5DMKII vs D700
Jeremy Winterberg
Registered Users Posts: 1,233 Major grins
I'm sure there are posts on this topic already, I just don't feel like searching.
I switch cameras almost as often as I put new underwear on. KIDDING, but seriously, I switch cameras pretty often.
OK, so I switched to a Nikon D300 from a 50D in November. I might be selling my D300 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 fairly soon, to upgrade to a D700. SO, with all my Nikon gear sold (with the exception of my SB-600 if I switch back to Canon I will sell it too), I have the opportunity to switch back to Canon if I want to.
I will be going Full Frame no matter what brand I go with. So, this means, either D700 or 5DMKII (Don't want the first 5D). I will be shooting weddings and portraits for those that don't know.
Now, if I go with the 5DMKII I will get a refurbished one from Adorama for $2100 (alot better than $2300 used).
And I can get a used D700 for about $1800.
Pro's / Con's
I do some video work here and there, so the 5DMKII's video capabilities appeal to me. It would be nice to have an HD Video Camera and DSLR all in one package.
-- The Autofocus and AF-Points of the D700 appeal to me. One of the main reasons I switched to Nikon.
-- Shutter Speed... Yeah, 5fps(8 w/ bat grip) would be nice... but I rarely use 6 on my D300, 3.9 fps would be fine.
-- Megapixels... pshh 12 is enough, so that is not why I want the 5DMKII.
-- The one thing I miss about Canon... wide variety of amazing, but affordable lenses. I'm planning on going from zooms to primes. And eventually I want to get some 1.2 glass. With nikon the fastest available is 1.4. The lenses I'm looking at getting - 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2, and maybe a 70-200 f/2.8 for convenience. All of which are available for both cameras.
So, I guess what I want to hear from you guys... Have any of you used both the 5DMKII and D700? Which do you prefer? What are the major differences that I might have overlooked. What would make you not want one over the other. Anything else you want to add?
Please no, "Canon/Nikon is the better brand! That's why you should stay/switch!!!" replies... That is not a valid reason. If that's your reason... sell your camera and take some photography courses or buy some photography books :thumb
I switch cameras almost as often as I put new underwear on. KIDDING, but seriously, I switch cameras pretty often.
OK, so I switched to a Nikon D300 from a 50D in November. I might be selling my D300 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 fairly soon, to upgrade to a D700. SO, with all my Nikon gear sold (with the exception of my SB-600 if I switch back to Canon I will sell it too), I have the opportunity to switch back to Canon if I want to.
I will be going Full Frame no matter what brand I go with. So, this means, either D700 or 5DMKII (Don't want the first 5D). I will be shooting weddings and portraits for those that don't know.
Now, if I go with the 5DMKII I will get a refurbished one from Adorama for $2100 (alot better than $2300 used).
And I can get a used D700 for about $1800.
Pro's / Con's
I do some video work here and there, so the 5DMKII's video capabilities appeal to me. It would be nice to have an HD Video Camera and DSLR all in one package.
-- The Autofocus and AF-Points of the D700 appeal to me. One of the main reasons I switched to Nikon.
-- Shutter Speed... Yeah, 5fps(8 w/ bat grip) would be nice... but I rarely use 6 on my D300, 3.9 fps would be fine.
-- Megapixels... pshh 12 is enough, so that is not why I want the 5DMKII.
-- The one thing I miss about Canon... wide variety of amazing, but affordable lenses. I'm planning on going from zooms to primes. And eventually I want to get some 1.2 glass. With nikon the fastest available is 1.4. The lenses I'm looking at getting - 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2, and maybe a 70-200 f/2.8 for convenience. All of which are available for both cameras.
So, I guess what I want to hear from you guys... Have any of you used both the 5DMKII and D700? Which do you prefer? What are the major differences that I might have overlooked. What would make you not want one over the other. Anything else you want to add?
Please no, "Canon/Nikon is the better brand! That's why you should stay/switch!!!" replies... That is not a valid reason. If that's your reason... sell your camera and take some photography courses or buy some photography books :thumb
Jer
0
Comments
If you are going to sling primes, go Canon. But if the D700 feels more likely to get those shots you need. Well I don't need to answer further. Rent them both and give them a whirl.
www.tednghiem.com
Another thing to consider..with 24M pixels (right?) your file sizes double: your memory cards are halved, upload download times suffer, your post processing time increases, your HD gets filled up faster...you get the picture.
wrt to the lenses..
canon lens are more varied and cheaper..and I may get in a bit of trouble here..but I do think the nikon pro lenses are of higher quality and worth the expense in general at this point in time and has been for a bit.
Also consider the SB900 (great great flash) and nikon's in general better off camera CLS system.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Not with fast lenses. My 5D2's AF does a decent job by candlelight with an f/2 lens. I don't think I've actually tried with anything slower than that.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Leave it to the fates, heads Canon, tail Nikon. Maybe through a monkey wrench in there and add a Sony a850 into the mix just for kicks. Of course then you would have to roll dice to see what camera to buy.
But don;t worry, 3-6 months from now you ill sell it and buy a new one if you don;t like you latest choice
Then there is the pattern buying method....
First Canon, then Nikon, then Canon, then..... So it would seem to be Canons turn...
In other words, don't think you can really do wrong with your choices so good luck
but you know what they say, once you go 1d, you really can't go back.
From everything I hear about it, the D700 is a great camera. The AF certainly sounds more versatile than the 5D2's, with more points and automatic face recognition (probably rather handy for weddings, unless it chooses to focus on the wrong face in a crowd).
The D700's 12 MP resolution would be problematic for anyone who is already used to significantly more than that, because it's nice to be able to crop pictures down radically and still have 8 MP or more in the finished result. You can do that with a 21 MP camera, but not with 12 MP.
The question of which camera has better high-ISO performance is more complicated than it seems. It makes a difference, for example, whether you compare them with RAW shots or in-camera JPEGs, since JPEGs will have noise reduction applied, and some cameras use it more heavily than others. I don't think I've actually seen a proper D700/5D2 high-ISO comparison.
I suspect you will be happy with whichever of these two you end up buying.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
The downside to the D700 is the low-er resolution, no video, images don't natively have the Canon "look" (very popular in the wedding biz), no 85mm f/1.2 (best wedding lens out there), and some other stuff I am forgetting.
You know you want a D700, Jeremy...just sell that D300 and get it over with.
EDIT: The big advantage of more resolution for me is not really cropping(get it right the first time), but for post-processing. After working with some 16-bit, 39MP Hassy files I am hooked. Give me 20+ MP or give me...I don't know, something else.
Sorry, the questions were meant for people that have used either one. It's just that first one was meant for people that have used both, like bloomphotog.
Totally agree with the cropping comment. It would be nice to be able to crop in and still be able to make large prints with excellent quality. But, really you should frame it correctly in camera. So, not having extra room to make mistakes kind of forces one to pay more attention and take better composed pictures
Again, no... fate comments
Oh, and I mainly shoot in RAW... but lately I've been thinking about just shooting JPEG. Why? Because if you get the exposure correct in camera every time, you shouldn't have any issues. And you can take 4 times as many pictures.
I've really been working on nailing exposure lately. For those of you that don't use the histogram... you'll never be spot on until you do! I've noticed a tremendous improvement in my exposure since I started only looking at the histogram on the back of my camera. Learn how to read it, and you'll be VERY happy with the results.
So, I'm really liking the 5DMKII because of the video, prime lenses, and the price for what you get. I have a couple video projects coming up where having HD video would be REALLY nice.
But, I'm also really liking the D700 for its AF/AF Points (I hear the layout of the points on the 5DMKII are stupid), the extremely well built pro glass, and the low price right now.
Downside to the 5DMKII, I wouldn't be able to get it right away. Don't have an extra $300 lying around. Upside - I don't need a camera right now. I'm in school, so I'm not really advertising to people that I want photo work, other than weddings. And right now my earliest wedding is in May.
Downside to the D700, no video. Upside - I can get it right away, its in my budget.
Downside to both... can't afford a lens right away. Might get the 50 1.8 again just to have a lens. I hear its pretty decent on full frame anyways.
I can't directly compare them because I haven't used the D700. In general the 5D2's AF is fast and accurate. Then again I shoot almost entirely using single-shot AF with a single selected AF point, which may be easier than, say, AI Servo mode.
But if the dynamic range of the scene is too great, you're out of luck with a JPEG. With RAW you have a pretty good chance of being able to pull some details out of the extremes.
This is very true regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPEG. "Expose to the right" is an important aspect of maximizing your IQ with digital cameras.
I don't see the problem. The 5D2 is sometimes criticized for having only 9 AF points, but the layout? There is an illustration of the view through the 5D2's viewfinder, with the AF points shown, here (scroll down a bit)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5DMarkII/page6.asp
The D700's viewfinder display is shown here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD700/page4.asp
Judge it for yourself. It's nice that the D700 has so many points, if you're the sort of photographer who wants to be constantly fiddling with which point you're using (or if you trust the camera to choose the right point each time). The 5D2 has fewer points but they seem to be placed sensibly.
The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is pretty decent on the 5D2. I prefer the 50mm f/1.4 USM (I have both) but honestly if you showed me pictures taken with each at f/2.8 I probably wouldn't be sure which was which unless there were some five-sided bokeh to tip me off. At f/2 the faster lens is a bit sharper, but the f/1.8 is still good.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Agreed, expose to the right without clipping the highlights. Very important!
The "stupid" layout I was referring too, was that all of the points are DIRECTLY in the center of the frame, instead of being spread out more. My D300 has the same ammount of AF Points. Yes there are a ton, but you can change how many your camera actually uses in the menu. Like, I can go down to 9, or whatever you want.
I would only be getting the 1.8 for temporary use. When more funds become available (aka, when one of my weddings pays the rest of their money owed to me), I will be getting a 1.4. Either the 50 or the 85...
Ah, gotcha. So let's add DPReview's D300 viewfinder illustration into the mix:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page4.asp
Comparing all three illustrations, the 5D2's outermost points look a little bit closer to the center than the D700's, but not by much. The D300 appears to have its points spread out over a larger region of the frame, but that may be in part due to the fact that the frame is smaller -- it's an APS-C camera, after all. The Canon 50D and 7D's AF points also appear to cover more of the frame. So I think this is, at least in part, a full-frame vs. APS-C issue.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
In the end, I kept the D700 because I wanted the better AF (yes, it IS better for many subjects), build quality, and most of all, the ergonomics for me were far superior. If I had more time for landscape photography, I might've kept the 5DmkII, especially since AF doesn't matter. The resolution is pretty great. Having switched, I really do miss the primes I used to have. The Nikon lens rumor mill constantly mentions an updated 85/1.4, 35/1.4, 24/1.4 and maybe a new 135/2.
Nikon has the truly amazing 14-24mm/2.8. Canon has the fantastic 24/1.4 II. The focus on the Nikon is more accurate, I've found, than the Canon AF, which is often faster due to all the USM lenses out there, but misses more. After a while, I hated the Canon ergo and this was a bigger factor than lens selection, etc. I wish the D700 had more pixels, but most of the time it makes no difference for the sizes I need. Either camera kicks ass.
The Leica gets my full attention these days. I'm on a DSLR backlash right now.
Good luck.
most of consumer grade video camera comes with one small lens and tiny senor. Imagine using the big L glasses to shoot HD with a full frame sensor, it may be good. Honestly, I am not sure but it sounds logic. I have already had the full line up of Ls, so it does hurt my wallet too much.
Just bought a standard digital video cam for traveling and waiting for the approval to get the new toy.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Link to my Smugmug site
Shows how often I shoot JPEG...
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
you should try out the 1d III, it's not full frame, but it's AF is amazing, and w/ the prices they are going for used right now, unbeatable deal.
Once you understand what a particular histogram really means, it is almost always better to shoot with the histogram "towards" the right in the camera's LCD display, especially in scenes of limited dynamic range or low contrast.
I do find that a 3-color histogram plus highlight "blinkies" (indicating overexposure) yields the most meaningful information for those cameras that have that combination.
It's rather like a gasoline gauge in a car. As you drive the car you learn to interpret what the gauge really means, but I can almost guarantee that no 2 gauges in different make and model cars will mean the same thing. (i.e. when is the tank "really" half-full and when are you "really" about to run out of gas. Rental cars are always fun that way.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I was looking at your 1DIII for sale... tempting. But I really want full frame. And really, the only reason why I would switch back to canon is for the HD Video. I just have to decide if its REALLY worth it to give up the reliable AF Nikon has.
i have never used the d700, but if i were a nikon shooter i'd have one of those and a d3s.
You seem to be missing the point of shooting to the right. Yes, you can recover somewhat from an overexposed JPG. However, the point of exposing to the right is to get better images than if you shot it neutral. Do you intentionally overexpose all of your JPG images, correct the exposure in software, and feel you get better images that way? That's what those of us who shoot to the right do.
With due respect to you and Ziggy, exposing to the right allows you to take better advantage of the extra tone values in the linear 12 or 14 bit pixel data available from the camera's sensor. There is very little benefit in exposing to the right on an 8 bit image format (JPG) that has already had a gamma curve applied. You might get a tiny bit of benefit if you're very careful, but in most cases you will be degrading the image.
There are numerous writings around the internet on expose to the right, but I've never seen one that advocates doing it if you're shooting JPGs.
Here are some references:
* http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml - Quote: "... When working in RAW mode, which you should be ..."
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right - Quote: "The technique is best used when shooting in a raw image format so post-processing can be done on the resulting file. If this technique is used with JPEG files (the default on most consumer cameras), it may result in over-exposed pictures."
* http://www.oceanlight.com/log/expose-to-the-right.html - Quote: "Note that this post is primarily intended for photographers who shoot RAW. (If you shoot JPEG you may benefit from what follows simply by having a better understanding of what is going on inside your camera, but you probably do not want to use this technique.)"
* http://www.petercox.ie/expose_right.php - Quote: "It's important to realize that this technique is best performed on RAW files, not JPEGs. If you're shooting JPEG, you have far less latitude to edit the image before it starts to deteriorate."
So I'm not the only one who feels this way. And yes, I've tried it, and it produced washed-out images.
-joel
PS: Sorry, I realize this is off-topic and intend to drop the issue at this point.
Link to my Smugmug site
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I commented on the histogram thread you started in Techniques.
As to 5DMII or D700...
Each is a darn nice camera, but each also has it's set of warts.
Anyone who denies this is just goofy, IMHO
All the fan-boy stuff and blanket statements are quite useless.
Camera's are tools, nothing more. Choose the right tool that matches what you believe your needs are and will be in the short/medium range future.
Also, don't discount your "likes". This is important to most of us! If you think the 5D2 might be a better tool for you, but you "like" Nikon better, your never going to be fully satisfied with the Canon.
Most of the differences/advantages/disadvantages have been laid out here for you.
* If what you need is also what you want, then it's easy peasy.
* If what you need isn't what you want, then you've got some contemplating to do...
In all honesty the only reason why I want the 5DMKII is the video. Because I do have a small need for HD video. I have a big project coming up for a client, and a couple smaller projects for personal things, that the HD video would be nice. But SD video from my camcorder is fine for all of those projects, so the HD video is not really "needed".
I think the D700 is probably the best fit for me. The AF needs to be reliable when you're at a wedding, and the D700 has that. And it's in my budget.
I also do a bunch of studio work. I hear the 5DMKII is "the perfect camera for studio work"... how is the D700 in the studio environment?
I have had the D700 for almost exactly 1 year right now. I bought it so I could do very low light work and have had many ISO 12,800 images come out which is crazy when I think about a few years ago I was getting more noise with my D50 at ISO 1600.
But this camera has so much more to offer, the FPS and AF have come to mean a lot to me helping me branch out into some sports photography. And combined with the 28-75 F2.8 Tamron you can create some amazing images, the one warning for this lens is the AF is slow.
I know this is yet another tangent for the thread but speaking of what the D700 lets me do this came to mind; is there any list of all Nikon weather proof lenses? Since I have a Fuji S5 and D700 it would be nice to have a lens or 2 that let me take them into the elements and be able to expand my work further.
As for the studio how big do you want to go? Most needs can be addressed with 12MP since you are at base ISO. And I have been a big fan of using the 700 in the studio personally.
the biggest I would ever go is 30x40... I've made 20x30 prints before with my 50D... so I'm sure 12 mp would surely be able to go to 30x40.
Without question, I have done 8x10's with 2MP if you shoot it exactly right then you can get a lot of enlargement while keeping sharpness.
or maybe i don't get it.