Nikon D700 vs 5D mkII

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR Forum' started by IsaacImage, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. IsaacImage

    IsaacImage

    359
    Mar 16, 2009
    Toronto
    The final destination is - Image quality, so wich one to choose ?

    [​IMG][/url]
    DSCF0952_1-2 by IsaacImage, on Flickr[/IMG]
     
  2. Pupator

    Pupator

    371
    Jan 29, 2010
    Atlanta, GA
    You're probably asking on the wrong forums for an objective answer ;)
     
  3. lexdiamonnyc

    lexdiamonnyc

    918
    Mar 23, 2009
    nj/nyc
    oh boy, you're opening a can of worms......:tongue:



    for IQ, I think it's hard to argue 20+megapixels vs 12mp...........

    that is, if you manage to get your shots 'in-focus'.....:biggrin:
     
  4. I thought Megapixels really only mattered when blowing up prints... But yeah I agree its likely going to be tough getting an objective answer here.
     
  5. sambo.

    sambo.

    Mar 20, 2011
    Australia
    sheesh, the MegaPixel Myth strikes again!

    ok, here's the score: Megapixels are a square function (eg: y=x^2) not a linear function (eg: y=5x) as megapixels are a measure of AREA.

    ergo: in order to double the resolution, you need FOUR times the megapixels.

    so, to get double the pixel-depth resolution of a 12MP D700, you need a 48MP sensor.

    imho: unless you're regularly blowing up to billboard size, i doubt you'll ever really notice the difference in the 'real world' between a 12MP camera and a 20MP one. and if you shot in RAW, i still doubt you'll notice any major difference. the 'advantage' of the 20MP sensor would be a slight bit more lattitude when it comes to cropping images.

    in any event, both Nikon and Canon both make high quality products. too many fantastic pictures have been shot with Canon gear for even the most ardent Nikon fan to disagree and vice-versa.

    anyone trying to desperatly sell you one brand over the other is getting a bigger sales commission.
     
  6. IsaacImage

    IsaacImage

    359
    Mar 16, 2009
    Toronto
    The low ISO workflow - is much interesting situation that bothering me.
    and the sharpness
     
  7. The easiest way to sum it up, is which one are you more comfortable with?

    or should I say which do you have more experience with?

    Either can make a great image, but the photographer matters much more than the camera.

    GenoP
     
  8. nickevans

    nickevans

    313
    Sep 4, 2009
    Brisbane
    Nikon has less noise at low ISO than Canon. There's a nasty horizontal banding shadow noise in 5DII files when pushed a bit.

    Nikons pro-range zoom lenses are sharper than Canons.

    Nikons autofocus is lightyears ahead of the 5DII.
     
  9. nickevans

    nickevans

    313
    Sep 4, 2009
    Brisbane
    Nikon has less noise at low ISO than Canon. There's a nasty horizontal banding shadow noise in 5DII files when pushed a bit.

    Nikons pro-range zoom lenses are sharper than Canons.

    Nikons autofocus is lightyears ahead of the 5DII.
     
  10. KJM83

    KJM83

    361
    May 5, 2010
    Livonia, MI
    I agree^
    Just a suggestion - rent both bodies, shoot in various settings, take your pick.
    Since using Canon in early days I was pleased, the switch to Nikon has never let me down.
     
  11. sambo.

    sambo.

    Mar 20, 2011
    Australia
    that's a big call and the sort of thing that can only be tested with super fine grain film and a microscope.

    in general day-to-day shooting terms, the L series glass is pretty dang good stuff.
     
  12. ourabmen

    ourabmen

    443
    Feb 28, 2009
    OK, USA
    I came close to buying a 5dMkII a couple of years ago and am interested in this thread as well. The one comment that I have seen on this question in the past is the AF system, where the D700 seems to have a large advantage. What will be using either for, landscapes, studio work, etc. If you don't need the AF system performance of the D700 then the 5dMkII might make some sense. it is a heck of camera, it a shame that Canon put a weak AF system on an otherwise state of the art body
     
  13. IsaacImage

    IsaacImage

    359
    Mar 16, 2009
    Toronto
    Going to use mostly Zeiss 50/100 Makro Planar
    so superior AF of D700 will be useless.
    But I also have 24-70 so AF will be needed ;)
     
  14. lexdiamonnyc

    lexdiamonnyc

    918
    Mar 23, 2009
    nj/nyc
    If you have any interest whatsoever in video, printing very large, or cropping a whole lot, get the 5D2..........


    Otherwise keep going down the Nikon rabbit hole and see what you find, you might be pleasantly surprised:smile:
     
  15. Ronald M

    Ronald M

    Nov 10, 2008
    Chicago
    I can add Leica lenses to a Canon with an adapter because the flange to focal place is shorter. With Nikon, the mount has to replaced.

    My D3 and D7000 have dual card slots and 100% viewfinders.
    I values both these features. Also on D300S series.
     
  16. Rooz

    Rooz

    Nov 22, 2008
    Sydney, Oz
    A link to a ken rockwell argument is hardly evidence. You can and DO notice the difference in the real world on even an 8x12 but it depends what you shoot. Ie: if you shoot something with a hell of alot of detail then you notice it. Foliage of trees, extreme macro, white beads on a white wedding dress. Ask a d3x owner if they'd give those pixels away.

    The images on a mkii are crisper and produce better detail. When you shoot at 400 they get to be relatively even, the d700 images look cleaner the higher up the iso rangs and by 1600+ kiss the mkii goodbye.

    i have shot both extensively and the mkii produces nicer images in perfect conditions. If you are lookin at straight out iq in ideal condiions then the mkii wins hands down, i have never seen better images then what i pulled out of the mkii. If you have some challenges in the frame, the lighting and or movement then the d700 comes up on top.

    Why didnt i go back to canon and buy a mkii ? Cos we dont live in a perfect world with perfect conditions and the camera handles like a dog.
     
  17. This is one very good point for those using odd lens/camera combinations.

    I for one use D700 but was thinking lately of Canon for one reason alone - ease of use of Leica R lenses. Some of R lenses need removal of internal shroud that in theory can degrade image quality. You need dedicated adapter for each R lens on Nikon while one common adapter can work for multiple R lenses on EOS body. If you permanently buy and bolt one per lens R-EOS adapter you don't need to remove any internals from R lenses.

    That appart D700 is superb camera in every respect.
     
  18. IsaacImage

    IsaacImage

    359
    Mar 16, 2009
    Toronto

    Tanx Rooz
     
  19. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    Ken does actually have quite a good comparison of the two cameras put together here which is worth a read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/vs-5d-mark-ii.htm

    If you're shooting landscapes or in other situations where you want absolute maximum detail retention, then yes the 21MP does make a noticeable difference over 12MP. Even in situations like weddings, 10-12MP files might leave the fine details of the brides veil mushy, whereas 21MP files will retain them. To be honest, most of the time I do shoot my 5DmkII down in the medium 11MP mode since it's just kid/family shots mostly for computer displays, or if I do print some they're rarely larger than 8x12. No need for 21MP for that.

    The Nikons do handle noise a lot better. The D700 doesn't have the low-ISO noise issues that the mkII does, and it maintains a cleaner noise profile to higher ISOs than the mkII does as well, although you can get equally good results from both. The JPEG processing is much better on the Nikon and it handles things like chroma noise a lot better and doesn't manage to mince details nearly as easily as the Canon will. I shot nothing but JPEG on Nikon, but the Canon JPEG handling is bad enough that for anything that matters I shoot RAW now and process through DPP myself and get much better results that way with my own NR and sharpening settings applied after the fact. Yes, the low ISO noise issues do need to be closely watched and handled as well, which is best done in RAW.

    If ruggedness is a concern and you tend to beat your gear around, the D700 is definitely a better choice. It has a nice pro build and good weather sealing whereas the 5DmkII has more of a "good consumer" build and just basic weather sealing. A benefit of the Canon's cheaper build though is that it is noticeably lighter than the Nikon. A lot of Nikon shooters, myself included, have complained about weight, and that's less of an issue with the mkII and the Canon system in general I think.

    Ergonomics is a wash. Just depends on what you prefer. I like that I can basically operate the Canon one-handed with all of the controls on one side. I think Canon has designed their cameras this way for all of their sports shooters who needed to support their super-teles with their left hand, and thus needed to be able to make all critical adjustments on the camera with just their right hand. The body controls are maybe a bit more complicated, but you can do most everything with one hand if you set it up right, whereas two hands are more often needed on the Nikons. Since I'm out with my kids a lot and needing to help or handle them, I do now prefer the easier one-handed operation.

    Autofocus. Despite the mkII having a far less advanced autofocus system, I've actually never really had any trouble with it. It works fine for me, and most of what I shoot is my 2 and 4 year olds running around, sometimes with larger aperture primes at close range (aka thin DOF with moving targets). No issues, it works fine. With the 9 point system and the joystick on the back, you can instantly select any single point that you want so you're never scrolling, and then hit the button on the top to get it back into full auto selection mode. The only issue I've had with it is that the AF system does seem to quit on you about a stop or so earlier than any of the Nikons that I've had when the light gets low. To make matters worse, there's no AF assist light built into the camera body either so you're sorta stuck up a creek there. If low-light AF performance is a concern of yours, that's definitely a reason to strongly consider the D700. Even my D40's AF system kept running in lower light than the mkII's does. I consider this the only real "flaw" of the camera.

    If you tend to mix up your type of shooting a lot like I do, as in action shots of your kids in one moment and then a nice colorful landscape shot in the next which of course requires completely different settings, the Canon is absolutely superior. Its C1/C2/C3 total recall banks work sooooo much better than Nikon's custom settings and shooting banks. Nikon has finally figured this out now, with the U1/U2/U3 setting banks on the D7000 which is said to work the same or better than the Canon setup at last. I'm guessing this will "trickle up" to the D800 when it arrives, and to other future Nikon bodies as well. For a primary body, I seriously could not live without a setup like this anymore. It always drove me crazy on the Nikons. I have C1 setup for landscape shots, C2 for my kids running around, and C3 for indoor flash photography. It makes such a huge difference because you only have to mess around with your settings once and then lock them it. It frees you to just shoot and not constantly jack around settings real-time.

    Overall I'd say they're both equally good bodies, just different, and it depends on what you're looking for and your personal style of photography. The 5DmkII is going to be a bit more adept at some things, just as the D700 is going to be a bit more adept at others. My choice on going Canon had little to do with the bodies and mostly to do with Canon's lens lineup being much more to my liking, and this was the entry full-frame DSLR body that Canon was offering so that's what I got. I like how this Canon body works a lot, but wish I could put the D700's sensor in it. I don't really need 21MP most of the time, and it would free me from having to screw around with RAW files nearly as much since the D700's sensor handles noise both at low and high ISO a lot better and looks great straight out of the camera in JPEG. :smile:
     
  20. JR Magat

    JR Magat

    74
    Feb 5, 2011
    US
    they're both great cameras..... it's really a question on which system works best for you

    Canon 5D Mark II: PROS over D700 = 21 MP, so if you like to crop then this comes in handy, MF glass with EOS adapters (more options), video

    Nikon D700: PROS over 5D II = better AF (body and glass)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.