Canon 5D Mark ii

[nicholas_johnson2]

<p>Hello,<br>

My name is Nick and i could really use some help in deciding what camera is right for me. I have been looking at the 5D Mark ii, i do a lot of landscape photography, traveling, night time shots, portraits and advertising work along with some freelance stuff for local businesses as well. I love the fact that it has a 21mp FF sensor, and the kit is magnificent, with the 24-105 included in it. Others though have been suggesting the Nikon D700, and claim its better for everything, i personally think both cameras are immaculate and extremely good with IQ and noise control. I have also been told that the 5D mark ii does not have a very good light metering system, and the colors it produces are not as good as those that Nikon does. Obviously the AF system is somewhat better on the D700, it has 51 pts. but i am not into action shots like sports or anything like that very much, i could just really use some tips and advice to guide me in the right direction here. I have been saving money for this for a while and i just want to be sure that i make the right decision. I am currently only using a Sony A300, nothing to special compared to these beasts, i am ready to move into pro-grade equipment, but i just could use some advice from some who have already used/ own the equipment.</p>

[jackie_baisa]

<p>In the general public, you will find a 50/50 split between Nikon and Canon users. All are passionate about their brand. But since you posted this in the Canon EOS forum, my sense is that you're leaning toward Canon? ;-) I own the Canon 5D Mark II and love it. I've never had an issue with color or the metering system. Quite the contrary! But I'll let others weigh in, who might be able to actually "compare" the two. I've never used Nikon, so can't speak for it. But I'm a pro photographer using Canon and love my camera. I do NOT, however, love the kit lens (24-105). It has the range, but as a pro, I prefer prime lenses that don't zoom, as there is minimal barrel distortion with those. But if you're looking for range, then great. Landscape and travel and nighttime shots, however, would be better with a wide-angle prime (preferably f2 or lower). Just my two cents!</p>

[nicholas_johnson2]

<p>Thank you for the help! And yes i am definitely leaning towards Canon, it has such a better range of lenses and their FF sensor technology has been out longer than Nikon's, so they obviously have more experience in that department, as for the lenses, i definitely want the 24-105 as a good walk around lens, but i was looking for some really nice prime suggestions as well, any specific ones you might suggest?</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Nick, my applications are similar to yours and I have found the 5D II to be the near perfect camera. It renders remarkable detail and very rich colour. And the 24-105/4 L is just about the ideal walkabout lens for me. Of course, for indoor and low light shooting you are going to want some fast primes (the 85/1.2 L II, 50/1.4, and 35/1.4 L come to mind), but the kit will serve you very well while you save more pennies. </p>

[jackie_baisa]

<p>My favorite lens is the 50mm/f1.4 which Mark mentions above. The 35/1.4 is a close second. I use 85/1.2 only for portraits really. I wouldn't use that for landscapes, travel, or nighttime shots. However, you did mention you did portraits. If it's a large part of your work, then by all means, get it! However, if money is an issue, I have found the 50/1.4 is very versatile for a wider range of purposes.</p>

[nicholas_johnson2]

<p>Thank you Mark for your insight, i definitely am going to be purchasing the 5D, and hopefully in the next few months i will be able to save some more for a nice prime lens, maybe 2 :) Thank You again for your help this has helped me a lot, now i just need to go out and make my purchase!</p>

[hjoseph7]

If you are doing any Advertising work then the Mark II with 21.1 megapixels is the way to go.

[stephen_osullivan1]

<p>Nick, given that both cameras will satisfy your needs and probably exceed them, the cost of peripherals comes into the picture. Canon's lenses are, on average, priced 20% - 30% lower than those from Nikon. And on items that are $1k - $3K, that's a lot of green! So all things being equal, this by itself could be a deciding factor.</p>

[enrique_bocanegra]

<p>It comes down to which one offers the best lens selection for your needs and most important how the actual camera body feels in your hands. I am a long time canon user, when I purchased my first canon DSLR, I was deciding between canon and nikon. I went with canon for their L primes at the time. But if I were to do it all over again I would go nikon since recently I've been playing with my business partner's D3s and I must say I love how it feels in my hands, the D700 also has a more sturdy feel vs the 5DmkII. However, I will never switch since video has become just as important as stills for my canon bodies.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Compare test images at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com</a> and actual images here and at Flickr. Both cameras make stunning images. 51 AF points get you what? My 7D has 19 or so and that too friggin' many when trying to shoot a bird in flight. For your subjects, the 5D MkII's AF system is fantastic (I own a 5D2 and a 7D, used for different purposes).</p>

<p>That 24-105mm f/4L IS is a wonderful lens, but not perfect. For your scenics you'll need to correct for parrallax at wide angle and wide open, but that's doable with several softwares. (I use DxO's Optics Pro). You may eventually what a really good scenic prime and a good portrait prime for your uses, but that kit lens is very good until you're ready to spend the money.</p>

<p>Both systems are excellent. I'm certain that you'll be pleased with the IQ of either and the AF system of the 5D MkII will not be an obstruction to the kinds of shooting that you say you do.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Well, a D3 should feel better and if you hold the 1dsmkIII vs the 5dII you will also feel a big difference--like 2 pounds or so! Anyway, I have both of the latter and think it is best to have the MP to work with and for what you do.</p>

<p>As to primes, that is all I have ever had but then I have mostly shot MF and LF and not 35mm. When I decided to get into the 35mm dslr, I went all zooms and I don't think you need the primes. In fact, before I bought my own, I rented only zooms when I needed to shoot 35mm instead of the larger formats on jobs. The optical quality is comparable and I personally never needed the fast aperture for low light or dof reasons. I shoot a lot at 1600 on the mkIII and get an equivalent image at 3200 on the 5dII. I also use DXO because it is so good with some things, but it has some of its own issues. I end up using DxO, ACR and Canon's own software for conversion depending on the image. Software that corrects for barrel distortion and chromatic aberration are important in these larger MP cameras, as it is more noticeable!</p>

<p>I have heard good things about the 24-105mm, so I think you will be pretty happy although you might add the 17-40 or 16-35mm at some point, if you like wide angle landscape work.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Nick - if you do go the zoom route I would also consider the 24-70 F2.8 while you lose Is and a bit of reach you gain a stop and I find mine slightly sharper at the edges than the 24-105 F4 IS it replaced. As John A suggests the 16-35 F2.8 II or 17-40 F4 are also great zooms.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I own both (D700 and 5DmkII). Here are my impressions.</p>

<p><strong>5DmkII (pros)</strong><br>

- Better resolution (gee, who would have guessed?)<br>

- Lighter<br>

- Excellent video<br>

- LCD screen can adapt to the ambient light level<br>

- Easier to use while wearing gloves<br>

- Available with a walkaround lens with IS (24-105 f/4)<br>

- Canon's tilt-shift lenses are more versatile than Nikon's PC lenses<br>

- Info page gives fast access to a number of important parameters<br>

- Coolest battery charger I've ever seen</p>

<p><strong>5DmkII (cons)</strong><br>

- Limited AF system<br>

- Body feels like I could crush it if I grabbed it too firmly<br>

- On/off switch is difficult to move with one hand<br>

- Mildly confusing menu system (but it gets better as you use it)<br>

- No built-in interval timer<br>

- Canon lenses suffer from more distortion than Nikon (mostly punchsion distortion)<br>

- It's difficult to attach a shutter release cable when you have an L-bracket attached (and tripod mounted).<br>

- Clean high-ISO performance requires noise reduction to be engaged<br>

- Cheesy, cheapo lens caps on expensive lenses</p>

<p><strong>D700 (pros)</strong><br>

- Built like a tank (i.e. don't drop it on your foot!)<br>

- Weather-sealing is solid<br>

- Better dynamic range than the 5dmkII (when shooting both in RAW)<br>

- High-ISO performance is slightly cleaner than the 5DmkII (not surprising given the D700's larger pixels)<br>

- Slightly richer color rendition<br>

- Sophisticated autofocus system<br>

- High-performance flash system available<br>

- Dedicated ISO, QUALITY, and BRACKET buttons<br>

- Consistent menu layout<br>

- Easy to switch on or off with one hand<br>

- Better lens cap and hood quality</p>

<p><strong>D700 (cons)</strong><br>

- No video<br>

- A bit heavy for its size<br>

- LCD brightness doesn't adjust to ambient light levels<br>

- Lower resolution may restrict cropping options</p>

 

[peter_foiles2]

<blockquote>

<p>On/off switch is difficult to move with one hand</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have seen this argument before from Nikon users and I am totally baffled by it. The on/off switch is indeed very conveniently located on Nikon bodies but why waste such a conveniently located switch on the on/off function? You turn your camera on at the beginning of the shoot/day and turn it off at the end. What is the advantage of doing this function one handed? And yes I have owned and shot Nikon bodies and not found the placement of the on/off switch to be of any advantage what so ever.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I think you will find the 5DM2 and 24-105mm L f4 IS is a very good walk-around combo. I took the same setup to Italy last year and here is one shot of an actress taking a break at one of the old villas in Tivoli. ISO 400, 1/125s @ f7.1, -1.33Ev.<br>

Post processing can allow you to saturate or not. While it is true that different brand lenses have different characteristics, DxO and/or CS4 or other programs give you great flexibility in matching what you want.</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>Then there is that business about softness and distortion, it depends on whether you have to use the widest settings. The one above was at 45mm. The fountain shot included here is at 50mm. Same ISO, -.33 Ev, 1/320s @ f11. I remember the name of the place now, Villa d'Este--has hundreds of fountains, was featured in the opening shots of "Three Coins in the Fountain."</p><div></div>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Let me second John A's remark about the use of DXOOptics Pro to correct distortion. I ordinarily use Lightroom, but for architecture in particular, I look to DXOOptics Pro to clean up barrel distortion and fix converging verticals as well. It makes a big difference with the 24-105 and the 17-40. The results look so much more correct...you have to see it to believe it. I believe that there are free downloads for trial use. You need to remember to leave a little margin around the top of the frame if you intend to fix up converging verticals. The 5D2 has so much resolution that these corrections are pretty much undetectable for web display or ordinary print sizes, but extreme correction of converging verticals is best done with a TSE lens.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>If you have a nice lens collection, why not just go FF with a Sony A900 or A850? They have excellent build quality and ergonomics. For the purposes you are describing, I think they would fulfill your needs well.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>This is the first thread I've ever been in where three of us were recommending DxO's Optics Pro to correct for geometric lens errors. The software is good at making all sorts of global corrections at RAW conversion, but it really shines at correcting lens softness and geometric distortion. It's great software.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>David, I agree. It used to be really slow, hard to use and buggy, but they've done a great job in improving the overall user experience in the latest version.</p>

[nicholas_johnson2]

<p>Thank you all for all your responses, this has helped me greatly, im definitiley going to be going with the 5Dmkii for its resolution and just all around incredible features! And Jeff, i only have a A300 kit, nothing to special i have some old minolta mount lenses as well from an old film camera but the quality of the pictures it produces are no where near that of Canon, so i have decided to go to a brand that has been making DSLR's for a long time and has the correct technology and made the research neccessary to build a camera of this scale</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You can't go wrong with the 5dMkII. Nikon owners seem to feel the urge to claim the D700 is somehow "the best". I have no idea why they feel this is necessary. I went Canon from Leica for largely for three reasons - it is very easy to use 3rd party lenses on the EOS mount, higher resolution than D700, and better prices generally system wide for equivalent optical quality.</p>

<p>By the way it is just a camera, not a thinking photographer, so you may well find that you still take a lot of bad photos with it just (perhaps) like you did with your Sony.</p>

 

[nicholas_johnson2]

<p>i can take photos just fine thats not the problem, i know how to use a camera, i just want to upgrade to something professional level, and get a high IQ from my equipment, the Sony takes pictures alright, but not as good as one of these cameras can</p>

[nathaniel_alpert]

<p>I have been a canon user for decades, so my bias is clear. Several months ago I purchased a 5d mark ii. My uses are similar to yours, landscapes, nature, portraits. This camera is leaps and bounds beyond the original 5d which I also own and like. First, the focus system does seem better than the original 5d but for landscape and portrait work this is not an issue and not for the reasons most cite. The reason is live-view. This is equivalent to the large format ground glass, except the image is right side up. (Everything I say pertains to shooting raw, not jpeg. Also, use of a tripod is assumed.) With live-view, you have a real time histogram that I think is more accurate than the one derived from the jpeg. I compose and set the exposure with live-view, then magnify critical points in the image 5x or 10 x , focus the lens manually and use the depth of field preview. Depth of field preview is actually easy to use with live-view. Absolute certainty about focus, no guess work. No need for depth of field charts. Another use I found for live view is monitoring wind motion with longer lenses. Setting the magnification at 5x or 10x you can see the effect of wind movement.<br>

The comparison of the Nikon and 5d ii noise level is often erroneous. While it may be true, that the per pixel noise level of the Nikon is slightly lower, the 5dii has nearly twice as many pixels, meaning that for the same enlargement, the appparent noise level will be lower for the 5dii. I have shot quite a number of landscapes at ISO 1600 to control depth of field and, at the same time, to stop motion blur. There is definitely image noise when you look at the pixel level, but for enlargements up to 16x20, I think this is no problem.<br>

You also mentioned concerns about color. My experience is that this camera is the best i have ever used in terms of exposure control and color rendition. Many shots rquire no post processing, sharpening or correction.</p>

<p>I also have the 24-105 l lens which is very good with the 5d ii. Used correctly, it is good at any aperture. For landscape I am often at f16 which is fine. The biggest problem I have with this lens (and all others too) is flare, particularly when the lens is stopped down. There is distortion but no more than other zoom lens. The IS is excellent and good for controlling wind movement when the camera is on a tripod.</p>

<p>I don't know if the Nikon is better or worse than the 5d ii. I do know that the 5d ii will not limit you in anyway for the applications you cited in your query. Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>