5D2 shooters - do you secretly desire a D700

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>I don't lust really because (sickly ...) I'm already rich enough.<br>

I'm going to a special place in England this w/e at Ironbridge and really wanted a FF. My dodgy 5D is in the post back to the supplier but I saw enough to value the difference between that and a crop. Perhaps indeed I do lust :) but only where I throw my hat. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you (whoever you are) think that a Nikon is a better camera for you, get one. If you (the other guy) think that Canon is a better camera, get one. If you (someone I haven't mentioned yet) happen to want a Pentax, an Olympus, a Sony, or something entirely different, go for it.</p>

<p>Any attempt to objectively prove that Brand A is better than Brand B is doomed to failure here. In the end, quite of bit of the justification for selecting one brand over the other comes down to some subjective personal preference (what you friends use, what was on sale, what you used in college, etc.) or random chance. </p>

<p>I use Brand A. I maintain that if I woke up tomorrow morning and found that by Brand A gear had been replaced with similar gear from Brand B my photography would continue with no discernible differences. I think the same would be true of the Brand B user who found herself with Brand A gear.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I secretly wish for what I don't have... </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>That wasn't the point here, this is not a banal "which is better" thread, it is not a thread about which will make better pictures either. As has been said, there are big differences between the two directly competing camera models, the interesting question is, what do you like about the other one, the one that you don't have? Much more benign and interesting.</p>

[luzhang]

<p>"5D2 shooters - do you secretly desire a D700".<br>

A silly question, and boring.....<br>

It's up to you to choice whatever you want but no need to whine about it.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I secretly desire a Pentax K7 or K5 for their in-body stabilisation (that stabilises primes), in-camera processing, weasthersealing, size and price (at least 6 months after release. I desire the D700 for its flash, AF, and weather sealing, and the 5D mark II for its pixel count.<br>

Does that make me promiscous?</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I don't have the 5DII, just a lowly 7D, but I'd be happy enough sticking with Canon and would like to have a 5DII, if I could afford one (not that I need a FF camera, but if I had the disposable income for one, why not?). I really don't know anything about the Nikon line, and I can't lust after what I don't know anything about.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>It's commonly said that Nikon has the superior flash system and that has been mentioned in this thread. Would anyone who has used both extensively care to explain how or why?</p>

<p>E-TTL II seems pretty consistent in my experience. And from what I've seen of the built in wireless flash control the 7D offers more options than the D300. The 7D can control 3 groups plus the built in flash where the D300 can control 2 groups plus the built in flash. In manual they can each control a group from full power to 1/128. In TTL the 7D offers A:B ratio (8:1 - 1:8) plus exposure compensation for A:B, C, and built in. In TTL the D300 just offers exposure compensation for A, B, and built in. I don't have any experience with the external wireless flash transmitters, but at least as far as the internal transmitters go the Canon seems to be more helpful and flexible. Independent control of a 3rd group from the camera is pretty useful.</p>

<p>So what am I missing? Was Nikon ahead but now Canon is catching up? Or is there some great Nikon flash feature I've overlooked? I'm honestly asking, not looking for a Canon vs Nikon fight.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>As you know I am a heavy Canon user. I, and many others, find E-TTL II, particularly when using several groups wirelessly very inconsistent. Truthfully manual everything works much much better, and that is fine until you are in fast changing ambient situations where it takes too long to change settings. Nikon CLS, whilst on paper having very similar specs, actually ends up with much more consistent exposures, particularly when you are into wireless groups and ratios. An example, the SU-800 has a far better range and on the ground ability than the ST-E2.</p>

<p>Canon, when you use one of the newer bodies with in camera menu flash control, has a vastly better user interface than Nikon. But Nikon still just works more consistently and over a longer range than Canons do.</p>

<p>Certainly Canon have been playing catch up in this area. But the next big leap is a radio transmission based system that works, not a light based system that is flunky and severely range limited.</p>

[BruceSturm]

<p>i love the canon format. i absolutely am not interested in a video feature in a still camera. i wish canon would remove this option while improving features associated with a still camera - build, features, performance. and, i'm with Jim M. Once you spend the money on lenses you will be less likely to cross over to a different setup.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>No, but the D700s are real good cameras.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I sold two Nikons, including a D700, and got two 5D2s. I am much happier with them. Simpler and easier to use, takes an 85mm f1.2, and almost twice as many pixels. Also I think that not having a built in flash is a big advantage. I never use on camera flash and it was a considerable nuisance.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>@ Bruce, the video doesn't add much at all to the cost and does nothing to affect still shooting, so the idea of omitting video for the sake of improving other things is not really relevant.<br>

As far as the original question, the 5d2 is a marvelous camera that leaves very little to be desired except for the AF. Wouldn't trade it for a D700, quite the opposite. The reason to love the 5d2 is the image quality - gorgeous tone and color, low noise, and superb detail.</p>

[vel_ziliuse]

<p>Before using a Canon 5D MKII I lusted after the D700.<br>

After using a Canon 5D MKII I lust after a second Canon 5D MKII.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I have the 5D II and am very pleased with it. I think that, if I did a different kind of photography, the virtues of the D700 might be very compelling. A quick auto-focus comes to mind, as well as very good low-light, high-ISO shooting.</p>

<p>I have to say with regard to the latter, however, that I am positively astonished that the 5D II gets such excellent low-light, high-ISO performance out of a 21-megapixel camera.</p>

<p>In extreme weather conditions, the build of the D700 would also be welcome. It truly is designed to hold up under extremes of humidity and temperature.</p>

<p>Apart from these kinds of considerations, however, I refuse to be drawn into the Ford-Chevy or Honda-Harley debates. Upon reflection, however, I do have an old manual focus Nikon 600 f/4 lens that works beautifully on full-frame Canons. With a Nikon, however, one cannot use Canon glass.</p>

<p>I'm happy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

>> "5D2 shooters - do you secretly desire a D700".

>> A silly question, and boring.....

>> It's up to you to choice whatever you want but no need to whine about it.

 

 

I suppose that it might seem silly if you take it out of the context of the original post. Please re-read that post, and

perhaps the question will make more sense to you.

 

No one here is whining. This is an inquiry into the veracity of a position voiced by a blogger, nothing more, nothing less.

[faysal]

<p>I'd take a Pentax 640D over the 5dii, sure, but it makes no sense to "upgrade" laterally when it comes to Nikon which is what the original poster was attempting to get at.<br>

And, if I didn't have have anything, I'd probably be starting off with a 550D or a D3100 not dropping 2.5k on just the body as a beginner :P.</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>There are a couple of the 1 series Canon cameras and a Hasselblad or two I would like to have just for the sake of having them and playing with them but I can not find any rational reason to go beyond my present Canon 7D. If you are going to do wall size photos then I could rationalize buying one of the 50 megapixel to myself, my wife would be a harder sell. When you are wishing might as well go for the big stuff.<br>

Jim</p>

[nwphotog]

<p>no</p>

[marlon]

<p>I have a 5D2 and I lust after a Hasselblad 503CW kit.</p>

[andrew robertson]

If I was getting into a new system, I'd probably choose Sony or Pentax, because of the built in

stabilization. That's a huge deal.

[KenPapai]

<p><em>I have the 5D II and am very pleased with it. I think that, if I did a different kind of photography, the virtues of the D700 might be very compelling. A quick auto-focus comes to mind, </em></p>

<p>The 7D and the 1D both have top-of-the-line Canon AF. Maybe soon, sigh..... the 5D line will?</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>I had a couple of Canon cameras before I bought the 7D , I thought the focus on two lens I had was slow. After useing them on the 7D they suddenly got a lot faster. If I were to upgrade from here it would have to be a one series with the same AF system.<br>

Jim</p>

[zafar1]

<p>I lust after a 5D.2 with more features. As far as I am concerned, 5D.1 is all the camera I need in terms of IQ. I wish Canon had added more features in 5D.2 (some of which it did in 7D) then mega pixels.</p>

<p>So, yes, I do lust after the AF system, metering, flash, bracketing, and FPS of D700. But then I examine the lenses I have and the clarity of 5D/5D.2 images and I stay put (seriously, I do evaluate these choices from time to time).</p>

<p>D700 has better noise performance but 5D.2 images are very cleanable upto ISO 3200. So I don't consider this much of an issue.</p>

<p>Obviously both D700 and 5D will be updated eventually. D700 will get more pixels (most likely) and 5D may get 7D features. So the difference will be smaller (hopefully).</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have the 5DII, 7D and 1DIIN plus a large number of film bodies (FD and EOS). The Nikon I like is the D3. The 1DIIN is the only APS-H body I have and while it is a good camera I find the 1.3 crop a pain. I can accept that the 1DIV may be a competitor to the D3 but I will not buy one as I am not a fan of the 1.3 crop as Canon does not make lenses to support this crop. I am hoping that Canon moves down the Nikon approach and puts a full frame sensor in the 1DV. I find the trade offs made by Nikon in the D3 to be very useful - low light sports capability but still very good as a general purpose body for portrait and landscape use. With Canon the 1D series is for sports use only - it was not historically this way as the old F1s or the EOS1s could be configured for both uses - make your 1V a HS by adding the drive and shoot sports, remove it and you have a compact body to shoot landscapes. In so far as the D700 can be used without the drive for landscape and you can add the drive for 8fps it represents a good set of compromises.</p>