newsgrunt
Well-known
weather sealing on the Nikons is better than Canons. Also wait a bit since this year could offer up some new bodies if one follows the D3 upgrade timetable.
Canon 5DMKII or Nikon D700
- Thread starter tlitody
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 6K
Mudman
Well-known
For architecture work with a dslr, I'd probably go with a couple of t/s lenses and the high MP Canon. Having said that, I love the ease of use with my nikons.
jtullar
Established
I prefer the 5DMKII , I use nikons (d700,d3,d3x) at work and for some reason I get more pleasure shooting with a 5DII (with optional Manual Focus screen) and Canon Primes. Some are close to leica territory like the 85 1.2L, 135L, and 24L. Also using Zeiss lenses is even better on a High mp camera. The autofocus is decent but not of the caliber of the d700. Noise is pretty good on both. I would seriously just try both out and see what you like. Most nikon owners I know shoot zooms... I hate zooms lol.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
It depends on your choice of lenses. If you prefer native AF lenses Nikon has that amazing 14-24 wide zoom but if you do a lot of portraits then the EOS 85/1.2 may be reason enough to go Canon. Nikon has the 24/1.4 too but is much more expensive than the EOS version and so will be the new 35/1.4 AFS. Nikon probably edge out Canon by a nose with other pro zooms.
Most legacy Nikkors are compatible with the D700 and you get AF confirm too. However you can shoot most third party lenses on the 5DII such as Leica R, Zeiss C/Y, Oly and any Nikkor with adapters plus you can mount thise R wides using mirror up live view focusing! With Nikon you can do thus but only with the Leitax mount swaps.
I agonized over the D700 vs 5DII decision for weeks and settled on the D700 because I wanted to shoot AFS lenses and Leica R but have regretted this because I would also like to use my wide R's such as the 19 and 35/1.4 and a few Oly's.
Most legacy Nikkors are compatible with the D700 and you get AF confirm too. However you can shoot most third party lenses on the 5DII such as Leica R, Zeiss C/Y, Oly and any Nikkor with adapters plus you can mount thise R wides using mirror up live view focusing! With Nikon you can do thus but only with the Leitax mount swaps.
I agonized over the D700 vs 5DII decision for weeks and settled on the D700 because I wanted to shoot AFS lenses and Leica R but have regretted this because I would also like to use my wide R's such as the 19 and 35/1.4 and a few Oly's.
Jamie123
Veteran
The main point of using tilt and shift for architectural shots is not to stitch shots and get more resolution but to adjust perspective and/or plane of focus.
tlitody
Well-known
Thanks all this has been very helpful. But now I have another question.
What is the distortion like on the Canon 24-105 F4.0L IS USM lens from 24 to 50. Do people towards the coners get bent? I assume the primes are better in this regard but maybe not as good as the zeiss lenses you can get for canon/nikon.
Or perhaps I should ask which of the zooms for canon or nikon that cover 24 thru 70 exhibits the least distortion at the wider end?
What is the distortion like on the Canon 24-105 F4.0L IS USM lens from 24 to 50. Do people towards the coners get bent? I assume the primes are better in this regard but maybe not as good as the zeiss lenses you can get for canon/nikon.
Or perhaps I should ask which of the zooms for canon or nikon that cover 24 thru 70 exhibits the least distortion at the wider end?
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
If you're using Adobe PS CS5 or LR3 distortion is not much of a problem with the 24-105 as there's a lens correction profile for it that gets rid of it. I have the 24-105 f4 L and it's the only Canon lens I currently own (I've rented others on occasion). I got this lens because I needed it mainly for studio work so the zoom reach was more important than speed. That being said, in daylight the large DoF at f4 up to 80mm is a bit annoying. If you like shallow(ish) Dof at shorter focal lengths go for the 24-70.
How soon do you need the camera? It seems like a lot is going to happen this year in Canon's camera and lens line-up so if you're not in a hurry it's probably a good idea to wait a bit.
tlitody
Well-known
I'm waiting on a house sale to free up some cash so its not imminent. Just planning ahead and making a few decisions on what I'm going to buy. So if there's a new version all well and good assuming its good which I rekon is more or less certain if they want to stay in business.
tlitody
Well-known
I will buy two or three primes but a general purpose zoom would be useful if distortion is not a problem.
Jamie123
Veteran
Well, if that's the case I think the 24-105 is definitely a good idea as it's quite a bit lighter and smaller than the 24-70. As mentioned, the distortion is easily taken care of in post assuming you have the most recent version of ACR with lens profiles.
pixelatedscraps
Well-known
As others have said, it is down to a few things. It pretty much makes or breaks your choice when you factor these in:
-Printing of your photos - if you are going to print big, and I mean BIG, you'll want the 5D MKII
-Video function - 5D MKII
-CLS or multiple flash usage - D700
-ISO3200+ - D700
-Weatherproofing, durability - D700
-Auto-focus ability / action sports shooting - D700
-Ease of use with manual-focus or legacy Nikon lenses - D700
-Ease of use with multiple brand legacy lenses (e.g Zuiko, Leica, Nikon or Canon, etc) - 5D MKII
As unhelpful as it may seem, it pretty much means you have to make a decision based on your needs and stick to it -- rigidly. Both are excellent cameras in their own right and have the capability to take gorgeous photos easily.
Good luck. I had a D700 for about 3 months and it was fantastic. I just hated shooting with a digital camera and ended up selling it and buying a three lens kit Mamiya 6 and a 27" iMac!
-Printing of your photos - if you are going to print big, and I mean BIG, you'll want the 5D MKII
-Video function - 5D MKII
-CLS or multiple flash usage - D700
-ISO3200+ - D700
-Weatherproofing, durability - D700
-Auto-focus ability / action sports shooting - D700
-Ease of use with manual-focus or legacy Nikon lenses - D700
-Ease of use with multiple brand legacy lenses (e.g Zuiko, Leica, Nikon or Canon, etc) - 5D MKII
As unhelpful as it may seem, it pretty much means you have to make a decision based on your needs and stick to it -- rigidly. Both are excellent cameras in their own right and have the capability to take gorgeous photos easily.
Good luck. I had a D700 for about 3 months and it was fantastic. I just hated shooting with a digital camera and ended up selling it and buying a three lens kit Mamiya 6 and a 27" iMac!
lynnb
Veteran
There's always a new/better model on the horizon in the digital world, and the manufacturers play a technological leap frog game. Like Jamie123 mentioned you're buying into a lens mount system (and flash system) so perhaps lenses (and flash if that's important to you) should be given higher priority in your decision. The availability of quality third party optics like Zeiss can level the field a bit. Swapping systems is expensive.
Print size is also something to consider. You mentioned architectural and landscape and for those subjects more MPs count if you plan to print really big. More MPs also places much higher demand on lenses so you have to budget for quality glass - and perhaps a top quality tripod and head if you don't already own one. Camera shake becomes much more evident with higher resolution sensors and lenses.
For portrait work the D700's higher useable ISO increases scope for natural light work with fast primes. And Nikon's CLS is reported to be better than Canon's system - although Canon are finally including off-camera flash control in the 7D and T3i crop bodies, so one would expect that to arrive in the 5DII's replacement. I use Canon's system and it's a bit clunky but it still works OK for me.
If you like a system's lenses but want to wait for the next generation body to arrive, have you considered buying a crop body as a stop gap - the D7000 sensor is well reviewed for DR and high ISO capability and it's got a higher MP count than the D700 for big prints - but you'll lose out on the wide end, and also not as good shallow DOF ability. Similarly a 7D might suffice if you decided to wait for the 5DIII. Just a thought. The crop body could then become your backup.
And like others have mentioned, ergonomics matter - it's a tool and it has to work for you, in your size hands and with your personal preferences. Perhaps a good idea to rent or borrow beforehand.
One wild card - if quality and print size really matter, would the Pentax 645D be within your budget. I seem to remember mention of Pentax releasing an ultra-wide prime for it before too long (whatever that means). Just a thought.
Hope this helps.
Print size is also something to consider. You mentioned architectural and landscape and for those subjects more MPs count if you plan to print really big. More MPs also places much higher demand on lenses so you have to budget for quality glass - and perhaps a top quality tripod and head if you don't already own one. Camera shake becomes much more evident with higher resolution sensors and lenses.
For portrait work the D700's higher useable ISO increases scope for natural light work with fast primes. And Nikon's CLS is reported to be better than Canon's system - although Canon are finally including off-camera flash control in the 7D and T3i crop bodies, so one would expect that to arrive in the 5DII's replacement. I use Canon's system and it's a bit clunky but it still works OK for me.
If you like a system's lenses but want to wait for the next generation body to arrive, have you considered buying a crop body as a stop gap - the D7000 sensor is well reviewed for DR and high ISO capability and it's got a higher MP count than the D700 for big prints - but you'll lose out on the wide end, and also not as good shallow DOF ability. Similarly a 7D might suffice if you decided to wait for the 5DIII. Just a thought. The crop body could then become your backup.
And like others have mentioned, ergonomics matter - it's a tool and it has to work for you, in your size hands and with your personal preferences. Perhaps a good idea to rent or borrow beforehand.
One wild card - if quality and print size really matter, would the Pentax 645D be within your budget. I seem to remember mention of Pentax releasing an ultra-wide prime for it before too long (whatever that means). Just a thought.
Hope this helps.
lynnb
Veteran
Just one additional thought. Availability of specialty lenses (tilt-shift, macro and telephoto) and zooms are the main differentiating factors I can see between 35mm DSLRs and 35mm RFs.
For architectural and landscape tilt-shift can be very useful. But then a second-hand view camera does that too; and there are superb w/a RF primes for these subjects, and you can always do some perspective correction in software.
Arguably the best 35mm lenses in the world are made for M-mount. I've seen an Imacon scanned Summicron 35mm transparency that noticeably surpasses the IQ of my 5DI and 24-105/4L.
DSLR systems are expensive to buy and the bodies have a financial half life of about 18 months - a significant cost unless they're earning money or unless you don't intend upgrading in future. Large files require expensive computer resources, storage and software. The cameras and lenses are heavy compared to RFs. Digital is not always cheaper than film - it depends on your usage and whether it's primarily for business or pleasure.
I'm wondering if you've considered whether a film system and quality scanner might be worth considering?
For architectural and landscape tilt-shift can be very useful. But then a second-hand view camera does that too; and there are superb w/a RF primes for these subjects, and you can always do some perspective correction in software.
Arguably the best 35mm lenses in the world are made for M-mount. I've seen an Imacon scanned Summicron 35mm transparency that noticeably surpasses the IQ of my 5DI and 24-105/4L.
DSLR systems are expensive to buy and the bodies have a financial half life of about 18 months - a significant cost unless they're earning money or unless you don't intend upgrading in future. Large files require expensive computer resources, storage and software. The cameras and lenses are heavy compared to RFs. Digital is not always cheaper than film - it depends on your usage and whether it's primarily for business or pleasure.
I'm wondering if you've considered whether a film system and quality scanner might be worth considering?
gavinlg
Veteran
Your overall post was good advice, but I would find this point fairly subjective. My original 5d's may not be the best built camera, but they're dead reliable. I literally use my current one in the rain about once a week, and have done for the last 2 years, it has a huge amount of actuations on it, and it has dents and scratches etc..
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Why do Canons DSLR's creak like an old sailing ship when you squeeze them ... I've always wondered about this?
😀
😀
gavinlg
Veteran
Card door has a certain amount of give that causes this. Pretty annoying though mine doesn't do it.
tlitody
Well-known
I already hate myself for considering a DSLR. It's like buying a PC. You research and research and research and then because there are simply so many variables you can't really decide which is the best way to go. Then you've spent so long researching that a new improved model is suddenly on the horizon and you have to start again. After becoming totally confused you end up buying what you had in mind in the first place without any research. At least an M9 wouldn't present these problems and nor would it require new lenses making the price competitive with a DSLR. Maybe not as versatile though.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
An M9 won't give you clean low noise files at 6400 ... the D700 can do thiis all day! 😀
That said if you can stretch to an M9 do it ... I would! 😛
That said if you can stretch to an M9 do it ... I would! 😛
tlitody
Well-known
High ISO performance would be nice but it's low priority for me. I think I'd rarely use it.
Jamie123
Veteran
Don't worry too much about it. As has been mentioned already there aren't really that many variables and you almost can't go wrong either way. As for the ''new and improved'' issue, I would usually just say buy what's on the market now but since the 5DII (and probably also the D700) is at the end of it's life cycle I'd say wait a little if you can. When a new one comes out you can either get that one for all of its improved features or you can get the ''old'' model for less money.
I don't think you'd be better off with an M9 as far as these problems are concerned. If you bought an M9 now and sold it in a year or two you'd probably lose more money than when doing the same with a 5DII simply because it's a more expensive piece of equipment.
Personally, I'm pretty happy with my 5DII and don't think I'll upgrade anytime soon to a newer model. This one does what I want it to do and when I need more resolution I'd rather use MF or LF film or rent a digital back.
Similar threads
