5dII vs D700

[joshloeser]

<p>Bruce, I'd say you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how to use a D700, judging by what you said. I own one and have never experienced the problems you described. In short, I think "user error" is likely to blame. If it's a bad copy, someone with a D700 ought to know enough to be able to tell that as well. </p>

[eco_foto]

<p>Why did you ever purchase the Nikon in the first place,if you have nothing positive to say about it & first i've ever heard that Canon auto focus is better than Nikon don't in any way think so just MHO</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Smart Man Bruce. You have the exact same gear i went with. I absolutely love my Canon 5D Mark II and 85 1.2L. Yes, when you have an 85 1.2 L 21 MP makes the would of difference. I shoot hair magazines and when I use that 85 1.2 with the 5D2 you can literally see every individual hair down to the root. My next lens will be an upgrade to the 50 1.8 and 35 1.2L. I have also shot with my friends Nikon and high end lenses. I believe the Nikon speedlight flash system is considerably better than canon's, but I shoot with 1000 watt studio strobes so don't really care. I agree I feel the canon system is easier to use which makes difference when shooting in the dark.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>To those of you who say their autofocus is better on Nikon, I do not understand. I rarely use it on the D700 because it jumps around refocusing several times, and the picture, which if it is action is gone already, is often out of focus anyway. The Canon does much less of that. Maybe I have a defective Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be interesting to understand the scenario that's causing you difficulty. Are you using Continuous or Single-exposure AF? Over how many AF points? Do you have it set to closest-sensor priority, or are you selecting the AF point yourself? Are you focusing on a flat surface or something with a distinct texture or edge? Have you tried the two AF modes that are available in Live View? The D700 has a lot of a AF options. It's difficult to believe that you exhausted all of them without finding one that works for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>About the anti-shake, they call it something else (probably image stabilization-the nomenclature from the manufacturers is unmemorable), and it seems to work with some lenses and not others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's a very good explanation for this. The "anti-shake" technology that both Canon and Nikon use is built into the LENS rather than the camera body. Some lenses include this feature and others don't. Which Canon lenses controlled vibration best for you? Do you own any Nikon VR lenses? Did the VR not work to your satisfaction when engaged?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as the comments about the extra pixels being unnecessary, I strongly disagree.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with you on this assessment. The 5D2 is the winner in resolution. This should be clear to anyone who bothers to examine print quality closely. I think the D700's anti-aliasing filter softens its images a bit, as well, although I notice this effect more in soft light.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>the only advantage of the 5D2 over the D700 can be written in a numerical form, a number: 9.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />You forgot four digits and a letter: 1080p!</p>

<p>:~)</p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>>D700 was too heavy!<<br>

Sounds like somebody needs to start doing some push-ups!</p>

[tholte]

<p>Bruce is not in the digital groove yet, give him a couple of years!</p>

[alex_kinnan]

<blockquote>

<p>"Anti-shake is reserved for the cheapie P&S cams."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not completely true; not considering some of the very nice and not cheapie-at-all cameras from Sony, Pentax, and Olympus...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 17, 2010; 04:46 p.m.</p>

<p>I can't say that one camera is easier to use than another. The D700 has more menu items, but then again it has more features (the Canon is more complex in the video department). </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess it would have more a more complex video "department" since the Nikon D700 has no video.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2070600">Bruce Cahn</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 18, 2010; 12:54 p.m.<br>

About the anti-shake, they call it something else (probably image stabilization-the nomenclature from the manufacturers is unmemorable), and it seems to work with some lenses and not others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bruce, are you really serious or just attracting some attention during these long cold gray winter days? Did you really bother to learn how the cameras work? Yes, I also heard that the image stabilization did not work very well in the lenses that did not have image stabilization. If you are really attracted to image stabilization try a Sony or Pentax where it works for every lens.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>This title of this post is off from where I sit.</p>

<p>All of this is much more of a report on the adaptability of the operator rather than either of the cameras. Zero detail is supplied on the settings on the Nikon, which has multiple ways to operate the autofocus for differing conditions, for instance. Zero details are supplied for the setting on the Canon for that matter either. Both devices are highly adaptable and customizable to the peculiarities of the photographer, and in the case of the Nikon it can be set up to select four customizable modes, in effect changing the identity of the camera, where the camera will act astoundingly differently depending the modes created by the photographer. Both are highly adaptable and customizable to the kind of photography to be addressed.</p>

<p>One could say the same kinds of things someone about having a technical or view camera thrust into one's hands for the first time. What are all of these tilts and shifts about? What are these screws and adjustments for? What, wood? Why is the tripod so freakin' heavy? How am I to walk about with all of that heavy baggage? How long does it take to learn all of this theory? Why cannot I just push the blinkety blink shutter lever and automatically make a perfect image every time? (All of this would likely be me) Once again, not an evaluation of a camera. Rather, another report on the adaptability of a photographer.</p>

<p>My own reaction to digital was not a lot different at first. Why is all of this stuff automated when all I want to do is find the blinkety blink aperture and shutter controls when, instead, I am looking at a bunch of cartoon pictures stenciled on the camera body.</p>

<p>Again, a comment on the photographer more than the virtues of the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>Another of these threads. Sigh. <br>

Photography is like golf. You can't buy a game. The people who debate the value of new drivers and putters are rarely the ones who can tell the difference or even benefit from the most expensive ones. Here is my scientific and carefully researched comparison of these two cameras.<br>

NIKON D700 versus CANON 5DII.<br>

<br>

Pro's:<br>

<br>

They will both take any picture I want to take. They will both make any size print I want to make. They both handle pretty well and auto focus just fine when I want them to. They are both capable of using lenses that produce quality that would take a sophisticated machine to differentiate. They are both rugged enough for a reasonably careful shooter. They are both used by some of the best photographers in the world. You know; the talented ones who have forgotten more about photography than I will probably ever know. In fact one or the other is used by just about all of the best photographers in the world. They both have nice flash options. Models smile, act like they are in pain or look pouty regardless of which camera one uses. They are both cool looking though one very significant difference is that one of them says Canon and the other Nikon on the front thingy. <br>

<br>

Cons:<br>

<br>

They both cost a bunch more than most people need to spend. They both will break if you drop them. Neither floats. Neither one offers a Zeiss 12-400 F1.1 stabilized lens. Neither will give one bragging-rights when a REAL gear head shows up with their D3s or 1DS Mark III and very cool looking Domke vest. Neither camera is talented. Dogs won't look at either one when you want them to. Neither can get the kids to stop wiggling or the bride to stop grinning in that silly way. Both cameras will be completely obsolete in about an hour and a half.<br>

<br>

Recommendation:<br>

<br>

I recommend that Canon shooters who really need this camera buy the 5D II and that Nikon shooters buy the D-700. For first time digital SLR shooters I recommend that they do not buy either of these cameras. Neither camera is worth what it costs for the improvement you will see unless you can raise your right hand and swear that your money would not be better spent on classes, workshops, symposiums and seminars. Do not buy either of these cameras unless you already own a Nikon/Canon top of the line flash, a thoughtful and comprehensive lens system, a professional tripod and head and the knowledge to know why you need these things first. <br>

<br>

Summary:<br>

<br>

If you have to ask which of these cameras you should buy you are not a candidate for either of them.</p>

<p > </p>

 

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>The Contax/Zeiss 18mm Distagon works fine without any mechanical corrections perfectly on the Canon 1Ds MkIII. But on the Canon 5DMkII, the mirror touches the rear lens housing of the 18mm lens and others. Therefore, I've got the mirror shortend on my 5DII! I can provide the information which of the Contx/Zeiss lenses need some mechanical corrections to work perfectly together with mirror shortening on the 5DII.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>The Contax/Zeiss 18mm Distagon works fine without any mechanical corrections perfectly on the Canon 1Ds MkIII. But on the Canon 5DMkII, the mirror touches the rear lens housing of the Zeiss 18mm lens and others. Therefore, I've got the mirror shortend on my 5DII! I can provide the information which of the Contx/Zeiss lenses need some mechanical corrections to work perfectly together with mirror shortening on the 5DII.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>Note that that's the old Contax/Zeiss 18mm. The new Cosina mfd. 18mm "Zeiss" 18mm lens will work fine on the 5D2 without mods. If memory serves, there are also some Leica R superwides that are iffy on the 5D2 for the same reason. FWIW the Cosina 20/3.5 "Voightlander" pancake lens is good but not great on the 5D2, whereas the their 40/2.0 "Voightlander" pancake lens produces superb images on the 5D2. (Grumble: I wimped out on the Cosina Zeiss 21/2.8 last year, but when I finally decided to bite the bullet, they were out of stock and I'm still waiting. Sigh.) All these new Cosina lenses are manual focus but with AF confirmation and camera-controlled iris.</p>

 

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Here a picture showing the 5DII with my adapted 18mm Distagon</p><div></div>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Talk is cheap ... show us some of your finest images. The "problems" you are facing could be user's errors or you are just simply not used to the D700.</p>

<p>I have heard many times people telling me that the menus in Nikon's pro bodies are significantly easier to use and I have also heard otherwise. It all boils down to who is saying and who is more used to a particular type menu.</p>

<p>There are also chattering saying that Nikon tends to implement frequently used options into a button than embed it in menus and that Canon is copying that.</p>

 

[myworkshop]

<p>

 

<p>Gee, too bad Damon Winter, (2009 Pulitzer Prize Feature Photography winner), shot his award winning portfolio using a wimpy, old fashioned 12mp 5D, and only those non versatile prime lenses too.<br>

It's the person behind the camera....<br>

Canon vs Nikon, Nikon vs. Canon. The horse is dead already.</p>

 

</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>The D700 got a leg up on the 5D. The D900 will get a leg up on the 5DII. It goes back and forth. What can you do? It will drive you crazy if you let it.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I find it curious that in your tests, your results are almost diametrically opposed to official review tests results. In nearly every category except total megapixels, the D700 was judge to be better than the Mk II. Go read all the reviews online.</p>

[hiro]

<p>To: Lee Richards<br>

Nicely written with just enough humor but not too much.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Thanks Lee Richards, a ray of sun in this dreary and useless battle of brands....<br>

Bruce, enjoy your new camera! I'm sure you are just overly happy with your new toy and wanted to share the happiness. Done. Now, let's use them and stop comparing.</p>

[mhalle photography]

Graham said it best :) I wish I was a man so I could pee up the wall hehehe :)

[tobias]

<p>@ Lee Richards: brilliant post. Just what these types of threads need.</p>

[ray_rupnow]

<p>I own the D700...and coming from a completely different angle...the Cannon will not use the old Cannon FD lenses which is a real shame. My D200 on the other hand will use all my Nikon AI/AIS film camera lenses and with the full size sensor my wide angles are really wide angles now. So my investment in lenses with Nikon is safe...</p>

<p>And it is a excellent low light camera....and focuses as fast as I need.</p>

<p>Seems to me this forum and Photo.net period are very slanted towards Cannon...but then Cannon is the oficcial camera of so many things there must be some kickbacks somewhere along the line~</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00VXY1&photo_id=10530330&photo_sel_index=0</p>