Canon 5D MKII vs Nikon D700

ziggy53

I know people want to compare these 2 cameras. I would appreciate the comparisons kept seperate from the "announcement" threads, which I think need to be camera specific.

Please keep the comments civil and fact based. (No brand bashing.)

Just to start things off, here is a link to the DPReview "Side-By-Side" comparison of these two rather amazing cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d700%2Ccanon_eos5dmkii&show=all

Andy

Heh - internally here @ Smug we're talking about that as well.

Bigwebguy mentioned the 51 af points on the Nikon vs. the 9 (plus the helper 6 invisi ones) on the Canon. That'd be HUGE to me if I shot a lot of action (sports, kids, birdies, wildlife). And it would compel me to choose the D700, quite possibly.

I'd really love to see some high iso comparison images Same subject, real stuff.

swintonphoto

While I am an avid Olympus user. They D700 would be the most tempting to me. I am not too excited about the extremely crazy resolution of the 5D MkII. I bet the high ISO will be better with the less-packed sensor. Plus, I would need to upgrade way to many things to handle 25 meg raw files (hard drives, memory cards, computer, etc.).

So, Nikon wins this one in my book.

Andy

Wait - what about video and GPS, I forget what model has that on Nikon.

ziggy53

The Canon 5D MKII has 2 - sRaw modes, a 10MPix mode (sRAW 1) and a 5MPix mode (sRaw 2). The sRaw 1 mode is pretty interesting to me. It appears that sRAW is a "binning" process (a type of interpolation) as opposed to the "discard" method of pixel reduction.

There is a lot that I could do with 10 MPix and sRAW does speed up the post-processing.

If the sRaw 1 also reduces apparent noise, that would make it even more attractive.

cmason

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon 5D MKII has 2 - sRaw modes, a 10MPix mode (sRAW 1) and a 5MPix mode (sRaw 2). The sRaw 1 mode is pretty interesting to me. It appears that sRAW is a "binning" process (a type of interpolation) as opposed to the "discard" method of pixel reduction.

There is a lot that I could do with 10 MPix and sRAW does speed up the post-processing.

If the sRaw 1 also reduces apparent noise, that would make it even more attractive.

So this has always confused me: it seems like Canon simply tosses out pixels or 'interpolates' down... or something. However, when I read about Nikon's similar feature, it seems to be simply using the 'crop sensor' region of the full frame sensor. In fact, they seem to be saying that you can use a crop lens on the D700, and simply use the crop sensor region to capture your image. To me, this seems extremely elegant solution.

Tango

red strap or yellow...decisions decisions

ziggy53

cmason wrote:

So this has always confused me: it seems like Canon simply tosses out pixels or 'interpolates' down... or something. However, when I read about Nikon's similar feature, it seems to be simply using the 'crop sensor' region of the full frame sensor. In fact, they seem to be saying that you can use a crop lens on the D700, and simply use the crop sensor region to capture your image. To me, this seems extremely elegant solution.

Canon EF-S lenses have a short-back-focus (that's what the "S" stands for). The rear element of many (most) EF-S lenses actually extends far enough back that it would not clear the mirror in a full-frame camera.

Nikon digital (DX, crop) lenses still use the same back-focus distance as their full-frame lenses (FX). They just project a smaller image circle.

I'm not sure if "elegant" is exactly the term I would use and even the Nikon shooters are somewhat divided on the usefullness of the crop-mode on the Nikon FX cameras. I would contend that it's nice to have options and choices.

I will tell you that I can make a fairly nice 8" x 10" crop from a Sigma 10-20mm crop lens mounted on the Canon 1D MKII and I get around 4 MPix in usable pixels. Effectively this is a scary wide combination and pretty cheap compared to alternatives.

swintonphoto

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon 5D MKII has 2 - sRaw modes, a 10MPix mode (sRAW 1) and a 5MPix mode (sRaw 2). The sRaw 1 mode is pretty interesting to me. It appears that sRAW is a "binning" process (a type of interpolation) as opposed to the "discard" method of pixel reduction.

There is a lot that I could do with 10 MPix and sRAW does speed up the post-processing.

If the sRaw 1 also reduces apparent noise, that would make it even more attractive.

This is a good point. However (and this is in no way meant to be argumentative - just for discussion), why pay the premium if it isn't used? It seems kind of like buying a Suburban when you only drive yourself around town or an F-350 but you never haul anything.

Tango

but when you do want to haul that load (or print gi-normous) you can.

ziggy53

swintonphoto wrote:

This is a good point. However (and this is in no way meant to be argumentative - just for discussion), why pay the premium if it isn't used? It seems kind of like buying a Suburban when you only drive yourself around town or an F-350 but you never haul anything.

The full resolution would still be useful for those times when it is appropriate, like wedding formal shots and landscapes and such. The Canon 1Ds MKIII, by comparison, only has the 5MPix sRAW option, which I wouldn't find as much use for.

ian408

There are features, like GPS and Video, which are less important to me. The same is true for number of focus points.

GPS is not as important to me because there are a number of acceptable solutions that allow geo-tagging images using equipment photographers may already have. And that's not significantly different or more or less convenient than having to purchase the GPS component for the D700.

In the case of focus points, I do not think more is always better. I do want better differentiation so that the focus points are correctly selected (when you use all of them). For example, shooting birds in a grassy area. I don't want the camera to select a blade of grass two feet in front of the lens as I pan past it (which is why I prefer a single focus point). I do value accuracy over quantity.

12 vs. 21 megapixels is another bone of contention. Is 21 really better than 12?

In short, many of the new features touted as differentiators really don't add much and seem more like marketing hype. However things like low light/high ISO performance is a very good reason to choose one over another or to upgrade bodies.

noeltykay

AaronNelson wrote:

red strap or yellow...decisions decisions

SmugMug strap!

kini62

D700- a little better sealed, faster FPS, built in wireless flash command one REALLY LARGE cross type AF sensor (all 15 crosstypes add up to one big sensor due to packing them all in one spot).

In reality the D700 AF is not any better for most things than the 5DII. Smallish BsIF maybe an exception. Of course the 5DII is not a camera most would buy for BsIF.

5dII- a most noticeble increase in resolution over the D700. Much better LV implementation. I think the movie mode is pretty good and much better than what Nikon has in the D90 and of course infinitely better than what the D700 has- NONE

Based on how the 1DsMKIII performs at high ISO, the newly designed sensor in the 5DII should have noise levels close to or as good as the D700 but with all the extra resolution.

$300 less ( at least in the US).

Canon L lenses generally cost much less than comparable Nikon lenses.

Oh, for any of the higher end stock agencies, or for magazine spreads, fashion shows etc... the D700 need not apply, not enough MPs:D

IMO there's little to not like about the 5dII, about the only things is the oldish AF module- which there is still some confusion as to whether all 9 visible sensors are cross like the 40/50D or if it is indeed identical to the 5D.

Gene

Pindy

After the 5DmkII arrives, the 5D goes to the House of Canon. I think I'm gonna save for a D700 and go dual. My reasoning:

1. Canon shows no signs of wanting to produce a camera under $4000, or without a built-in grip with pro AF. Sometimes I really need a camera that's all about "getting the shot". The D700 seems like that camera.

2. Nikon seems to have lost several years not producing fast primes among other useful lenses. Now that the PC line and the new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G are a reality, hopefully we'll see more, but they've bet on zooms, clearly. Canon's f/1.2 and 1.4 lenses are as yet unrivaled, at least from Nikon. For now, my Canon 35L, 50 f1.4, 135L and soon the 24L II give me what I want in that end of things.

3. I want in on CLS.

4. I'm sick of wishing one size fit all.

"Photography's a hobby, a pasttime, a pursuit, a passion—why wouldn't you buy the camera you really want, as long as it doesn't antagonize your spouse or come out of your family's grocery budget?"
—Mike Johnston