Canon 5DMKII or Nikon D700

[tlitody]

So as a first venture into digital SLR which of these two and why. I beleive the D700 is better low light performer but the 5DMKII has a lot more pixels which are important to me but I don't how important. i.e. would I see any difference in a 30x20 print between the two cameras.
I've always hankered after a canon for no other reason than I like their look. Oh and I did play with an older nikon a little and hated all the dials and buttons. I want simple interface. I think there is not too much difference except the low light capability.

 

[gavinlg]

They're both awesome - best DSLRs for the money/value/IQ.
The 5d2 does have noticeably more resolution, and is sharper per pixel than the d700 - because it has a weaker AA filter. In a big print you will see a difference up close.
The d700 is cleaner at high ISO, but it doesn't really matter that much until you get up to 3200+. There's about .5 of a stop of difference in high ISO performance.

Now for my subjective opinion:
The d700 is quite a complex camera, and (to me) a lot of the setup configurations, menus, and interface characteristics weren't intuitive, and were just too complex. The AF is fantastic, very accurate and fairly quick.
The 5d2 on the other hand is a very simple camera, but not to bad effect. Some love the smattering of buttons and levers on the nikon bodies but I do much better with the simple canon interface (been using a 5d since they came out and can change almost any setting blindfolded and with the camera to my eye). I also like the large rear jog dial of the canon. The AF of the 5d2 is extremely quick, though maybe not quite as reliable as the d700's. Small difference if you know how to use it - center point only in very low light, and AF -> recompose. In good light using all points works well.

Nikkor vs Canon glass is pretty subjective too. I tend to like canon lenses a lot more for some reason - I have found modern nikkors to be a bit clinical, and I like canons primes more. Canons super fast L primes are legendary and deserve their reputation. On the other hand the 2 staple nikkor zooms (14-24 & 24-70) are stellar.

In terms of output, I like canon files more. The colors and tones are very neutral and natural, in comparison to the nikon files which I find to be a bit overcooked in brightness and saturation - even in raw.

Hope this helps!

 

[tlitody]

They're both awesome - best DSLRs for the money/value/IQ.
The 5d2 does have noticeably more resolution, and is sharper per pixel than the d700 - because it has a weaker AA filter. In a big print you will see a difference up close.
The d700 is cleaner at high ISO, but it doesn't really matter that much until you get up to 3200+. There's about .5 of a stop of difference in high ISO performance.

Now for my subjective opinion:
The d700 is quite a complex camera, and (to me) a lot of the setup configurations, menus, and interface characteristics weren't intuitive, and were just too complex. The AF is fantastic, very accurate and fairly quick.
The 5d2 on the other hand is a very simple camera, but not to bad effect. Some love the smattering of buttons and levers on the nikon bodies but I do much better with the simple canon interface (been using a 5d since they came out and can change almost any setting blindfolded and with the camera to my eye). I also like the large rear jog dial of the canon. The AF of the 5d2 is extremely quick, though maybe not quite as reliable as the d700's. Small difference if you know how to use it - center point only in very low light, and AF -> recompose. In good light using all points works well.

Nikkor vs Canon glass is pretty subjective too. I tend to like canon lenses a lot more for some reason - I have found modern nikkors to be a bit clinical, and I like canons primes more. Canons super fast L primes are legendary and deserve their reputation. On the other hand the 2 staple nikkor zooms (14-24 & 24-70) are stellar.

In terms of output, I like canon files more. The colors and tones are very neutral and natural, in comparison to the nikon files which I find to be a bit overcooked in brightness and saturation - even in raw.

Hope this helps!

It certainly does, thanks.

 

[Fabian]

Hello,

i have been a canon shooter for a long time and the d700 is my first nikon.
The main question you should answer yourself is which kind of pictures are you taking with the camera.
For still life and landscape I would go for canon, anything action d700 is the better choice.

For me the D700 is even more enjoyable than the Leica M2 I had.
You can shoot in darkest environments and the AF will work and the pictures are usable even at the highest ISO settings.

I use the camera for street photography and my kids. I couldn´t be happier.

I wouldn´t worry too much about the buttons, because after a while you get used to it and then it is much better to change settings via buttons than digging in camera menus. You can do most changes with the camera at your eye.

Regards,
Fabian

 

[user237428934]

The real differences are MP and the lens lineup. The other differences are rather minimal compared to that.

Edit:
The only thing that's really annoying with my 5DII is the fact that Canon is not able to implement a usable auto-ISO function. The one in the 5D is useless.

 

[Jamie123]

Like fdigital, I just prefer the 5DII. I use the camera mostly in controlled settings and to me the resolution is much more important than AF or high ISO. Being used to MF cameras I never use anything other than center AF and I rarely shoot over ISO400 anyways. Also, as fdigital mentioned, there are more fast lenses for Canon.
And then there are the buttons. Some people like them and you can get used to almost everything but the few times I've shot on Nikon cameras the buttons drove me crazy. I just prefer the simpler exterior of the 5DII. During a normal shooting session there aren't many settings I want to change anyways so I'd rather not have the buttons come in the way.

If you prefer Canon and you don't need the better AF, go with your gut feeling and get a 5DII (unless you want to wait for a 5DIII).

 

[smile]

one vote for 5dii

 

[Fjordphotos]

Have you considered your shooting style/preferences? I chose the D700 because I prefer to shoot in available light and hence the the D700's edge in low light won the debate. More pixels is pretty useless if you can't use it in the right conditions 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

Have you considered your shooting style/preferences? I chose the D700 because I prefer to shoot in available light and hence the the D700's edge in low light won the debate. More pixels is pretty useless if you can't use it in the right conditions 🙂

Although, arguably, what Canon lacks in high ISO is compensated by the availability of faster lenses. 🙂

 

[keepright]

Don't forget that the +$2000 Canon has a 'direct print' button, a feature that the Nikon camera lacks.

Most of the differences are going to be either very subjective and personal or very specific to particular uses. Otherwise, if either one of these cameras can't do just about anything anyone wants, we're all pretty much wasting our time with this whole 'photography' thing.

If you care about having an exceptional off-camera flash control, and plan on spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on speedlights, go with the D700.

If you're passionate about architectural photography, and plan on spending thousands of dollars on wide tilt-shift lenses, Canon is a clear winner.

(And yes, I own one of these cameras and do one of these things, but which one is irrelevant.)

 

[gavinlg]

Nikon has AF f-1.4's @ 24, 35, 50 & 85 and f-2's @ 105, 135 & 200. Aside from from the Canon 50/1.2L & 85/1.2L, what does Canon have that Nikon doesn't? Nikon still has the older AF 28/1.4 and a current production manual focus 50/1.2.

Nikon only recently got the 24, 35, 50 (that isn't screw drive) and the 85, and the 135 is a bit archaic compared to the canon 135L. Canon has had all those lenses for a decade or more. You're right in that they're fairly matched as of today though.

Having shot extensively both Nikon and Canon I feel qualified to share that Canon and Nikon lenses optically are pretty close but that the Nikons are more durable and overall better built.

My 4 canons have been faultless (and my 5ds get hammered), but my d300 had a freezing problem that I couldn't pinpoint or fix. Made me **** my pants on quite a few jobs. Also an 18-200 would sporadically not AF for love nor money for a few minutes, and then suddenly work again for no reason.

I guess it just depends on personal circumstances - just wanted to add my experience 🙂

I shoot only RAW so out of camera color and saturation is whatever I want it to be.

My original comments on the saturation and tones hold true, as I also shoot raw. Comparatively the cameras interpret color and tone quite differently, just depends on what you like!

 

[gavinlg]

One point to note that JSU made, is that Nikons flash system is MUCH better for their speed lights and control. If you're using studio style lighting that doesn't matter.

 

[tlitody]

Much food for thought, keep it coming. Maybe I need both😀
Actually I am interested in architectural work and landscape and some portraiture. As for flash, I think my usage would be limited and in a studio I'm sure a canon would be fine.
I like the sound of the sony with its zeiss lenses and apprently fantastic image quality with sensor stabilisation for hand held but I think overall the system would never be as versatile as canon or nikon.

 

[nightfly]

Great summary. Do your points about the 5D2, particularly about the inteface simplicity and color and tones of the files apply to the original 5D as well? Been thinking about buying one.

They're both awesome - best DSLRs for the money/value/IQ.
The 5d2 does have noticeably more resolution, and is sharper per pixel than the d700 - because it has a weaker AA filter. In a big print you will see a difference up close.
The d700 is cleaner at high ISO, but it doesn't really matter that much until you get up to 3200+. There's about .5 of a stop of difference in high ISO performance.

Now for my subjective opinion:
The d700 is quite a complex camera, and (to me) a lot of the setup configurations, menus, and interface characteristics weren't intuitive, and were just too complex. The AF is fantastic, very accurate and fairly quick.
The 5d2 on the other hand is a very simple camera, but not to bad effect. Some love the smattering of buttons and levers on the nikon bodies but I do much better with the simple canon interface (been using a 5d since they came out and can change almost any setting blindfolded and with the camera to my eye). I also like the large rear jog dial of the canon. The AF of the 5d2 is extremely quick, though maybe not quite as reliable as the d700's. Small difference if you know how to use it - center point only in very low light, and AF -> recompose. In good light using all points works well.

Nikkor vs Canon glass is pretty subjective too. I tend to like canon lenses a lot more for some reason - I have found modern nikkors to be a bit clinical, and I like canons primes more. Canons super fast L primes are legendary and deserve their reputation. On the other hand the 2 staple nikkor zooms (14-24 & 24-70) are stellar.

In terms of output, I like canon files more. The colors and tones are very neutral and natural, in comparison to the nikon files which I find to be a bit overcooked in brightness and saturation - even in raw.

Hope this helps!

 

[Jamie123]

Nikon has AF f-1.4's @ 24, 35, 50 & 85 and f-2's @ 105, 135 & 200. Aside from from the Canon 50/1.2L & 85/1.2L, what does Canon have that Nikon doesn't? Nikon still has the older AF 28/1.4 and a current production manual focus 50/1.2.

Having shot extensively both Nikon and Canon I feel qualified to share that Canon and Nikon lenses optically are pretty close but that the Nikons are more durable and overall better built.

Canon strobes suck, at best. Canon autofocus just isn't as accurate as Nikon. The D700 is better built than the 5D, I only used a 5D II for a day as a demo loaner so no comment there. I have no issues with Nikon images but I've never printed them to 30 x 40 inches either. I shoot only RAW so out of camera color and saturation is whatever I want it to be.

Finally, there is a legacy of cool, older manual focus Nikkors that aren't equally functional on a Canon as they are on a D700. Lenses like the MF 28/2.8 that focusses to 0.2m or the 55/2.8 Micro & the 105/2.5 that are still amazing, brilliant lenses. Likewise, via adapters there are the Leica R lenses, Olympus Zuikos and even Nikkors, but none offer the metering interface with the 5D II that is there for MF Nikkors on a D700.

I use Nikons, a D700 & a D3, because I choose to. I sold Canons to switch to my current Nikon DSLR's, no regrets.

Well, there's also the discontunied 50mm f1.0 but that's not really the point (not a lens I'd use anyways). Sure, there are "only" two f1.2 AFs in the Canon lens line-up but as three lenses makes for a very well rounded kit, two out of three is pretty good.
Anyways, the point is not to start a Canon vs. Nikon war. What I'm saying is that, even considering available light photography, the difference is not really big. The objective advantages of one or the other are established pretty quickly by a spec list (more res. on the Canon, better AF on the Nikon). After that it's mostly down to personal preference.
I can't really comment on the flashes. I have a 430II which I hardly ever use as I prefer studio strobes. Also, the build quality of the camera is more than good enough for what I need and I wouldn't even notice it if it were built better (apart from maybe the CF card door which seems unnecessarily squeeky). The Hasselblad H4Ds or Phase One's camera probably aren't built as well as the Canon but I have no problem using those cameras.
It is true, though that some of the cheap Canon lenses aren't built very well and from what I've heard Nikon's cheap 50mm lens is better than Canon's.
Also, the legacy lens factor is certainly fair and should be considered. Another consideration would be whether or not one might want to use it for video work.


I think the most important thing when deciding on what kind of camera and brand to go with is to a) try both out and see how the feel and b) make a list of the system one might want to build down the line (lenses, flashes, ect.). Part of (b) is obviously also comparing what the total cost of those systems would be.

 

[Jamie123]

My original comments on the saturation and tones hold true, as I also shoot raw. Comparatively the cameras interpret color and tone quite differently, just depends on what you like!

Even though I have little experience with Nikon color and tones I would assume that if I were using a Nikon and did a custom color profile for it like I have for my Canon the results should be pretty similar.

Actually I am interested in architectural work and landscape and some portraiture. As for flash, I think my usage would be limited and in a studio I'm sure a canon would be fine.

If you want to do a lot of architectural work I'd consider using a view camera with film instead of Canon's T/S lenses. A photographer I work for uses an ALPA12Max with a Phase One back which is a very nice combination but I guess that's not in the budget for most of us 😉.

 

[tlitody]

Even though I have little experience with Nikon color and tones I would assume that if I were using a Nikon and did a custom color profile for it like I have for my Canon the results should be pretty similar.



If you want to do a lot of architectural work I'd consider using a view camera with film instead of Canon's T/S lenses. A photographer I work for uses an ALPA12Max with a Phase One back which is a very nice combination but I guess that's not in the budget for most of us 😉.

Actually I think with digital its quite possible to use a wide enough lens in portrait orientation to give the height you need whilst keeping the camera back vertical. Then with a decent tripod and camera set to rotate on nodal point, you can take multiple images and stitch them without needing a tilt shift lens. Maybe not all subjects but for a lot that will work unless you have non static subjects in or around the buildings.

 

[swoop]

I am currently making the same choice. I owned a canon 5D mk2 for about 3 months until it was stolen. I used to own a nikon D2x and currently use a borrowed Nikon D90 regularly. So I have experience with both systems.

Here is what I've come up with. I prefer the images that come out of the Canon. They require less processing to get the look I want. Canon offers a wide variety of great affordable primes. I owned a 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm primes. All with canons USM focus motor. The high ISO up to 4000 was pretty much flawless.

What I disliked about the Canon was that the file sizes were huge. About 25mb for a RAW photo. And they took awhile to process on my laptop. The autofocus system was awful when the sun went down. I had to find a high contrast point to get it locked. During the day it was great. I hate the strap slots that canon uses. It's annoying to attach and remove a strap. A lot of settings are in a screen menu which means you have to do a bit of button pushing and scrolling to change what you want.

What I like about nikons is that they're built solid. Not that the Canon feels cheap by any means but a pro grade nikon feels like a brick in your hands. The nikon has a lot of buttons and dials on its surface but this means everything is right there, quick and easy to change when needed. You'll rarely have to go into a menu. Even formatting a card is an LCD menu free exterior operation. The file sizes are smaller and more manageable. About 15mb for a raw photo. It has strap lugs so all you need is to slide a ring to attach or remove a strap. The nikon D700 has the same autofocus system used in their top of the line models. So it's no slouch.

What I dislike about the nikon is that the only amazing lenses are zooms. They offer a handful of f1.4 primes now and still have some of the older AF-D primes available that use the cameras built in focus motor. But if you want a kit of primes it's going to be a mix of modern and classic lenses. The nikon files seem to be less contrasty out of camera and somewhat washed out and require heavy processing to get them the way I want.

Personally, while I really like the Nikon just for the features of the body. The overall experience of final images and lenses offered is leaning me heavily toward the Canon.

 

[gavinlg]

Great summary. Do your points about the 5D2, particularly about the inteface simplicity and color and tones of the files apply to the original 5D as well? Been thinking about buying one.

Yes, the 5d1 and 5d2 are very similar in how they render tones and color. Interface and UI is almost exactly the same too. I'm personally going to wait till the next version (supposedly due out this year) before upgrading my 5d1 - It's still amongst the top as far as IQ is concerned, and I'm in no rush to upgrade which is a testament to it as a working tool.

 

[willie_901]

If you value fast, accurate auto focus operation get the D700.

If you value more megapixels are better, get the 5DMKII.