At the moment I'm going with my original plan for the D700. My need for awesome high ISO, focusing in low light, and affordability have been deemed solved by the D700.
I have read some of the "sleeping with the enemy" thread.. I'm on page 4 haha.
I will sacrifice hd video and super fast primes for reliability. And, Nikon is bound to come up with some 1.2 lenses soon anyways. They just need to catch up to Canon in that realm. (I know there is the legendary 50 1.2, but I don't want a manual focus lens...)
NikonsandVstroms sent me some pictures he took at a concert at 3200 ISO, and 12,800 ISO with his D700... OMG!!! SO gorgeous! 3200 looks like 200 and 12,800 looks like 3200 on my D300 (which isn't too bad).
At the moment I'm going with my original plan for the D700. My need for awesome high ISO, focusing in low light, and affordability have been deemed solved by the D700.
I have read some of the "sleeping with the enemy" thread.. I'm on page 4 haha.
I will sacrifice hd video and super fast primes for reliability. And, Nikon is bound to come up with some 1.2 lenses soon anyways. They just need to catch up to Canon in that realm. (I know there is the legendary 50 1.2, but I don't want a manual focus lens...)
NikonsandVstroms sent me some pictures he took at a concert at 3200 ISO, and 12,800 ISO with his D700... OMG!!! SO gorgeous! 3200 looks like 200 and 12,800 looks like 3200 on my D300 (which isn't too bad).
Nikon will not ever come out with f1.2 lenses because the F mount is not wide enough. They are keeping the mount the same in the name of backwards compatibility. But they do have a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.4 and a 105 f2.
As for ISO, here is a pic at ISO 3200 from Paris, armor museum. No NR applied
Just finished reading "sleeping with the enemy"... gotta say, it helped alot. You covered everything I was wondering about in both cameras. And now, I go to bed.
This is what my face looks like right now not because I'm confused, but because I've been looking at my macbook pro's screen all day. 10am-1:40am... pretty much non-stop. crazy.
dreaming of the 135 f/2 DC, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 14-24 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8VR, and the day I will be able to afford just one of them.
You would be nuts to choose a still camera based on whether or not it has video...
Like it or not, and ready or not, many people want to experience the qualities that some of the newest dSLRs provide with video capture. While I personally think that the current level of video functionality is too limiting for general video work, for "Indie" style videos and for some short commercial work there does seem to be some application.
For those limited applications a dSLR with video makes very good sense.
For instance, there is an emerging trend of "fusion" photography and video (or videography) in the wedding market, but I don't see it in my own local market yet.
Just finished reading "sleeping with the enemy"... gotta say, it helped alot. You covered everything I was wondering about in both cameras. And now, I go to bed.
Happy to help and sorry; it does go on forever.
It's funny—all the talk about superior feature sets, especially from me... It's all relative and I see that now that I'm shooting largely with manual focus. Part of the angst of the DSLR experience is this expectation that everything should be instantaneous, accurate and perfect. It really can breed dissatisfaction!
It's funny—all the talk about superior feature sets, especially from me... It's all relative and I see that now that I'm shooting largely with manual focus. Part of the angst of the DSLR experience is this expectation that everything should be instantaneous, accurate and perfect. It really can breed dissatisfaction!
yeah, today everything has to be done NOW. Like for me, if I have to wait 2 seconds for my camera to focus - I lost the shot. well, up to 12 shots (6fps haha). And that could mean missing the kiss, or an expression that will never be seen again. aka... not good for my wallet.
If I wasn't in a field that required me to be fast, accurate, and deliver consistent results... I would be using manual focus. You have better control over how your images turn out.
Where's my mountain dew, burger, and french fries? I asked for it at least a minute ago... this is taking SOOOOOO long!!! I want to make a complaint. Mr. Manager, my burger took 3 minutes to be made.
Sir, it takes 5 minutes to cook it.
Well you should have been prepared. Now its cold, I want a new one and my money back.
I worked at McDonald's for 2 years, I know how it goes. Except it only takes about 58 seconds to make a burger, from cooking [30 seconds] to assembly (I'm pretty good) but, when 20 people all want a burger, it gets backed up. Fries do take about 3 minutes to cook however.
Well now, people want 1/250s @ f/8, ISO 100 performance in EV-1 conditions. I reckon that's the photographic equivalent of the average McDonalds expectation level.
Well now, people want 1/250s @ f/8, ISO 100 performance in EV-1 conditions. I reckon that's the photographic equivalent of the average McDonalds expectation level.
Ahhh the expectations.....
FWIW.....
Only a few short years ago folks were capturing stunning photographs with the Canon 20D.....then 30D....and so on. Surely a 20D wouldn't stack up very well against any of the OP's choices as many of it's weaknesses have been improved upon over the years. So....now we are left to wonder if those older models were so flawed....then how did anyone possibly capture a stunning image with one?
The answer to that lies in the FACT that EVERY camera will have some sort of a design flaw, that little SOMETHING that could bear improvement, and that as photographers we have to have enough understanding to know how to work within those limitations.
The reason some of those "old" digital images are stunning isn't because they would pass any sort of pixel peeping litmous test, but rather because of the artistry of the image.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Comments
They are both amazing for architecture, portraits, landscape, etc.
If video is important at ALL, 5DMKII, no question (obviously).
But if you ever do sports or anything with motion, having the ability to go up to 8fps with a pro AF system featuing 51 points is very nice.
I think on ISO they are so close it's splitting hairs.
In the end I like the D700 because I can do landscapes *and* sports -- the 5D is not as well suited to dual roles.
Canon has more primes but the Nikon glass selection is still very good so I don't mind at all. I also don't shoot video.
Good luck -- either way you will have an awesome camera for sure. And yes I've shot with a 5DMKII on many occasions. My dad has one
I have read some of the "sleeping with the enemy" thread.. I'm on page 4 haha.
I will sacrifice hd video and super fast primes for reliability. And, Nikon is bound to come up with some 1.2 lenses soon anyways. They just need to catch up to Canon in that realm. (I know there is the legendary 50 1.2, but I don't want a manual focus lens...)
NikonsandVstroms sent me some pictures he took at a concert at 3200 ISO, and 12,800 ISO with his D700... OMG!!! SO gorgeous! 3200 looks like 200 and 12,800 looks like 3200 on my D300 (which isn't too bad).
Nikon will not ever come out with f1.2 lenses because the F mount is not wide enough. They are keeping the mount the same in the name of backwards compatibility. But they do have a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.4 and a 105 f2.
As for ISO, here is a pic at ISO 3200 from Paris, armor museum. No NR applied
This is what my face looks like right now
dreaming of the 135 f/2 DC, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 14-24 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8VR, and the day I will be able to afford just one of them.
Like it or not, and ready or not, many people want to experience the qualities that some of the newest dSLRs provide with video capture. While I personally think that the current level of video functionality is too limiting for general video work, for "Indie" style videos and for some short commercial work there does seem to be some application.
For those limited applications a dSLR with video makes very good sense.
For instance, there is an emerging trend of "fusion" photography and video (or videography) in the wedding market, but I don't see it in my own local market yet.
http://fusionatomy.com/photo-fusion/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
A lot of people these days won't buy a camera without video. It's where the market is headed, like it or not.
Happy to help and sorry; it does go on forever.
It's funny—all the talk about superior feature sets, especially from me... It's all relative and I see that now that I'm shooting largely with manual focus. Part of the angst of the DSLR experience is this expectation that everything should be instantaneous, accurate and perfect. It really can breed dissatisfaction!
If I wasn't in a field that required me to be fast, accurate, and deliver consistent results... I would be using manual focus. You have better control over how your images turn out.
Where's my mountain dew, burger, and french fries? I asked for it at least a minute ago... this is taking SOOOOOO long!!! I want to make a complaint. Mr. Manager, my burger took 3 minutes to be made.
Sir, it takes 5 minutes to cook it.
Well you should have been prepared. Now its cold, I want a new one and my money back.
I worked at McDonald's for 2 years, I know how it goes. Except it only takes about 58 seconds to make a burger, from cooking [30 seconds] to assembly (I'm pretty good) but, when 20 people all want a burger, it gets backed up. Fries do take about 3 minutes to cook however.
Ahhh the expectations.....
FWIW.....
Only a few short years ago folks were capturing stunning photographs with the Canon 20D.....then 30D....and so on. Surely a 20D wouldn't stack up very well against any of the OP's choices as many of it's weaknesses have been improved upon over the years. So....now we are left to wonder if those older models were so flawed....then how did anyone possibly capture a stunning image with one?
The answer to that lies in the FACT that EVERY camera will have some sort of a design flaw, that little SOMETHING that could bear improvement, and that as photographers we have to have enough understanding to know how to work within those limitations.
The reason some of those "old" digital images are stunning isn't because they would pass any sort of pixel peeping litmous test, but rather because of the artistry of the image.
Cameras don't take pictures, people do.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed