Noise Ninja on both the Canon 40D and the 5D Mk2 file at 6400, I'm am getting the same "noise index" number. That calculates for to me to be the same amount of noise in the two images.That means, dear readers, the the old 800 ISO is the new 6400 ISO!!!!"

 

Check it out yourself.

http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-revelations-monday-8-hours-with.html

[manuel barrera houston,]

if you want it and you can afford it, buy it, who cares what people think, only one person has to be happy and that is you.

[markci]

Definitely sell all your Nikon equipment and buy Canon for a few more MP. Then when Nikon releases a new body in six months or a year, do it again. It'll do absolutely nothing for your photography, but it'll be great for the economy and the rest of us will have cheap stuff to buy on eBay.

[mt4x4]

Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb that, all else equal, More Resolution = More Noise? So taking two cameras with the the same size, Sony made, CMOS sensor, wouldn't the one with less megapixels produce less noise?

 

"Buying a Canon 5D MKII to make 8x10" prints is like buying a Porsche 911 to drive 35mph."

 

Haven't you seen any of those old guys who drive a Porsche? They never seem to do the speed limit. They don't buy em to go fast, they buy em to look cool.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb that, all else equal, More Resolution = More Noise? So taking two cameras with the the same size, Sony made, CMOS sensor, wouldn't the one with less megapixels produce less noise?"

 

Other factors such as sensor design, micro lens design, processor's performance, and others could also play very important roles in this.

[david_ralph1]

The DxO folks say that their research indicates that higher resolution compensates for higher noise in the sensor's

smaller pixels. Noting too, that one can downsize a high res pic and keep detail, but that when one upsizes, the

process cannot invent fine detail. Some would say that a smaller print made from a higher resolution capture will

have a certain better look than the same size print from a lower resolution camera. (I have Nikon D300 and too much

money in glass and accessories to think about switching. But the Dxo article provides very interesting food for

thought)

 

<http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights>

 

Dave Ralph

[jack_cui]

Old brother,my D40 could print 8"X10" photoes very well.I think your D80 will do it perfectly."The more pixels, the more noise. "is well answer.

[shuo_zhao]

Some pros dislike the D40 for its over-simplified design, while pixel-hungry consumers and mass retailers bash it for its low MP count. But the truth is: if used by a skilled photographer, perhaps with good lenses, the D40 is capable of fantastic results. Its image quality and noise performance obviously have something to do with its relatively large pixel size and low pixel density.

 

>> "D40 could print 8"X10" photoes very well.I think your D80 will do it perfectly."

 

If the D80 is doing an ok job as of now, it might be a good idea to keep it, and perhaps invest in lenses and exploit the creative potential that come along. Better and more affordable options probably will always be available in the future.

[lightsmith1]

It is too early to tell how good the 5D II will me in real world situations or whether like the 5D it will have mechanical problems (mirror falling out for instance), adequate weather sealing, low noise at high ISO in most situations, and then there is the whole concern about the reliability of Canon gear.

 

My last camera before the D3 were Canon 1D Mark III's and although they were the best in terms of WB accuracy and overall fill flash exposure accuracy they were noticeably inferior to the D3 and that is why I sold them and the Canon lenses and strobes.

 

The larger the picture the greater the viewing distance so the resolution really is not relevant for 99.9% of the pictures people take. Billboards for example at done at 110dpi and large trade show banners are done at 140dpi, magazine adds at 140dpi, so this perceived need for 300dpi for a 16x20 print is erroneous. And unless the printers are capable of printing at 300dpi, which they are really not, or unless the RIP software is up to the task, even 240dpi may be overkill when it comes to the actual quality of the print at normal viewing distances. When people make judgments based on viewing images at 100% on a monitor they really are not thinking the process through to completion.

[anson_ko]

This is a Nikon Forum, ppl here will always tell you NIkon is best, higher MP dont' matter. Years ago, nobody has USM IS technology and now, everyone has, almost. If you want to take full advantage of the tecnology, you have to upgrade. Also, if you don't crop your pictures, 21 or 12MP on a 8x10 print makes no difference. You can also select different size of the image like L, M, S jpeg or raw if you worry about large files taking too much space. Generally speaking, technology is moving forward, like it or not its individual preference. A film camera with manaul lens takes nice pictures as well. it's your choice.

[eric_arnold]

forget all the rhetoric. the answer is simply no, you won't see much of a difference in 8x10s. at print sizes above 16x20, the 30% more detail of the 5dmkII would become apparent. if you are just printing 8x10, 21mp is complete overkill unless you are cropping each pic 50% or more. that's useful for internet pixel-peep comparisons, but in real-world shooting? nah.

 

a better comparison mught be the original 5d with the d700 (since the 5dmkII really competes with the dx3 and the 24mp sony in terms of mammoth megapixel FF cameras). the 5d might get a bit of a slight edge in IQ as far as being less noisier, but when you factor in the nikon's better ergonomics, faster speed, and better AF module, it becomes a no-brainer choice, unless you never shoot anything that moves.

[scottelly]

<p>Have you looked at the Fuji S5? It doesn't handle as quickly as the Nikon D300, but it provides the ability to shoot at much higher dynamic ranges, from what I've read. I am no expert on either camera. I shoot with a Canon 5 D, but I am considering a Nikon D700. Canon just announced their new 17mm Tilt-Shift lens though, and that is something I am VERY interested to get. I think I'll spend my money there, since when I tested a Nikon D700 for noise yesterday, I found that it was extremely noisy at ISO 3200. I was shocked. The fact that it can shoot at ISO 6400 is nice, but not if the photos will be unusable, and I consider photos from my 5 D to be practically unusable when I shoot at ISO 3200. The Nikon D700 seems to produce more noise at ISO 3200 than my Canon does, and it's obviously noisier when set on ISO 6400, so in my opinion, the D700 is not ready for prime time. I guess I'll skip this generation of upgrades, and wait for the Canon EOS 5 D Mark III. Hopefully it will offer the new pattern from Kodak (that will replace the Bayer pattern) and pixel-binning noise reduction technology, as well as 16 bit color. If Fuji introduces a full-frame version of their sensor, or if Foveon introduces a full-frame sensor, I'll have to do lots more research.<br>

Good luck with your decision.</p>

[michaelmiller]

<p>I have some great prints at 30 x 20 inches off a D100.</p>