thinking of switching from D700 to 5d Mark ii... what do you think?

[kevin_johnson3]

 

 

<p >Alright.... I'm on the fence. I own the D700. But am considering switching over to the 5D Mark ii and these are my reason why. First of all, I really like the D700... it's a great camera but I feel that I really can't afford the lenses that I'm interested in and I'm not impressed with Nikons lens line up.<br>

I was a Canon guy before my D700... I've owned the 10D, 20D, 30D and the original 5D. When the D700 came out I jumped ship to take a step forward in technology (iso capability). But like I said, the D700's been great, but I really miss some of my old lenses, faster (affordable) primes and my old trusty 24-70 L lens.<br>

So my needs are... image quality (full frame), and iso capabilities up to 1600 (3200 on the occasion) and that's about it. I'm currently shooting with a Zeiss Distagon manual lens so the AF comparison is not much of an issue.<br>

What do you 5D owners think? Are you happy with your Mark ii's? Has anybody owned both? Is noise an issue?<br>

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions</p>

<p >-kevin</p>

 

 

[christianrafael]

I'm pretty happy with my 5D2, no problems shooting high iso, but will remind you that it's also expensive to shift to another

brand. Unless there is really a big reason, I would advice you to keep your D700 and just get a 24 - 70 nikkor. I think that

lens is also in the nikkor line up but not sure about the other lenses you need that's only found in Canon, what other

lenses are you looking to get?

 

Christian

[peter_j2]

<p>Kevin: Welcome home. <em><strong>:p</strong></em></p>

[mars c]

<p>I'll be most happy to take care of the D700 for you.</p>

[bob_mcbob]

<p>What specific lenses are you interested in that you can't afford (or don't exist) with Nikon?</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Kevin,<br>

You say that the Nikon lens up is limited for your intentions; but then you qualify that saying that you miss Canon's fast and affordable primes, and the 24-70 L zoom. Well, I am confused, because for every fast and affordable Canon prime, there is a Nikkor one, so... maybe the only exception is the EF 35 f/1.4, that Nikon does not have; but that is hardly affordable...<br>

The other fast and affordable Canons? Which ones do you have in mind? 50 1.4? 85 1.8? 28 1.8? Nikon used to have a 28 1.4, and that was indeed expensive.<br>

Again, I can not think of any lens that Nikon can not match, in the range you mention. It sounds to me that you need to get out of your minframe of "it's always greener on the other side", and just stick to your current system.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Just ran across this article http://www.allisterfreemanphotographyblog.com/2010/07/canon-5d-mark-2-versus-nikon-d700-my-thoughts/</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have used the D3 but not the 700 and I own a 5DII. the 5DII is very usable at ISO 1600 and can be used at ISO3200 with care. However, in my experience the Nikon is about 1 stop better than the Canon in Noise performance (assuming the D700 performs like the D3). that said the extra pixels of the Canon mean that for printing (as opposed pixel peepimg) there is probably little to choose between them. I am happy with my 5DII and find it is a great camera although not well suited for sports use due to slower AF and slower frame rate. that said it can be used for sports with care. here is a 5DII ISO 3200 crop.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>crop taken from this shot</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kevin, since it doesn't sound as if you've invested in any Nikon glass, your proposed "switch" wouldn't be very costly, especially if still have some of your old EF lenses.</p>

<p>The 5D II is my first and only DSLR, so I cannot directly compare it to anything else. Almost all of the imagery I've obtained from it, from 100-1600 ISO, has been outstanding. Shots taken at 400 ISO are virtually indistinguishable from those taken at 100.</p>

<p>The 5D II reportedly delivers the best combination of resolution and high ISO performance of any full frame body currently available. (But you are undoubtedly aware that it has an inferior AF system to that of the D700). So if you're unhappy with Nikon and have had good experiences with Canon, why not come back?</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>A friend has used both. Both are good systems, both are expensive. Stick with what you have or you are throwing more money away for no visible result.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p><strong>"I'm not impressed with Nikons lens line up"</strong><br /><em>This is the reason I wouldn't switch to the Nikon camp myself. Nikon has no 35L, 50L, 85L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II......It's a shame since they do have some really nice cameras. I recommend you switch to Canon for this reason alone. Enjoy the 5D II it's a great camera. Noise is not an issue. Now the 7D is a different story.</em></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Indeed Nikon has no L lenses....but has a 35 f/1.4 (MF, great lens), 50 f/1.2 (MF too, I'd get the f/1.4) 85 f/1.4 instead of 1.2, but an otherwise equally great (portrait) lens. 70-200 f/2.8VR II is totally comparable to Canon's L IS II with the same spec. So, what exactly are the reasons there to switch?</p>

<p>Unless OP states which lenses he find missing, it's all a wild guess. Yes, Nikon misses a few lenses. But the basics are well covered for, and quality between Canon and Nikon lenses is usually more a topic of silly dispute, rather than a serious issue.</p>

[dan_south]

I own both cameras. I use the Nikon for events and sports because it's rugged and it has dedicated buttons that give me

quick access to critical features, plus the AF has more bells and whistles. The Canon is lightweight and fun and has video and excellent resolution. I use it for just about everything except events and sports.

 

High ISO: The Canon requires noise reduction from 800 and up, whereas the NIkon looks clear without any NR up to

3200.

 

WB: I think the Canon's auto white balance is a little more accurate. The Nikon will store up to four wb presets, but the

Canon stores only one. The Nikon has a built in interval timer for time elapsed photography. It's a separate piece of

hardware in Canonland.

 

Canon zoom lenses are very sharp but have more distortion than their Nikon counterparts. Be prepared to make corrections in PS or LR.

That said, Nikon has no VR in a midrange zoom. The Canon 24-105 IS is wonderful except for the aforementioned

distortion.

 

If you like tilt shift lenses Canon has an edge. If you like wide angle zooms, Nikon has an edge. Canon has a nifty feature

that adjusts LCD brightness to match ambient light levels. I find Canon's bracketing controls to be a bit easier to use.

Nikon's AF has more features, but Canon's is very accurate. I like Canon lenses better for manual focusing I.e. with live

view.

 

They a both excellent cameras and excellent systems. I would not want to have to part with either of them. Most of the

images on my website were taken with one or the other.

[focuslightstudio]

<p><strong>"85 f/1.4 instead of 1.2, but an otherwise equally great (portrait) lens"</strong><br /><strong>"70-200 f/2.8VR II is totally comparable to Canon's L IS II with the same spec"</strong><br />Wouter both of your statements are completly false. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 does not come even close to the Canon 85mm f/1.2L IQ <strong>AT ALL.</strong> I have used the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 it's mediocre at best. The Canon 85L is just simply magical. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VR II can maybe come close to what the original Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS delivered but nowhere near the IQ of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. <strong>NOWHERE NEAR. </strong><br />Your statments just tell me you have zero experience with either of the Canon lenses you mentioned.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Leo, it's not a contest, I only responded to your claim Nikon had <strong>no</strong> equivalents for that. They do, and over their quality I won't argue, because that's asking for yet another silly Canon vs. Nikon thread. Indeed, I shoot Nikon, if that matters to you. I am glad for you your Canon system perfectly meets your expectations.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 price- <strong>$1720</strong><br />Canon 24-70 f/2.8 price- <strong>$1309</strong><br />Nikon is ridicously overpriced so you'll actually be saving money with the switch in the long run.<br />Wouter I don't understand why you continue to argue that Nikon has an equivalent for the 35L, 50L, 85L to name a few.... because they do not. It's sounds as if your not happy with what Nikon offers in way of lenses because your in denial that Nikon doesn't have quite a few of the lenses Canon has. This is not a "contest" but a fact.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Jeez, Louise, pick one and settle on it.</p>

<p>I hear this one about how much more expensive Nikon lenses are, but then I look at the prices for L glass, and I get a little uncertain. Maybe if Nikon would make some of their better lenses yellow (or ecru?) or something, people wouldn't mind paying more for them.</p>

<p>I used to be a Nikonista in film days and became a Canonite in the new millennium, but ironically, this was somewhat influenced by the ability to use my old MF non-AI Nikkors on my new digital cameras.</p>

<p>Of course, it is true that Canon has been more innovative in the last 20 years than Nikon... maybe.</p>

<p>Now that I think on it, I like the idea of yellow "N" (for Nice?) Nikon lenses. Imagine how much better the helicopter gunship crew would be able to pick you out of a crowd with one of those on your camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>JDM von Weinberg wrote <strong>"but then I look at the prices for L glass, and I get a little uncertain."</strong><br />I just posted above that the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is <strong>$1720 </strong>and that the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 <strong>"L" (which means it's L glass)</strong> is <strong>$1309 </strong>so what may I ask makes you uncertain? I don't get it? <strong>NIKON</strong> <strong>IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE</strong>.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>Here's another comparison-<br /><strong>Nikon</strong> Telephoto AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens- <strong>$1350</strong><br /><strong>Canon</strong> 135mm f/2.0 <strong>"L"- $999</strong><br /> <br>

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Wide Angle Lens- <strong>$2200</strong><br>

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 <strong>"L"</strong> II USM Autofocus Lens- <strong>$1700</strong><br>

<strong>JDM I'm a little confused on your findings? Once again- NIKON IS MORE EXPENSIVE.</strong></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Leo, Leo,<br /> one or two lenses does not a "trend" make.<br /> Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 $2,120.00 &<br /> Nikon 14mm f/2.8 $1,689.00<br /> both at Adorama just a few minutes ago. So What.<br /> I'm not so interested in it that I am going to total up the <strong>entire</strong> lens lineup of each and show that the statistically average Nikon price is significantly different from the average Canon price.</p>

<p>Since you're so motivated, Leo, why don't you or the OP do that and show me that I am wrong.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Kevin:</strong> Say you divorce Nikon and remarry Canon. A year from now, Nikon introduces a killer line of glass and class leading bodies. All relatively within a $100 of what Canon will have. What will you do with Canon? Sell the whole lot and go back to Nikon, right? Right!</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>JDM back up one page and you see I have posted more then one.</p>

[faysal]

<p>To be fair Leo, there wasn't actually an L on that lens mentioned in your post there, then again, one versed in the EF line would have been able to tell without noticing. Also, I wouldn't get that angry over it. Let them buy their Nikons, if that takes demand away from Canon, it keeps the price down. larger demand, larger price!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>And by the way, I do know for darn-tooting sure that swapping systems every couple of years cannot be the result of a rational desire to SAVE money.<br /> How much cheaper could Canon be to justify the cost of a complete switch?<br /> I like Canon glass as much as anybody, but when I look at the new TS-E 17mm lens, "cheaper" does not come to mind even though there is no comparison to the Nikon equivalent (of which there is none). Now there might be a reason to switch to Canon!</p>

<p>And I saw your earlier posts. I'd suggest that you seriously need to calm down a little. Why so emotional about it?<br /> It's just a camera system, not a religion,<br /> or, wait, I'm sorry if I defiled your temple or something....</p>

<p>I repeat:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since you're so motivated, Leo, why don't you or the OP do that and show me that I am wrong.</p>

</blockquote>