nightfly
Well-known
Patrick thanks for the info. I like your model shots with the 50 1.4. The vignetting works for you.
David_Manning
Well-known
The D700 is an outstanding camera...a fantasy for SLR shooters. It will squeeze the best technical image out of any situation, and that's important when somebody else is paying you to get that shot. Even it's jpegs are finer than most RAW files from two years ago. That being said, an SLR is different from a rangefinder, much less a Leica.
I find my Leica quiet, smallish, and fairly discreet. I feel more in tune with the whole photographic process shooting and developing Tri-X. Shooting my M6 is simple, but requires adherence to a few photographic rules.
For pure form-factor, if your subjects are aware of your photography, the D700 really wins out. If you are trying to be discreet, an M-body wins. This is just my opinion.
A book I just finished photographing for will be published September 26th. It was shot with Nikon D2X and D300. The images are fantastic, and I was a hired gun. Some situations challenged one, or both, cameras. Technical image quality was very important to the publisher. I couldn't/wouldn't try to shoot that job with an M-body...not enough flexibility.
But when I kick around the city, it's an M and film.
I find my Leica quiet, smallish, and fairly discreet. I feel more in tune with the whole photographic process shooting and developing Tri-X. Shooting my M6 is simple, but requires adherence to a few photographic rules.
For pure form-factor, if your subjects are aware of your photography, the D700 really wins out. If you are trying to be discreet, an M-body wins. This is just my opinion.
A book I just finished photographing for will be published September 26th. It was shot with Nikon D2X and D300. The images are fantastic, and I was a hired gun. Some situations challenged one, or both, cameras. Technical image quality was very important to the publisher. I couldn't/wouldn't try to shoot that job with an M-body...not enough flexibility.
But when I kick around the city, it's an M and film.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
Thanks! Just to clarify, most of that vignetting was added in post. There's not much of it (if any) to begin with.
Mcary
Well-known
An FYI those not familiar with Canon all the EOS lens allow manual focusing and in fact a lot of them have full time manual override which allows you to manually focus even it the lens is set on auto focus.
Also when actually shooting the only difference between the 5D and most 35mm film SLR is the aperture controls are on the body instead of the lens, and no you don't need a menu to access them.
Also when actually shooting the only difference between the 5D and most 35mm film SLR is the aperture controls are on the body instead of the lens, and no you don't need a menu to access them.
dfoo
Well-known
In my experience manually focusing lenses on my 5D was practically impossible, assuming you are using a large aperture.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
This is true, although for the most part, it is only the lenses equipped with USM (typically the bigger and more expensive ones) that will allow you to manually focus after you have auto focused.
The beauty of the Olympus OM lenses is that you get a tiny lens, with great (sometimes world class) image quality for not a lot of money (depending on the lens). For example, I got my 35/2 and 50/1.4 for $50 each at the local camera shop, the 28/3.5 for about $30 on ebay, and the 50/1.8 for about $30 on ebay. That's a whole lot less money than the Canon alternatives (aside from the 50/1.8).
Can you tell that I'm addicted to this?
nksyoon
Well-known
One thing I've found is that exposure with adapted lenses can be inconsistent if I used the standard metering vs spot or centre-weighted. For example with the Leica 35-70/4, exposure at f4 is good but gets progressively underexposed as I use smaller apertures. Not sure why this is so.
Prosaic™
-
I found the D700 to be quite behind the 5D in resolution and "punch". I owned both cameras and high end lenses.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I use the 50L on an old 5D (mark I, with no micro-adjustment) and the focus is spot-on. I may just be lucky, but somehow I don't think so. My EF and EF-S lenses have always focused as they should on a succession of Canon bodies and think that's likely the rule rather than the exception.
...Mike
f16sunshine
Moderator
Canon has a high contrast screen "EES" that you can purchase on ebay or at B+H for $35.
It makes manual focus a breeze.
Another route and I took this one. Contax RTS screens fit perfectly into the 5D.
You simply sand down a 1mm tab of the screen and pop it in.
I have a microcollar split screen in one of my Fivers from a Contax RTS.
With this I can Manually focus a Rokkor 1.2/58mm on a hair if there is enough light to see it. You won't do that with the 50L and AF.
These are cheap and easy DIY upgrades.
Even if you never shoot anything but USM and L glass..... Upgrade the screen.
The "A" screen that comes in the 5D is a joke for manual focus whether it be a native EOS lens or not.
It makes manual focus a breeze.
Another route and I took this one. Contax RTS screens fit perfectly into the 5D.
You simply sand down a 1mm tab of the screen and pop it in.
I have a microcollar split screen in one of my Fivers from a Contax RTS.
With this I can Manually focus a Rokkor 1.2/58mm on a hair if there is enough light to see it. You won't do that with the 50L and AF.
These are cheap and easy DIY upgrades.
Even if you never shoot anything but USM and L glass..... Upgrade the screen.
The "A" screen that comes in the 5D is a joke for manual focus whether it be a native EOS lens or not.
Thardy
Veteran
The M9 is introduced with much pomp and fanfare, but a canon 5D love-fest breaks out.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yes, but it has the old-style slow and noisy AF and is more than a stop slower. Over here the price difference is about 180 vs. 300 EUR, the difference is worth it in my book.
If you consider the Zeiss 50's bokeh "rich and creamy", you've probably only looked at bokeh shots that had no highlights in them; highlights get distorted ovally from coma and have a sharply deliminated border that makes them stand out in a rather non-creamy way. Without highlights any fast lens has creamy bokeh, it's as soon as there's light in the background that it gets interesting.
snausages
Well-known
Maybe the M9 is just a marketing ploy by Canon to make the 5D seem like a bargain.
P
Peter S
Guest
Another 5D fan chiming in. Use my M6's for B+W, but whenever I feel like shooting color or land/city scapes I use my canon 5D with 24/2.8, 50/1.4 or 85/1.8. Image quality is so good, no idea what they did, but the files have something special about them. A certain freshness, lightness, airiness. No reason to buy the 5Dii, would just try to grab a minty 5D instead, more than enough mpix.
Gid
Well-known
The M8 did that. The sapphire LCD cover for the M9 will probably be more than a 5D
David_Manning
Well-known
Prosaic, I only have Nikon experience. That being said, it's a fact that the D700 is down on resolution. As far as punchiness, although RAW processing will allow for as punchy as necessary, I've always thought that 5D files were "too" punchy...not realistic. I've always thought that Nikon colors were more natural...more filmic. But once again, I can process a Nikon D700 file to look like crap. I have a bit of practical experience in this
ulrikft
Established
That sounds like canonist gospel and not... close to fact..
The d700 is, objectively speaking from most tests avilable, resolving more than the 5d mk1, and punch? well, define "punch"...
Gid
Well-known
That sounds like canonist gospel and not... close to fact..
I don't know about most tests, but that was not the opinion of dpreview (and they seem to like Nikon) (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page31.asp) Any real difference is moot and probably lens, user and situation dependent. By the time you take all variables into account I imagine it would be difficult to tell the 5D and D700 apart or from most other offerings in the same ball park except when its pitch black
samoksner
Who stole my light?
The 5D is like a king of compatibility with other manufacture's glass, I've used Nikon F Manual and autofocus, Contax, Leica R, Zeiss ZF and ZE, olympus and pentax screw mount, it's strange at first but you can pick from a huge set of lens to match your budget, image quality desires and size.
At one point or another, I had a Contax Distagon 35mm f1.4 a Leica R 50mm 1.4, a Nikkor 85mm f1.4 , a Zeiss ZM 100mm f2 Makro, a Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8 and an olympus 24mm f3.5 shift lens. That's apart from the Canon 24mm f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the sigma 12-24 f3.5-4.5. It was a weird kit, I never had all these things at once, and often ended up selling the lens' since i didn't really needed them, it was stuff i bought for a good price, used for a couple month and turned around to sell, but the 5D stayed.
It's fun to go through some images and try to recognize which lens took what, sometimes i can tell, like the Leica 50 and the contax 35 are easy to find. The ZM 100 makro is also very distinct (mostly from it's ridiculous revolving power).
The one thing i suggest you do if you're interested in shooting manual focus glass is to get yourself a split prism screen from an aftermarket dealers. They can be hard to find but the ones i found from japan (i forget the site) where modified 1D series screens, cut to fit a 5D, they helped a lot with the fasted glass and to deal with the slight imperfections that might have been in the adapters.
At one point or another, I had a Contax Distagon 35mm f1.4 a Leica R 50mm 1.4, a Nikkor 85mm f1.4 , a Zeiss ZM 100mm f2 Makro, a Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8 and an olympus 24mm f3.5 shift lens. That's apart from the Canon 24mm f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the sigma 12-24 f3.5-4.5. It was a weird kit, I never had all these things at once, and often ended up selling the lens' since i didn't really needed them, it was stuff i bought for a good price, used for a couple month and turned around to sell, but the 5D stayed.
It's fun to go through some images and try to recognize which lens took what, sometimes i can tell, like the Leica 50 and the contax 35 are easy to find. The ZM 100 makro is also very distinct (mostly from it's ridiculous revolving power).
The one thing i suggest you do if you're interested in shooting manual focus glass is to get yourself a split prism screen from an aftermarket dealers. They can be hard to find but the ones i found from japan (i forget the site) where modified 1D series screens, cut to fit a 5D, they helped a lot with the fasted glass and to deal with the slight imperfections that might have been in the adapters.
wintoid
Back to film
I've had the D700 and now have the 5D2 which I prefer. This is personal and down to ergonomics more than anything. As some have mentioned Olympus glass, here's a shot taken with the 5D2 and the Olympus 50mm f1.2 lens. I'm now using the Zeiss ZE lens, which is also superb, see example here.