Please convince me! Canon 5D2 or Nikon D700

Canon 5d2 or *points to the door* You'll have to leave this forum

Kajuah wrote in post #7036135
Canon 5d2 or *points to the door* You'll have to leave this forum

You going to slap him with the ruler across the knuckles?

Poe wrote in post #7035913
I need to be convinced on one of these cameras! From what I read, they seem equal in terms of ISO performance, but not sure about handling. I don't know which one I should go after and I need your help to tell me which one to get and why.

I've used the D700 a few times, and I own a 5D Mark II.

They are both excellent cameras, so either way you go, you'll get a camera that will perform very well.

I don't think you can compare these cameras, and answer the "which is better" question. Instead, you can answer the "which is better for me" based on what I'm about to say.

These two cameras are designed for different uses in my opinion. The D700 is ideal for photojournalism and sports, whereas the 5D Mark II is ideal for landscapes and stills. They both offer exceptional high ISO and low-light performance, and the image quality on both cameras is excellent.

With the 5D Mark II, you get 21 megapixels which is great if you print, or plan to print, some large sizes. Like 16x20"+. The higher pixel count also gives you a better cropping ability. With the D700, you can definitely print as big as you could with the 5D Mark II, and if you stand around 2ft away from the print, prints from both cameras will look identical. It's when you look up close to the print that you start to notice the difference in detail and sharpness. This is where the 21 vs. 12 megapixels comes into play.

With the D700, you get 5fps out of the box, and 8fps with the optional MB-D10 battery grip. The 5D Mark II shoots at a maximum of 3.9fps, which can't be increased.

In addition to the FPS, the D700 features a more "sophisticated" AF system. This and the FPS make the D700 an ideal camera for news/action. The AF technology behind the Mark II is great for landscapes and still life. Studio, portraits, landscapes, they don't require 51 AF points. At the same time, it's arguable to say that action photographers don't need 51 AF points either.

Although the 3.9fps may sound really slow and weak, it's not as bad as you might think. One of the main types of photography that I like to do is HDR, which requires bracketing photos. The 3.9fps is fast enough for me to be able to hand-hold a 3 frame bracketing sequence (i.e. -2, 0, +2) without camera movement.

There's also HD video recording too. I'm sure you've seen videos from YouTube and/or Vimeo which show the cameras video quality.

Anyways, all of this isn't exactly necessary. Like everyone has said, go and test the cameras out for yourself. See which one feels and functions better for you, and take some sample images to compare the image quality for yourself.

The lens line-up from both Canon and Nikon should also be considered. They both offer a strong line-up, but you might like some Nikon glass more than you like some Canon glass, or vice versa.

Good luck, and have fun.

Very nice write-up A.C. Thanks for taking the time to compare and contrast the two and then share the results with us .

A.C. wrote in post #7036220
I've used the D700 a few times, and I own a 5D Mark II.

They are both excellent cameras, so either way you go, you'll get a camera that will perform very well.

I don't think you can compare these cameras, and answer the "which is better" question. Instead, you can answer the "which is better for me" based on what I'm about to say.

These two cameras are designed for different uses in my opinion. The D700 is ideal for photojournalism and sports, whereas the 5D Mark II is ideal for landscapes and stills. They both offer exceptional high ISO and low-light performance, and the image quality on both cameras is excellent.

Do you base that on the FPS being faster for the D700 than the 5D2?

For now, I'd only be working on an Epson 3800 and 4800 which only accepts paper with a width of 17", so print sizes would be limited to about 16" on one dimension. Since the 4800 takes roll paper, the length could be anything I want, but I'd probably stick to something like 16 x 24.

I do like that the D700 is 5FPS and can be increased with the optional grip.

I read that the 5D2 has a wider range for bracketing. I can see myself getting into HDR landscape/still photography.

One of the disappointments to me is that the 5D2 doesn't have it's AF points more spread out on the viewfinder. They were kept bunched towards the middle in a weird diamond pattern. I would have prefered something like my Rebel XT only extended. Does the D700 fit this?

This looks like a fun option but isn't a deal breaker to me.

I have held the D700 and the 50D (the store didn't have any 5D or 5D2s at the time). The D700 looks different as I'm more used to my Rebel XT, but I do like the bigger size of both the D700 and 50D and by extension I should appreciate the larger size of the 5D2.

Yes. Unfortunately this is another place where I am torn. I really like the 70-200 F/4 IS but that Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 looks really sweet. However I'm really looking forward to the Zeiss offerings for Canon. Nikon already has those. I was thinking about just going with the tilt-shift offerings as primes and forgoing anything else for the 24 to 90 mm range. Nikon and Canon seem equally strong here (I could be wrong) but I'm waiting for more sample shots to show up on Pbase.com. I definately want a high quality normal lens, but I'm not impressed with the AF of the Canon 50mm 1.8. And I've read that the 1.4 and 1.2 offerings aren't that much better in terms of wide open IQ. And if I'm getting something like that I want decent performace wide open, which is why I really like the Zeiss 50 2.0 makro, but I'd have to wait for them to release that for Canon when I could get it now for Nikon.

How do the macro lenses compare? Canon seems to have more interesting macro lenses, especially the MPE 65mm one. I like macro photography.

Bubble wrote in post #7035920
why do you want other people to tell you what to get? It is your money after all.

Because I asked.

timnosenzo wrote in post #7036016
I thought it was our choice?

Yeah! It's your choice, not mine!

Familiaphoto wrote in post #7036026
This is a game I don't play...no offense.

Go out hold both and use both. Take some pictures take them home compare and then decide. If we make the decision for you there is little chance you will be happy.

It's just a matter of selling off some of my Canon gear and purchasing some Nikon stuff instead. Not a big deal.

Poe wrote in post #7036389
Because I asked.

don't be lazy. Do the research on your own. Read the review. Use the Search option on each body. Don't count on other people. Canon's fanboy will tell you to buy 5d mk II while nikon fan's boy will tell you to buy D700. And after i read your respond, seem like you already have your answer. Why bother to ask when you already have your choice? this is an old game here. You're not a 5 years old kid that we need to convince you what to buy.

Just a few previous thread regarding your question:

https://photography-on-the.net …arch.php?search​id=5375658

http://search.yahoo.co​m …toggle=1&cop=ms​s&ei=UTF-8

Bubble wrote in post #7036416
don't be lazy. Do the research on your own. Read the review. Use the Search option on each body. Don't count on other people. Canon's fanboy will tell you to buy 5d mk II while nikon fan's boy will tell you to buy D700. And after i read your respond, seem like you already have your answer. Why bother to ask when you already have your choice? this is an old game here. You're not a 5 years old kid that we need to convince you what to buy.

Just a few previous thread regarding your question:

https://photography-on-the.net …arch.php?search​id=5375658

http://search.yahoo.co​m …toggle=1&cop=ms​s&ei=UTF-8

I have been doing my research. And frankly, not much discussion has taken place on this board between these two cameras.

I have my choice? I don't recall making any kind of decision here in this topic. Where did you read that?

Your first link is broken, BTW.

And the 2nd link provides mostly D700 vs 5D reviews or D700 vs 5D2 ISO reviews. I care for none of that. I want camera to camera comparisons. I guess everyone is calls off the debate just on that fact that one is a 12MP camera and the other is a 21MP camera. I'm trying to learn more about the other things that matter such as the handling and features and how they compare between the two.

Well, having owned several Canons, I can give you this experience: I like the D700 for being more customizable than a 5D Classic, similar to a 1D series camera. I am assuming the 5D2 is not terribly different from the Classic, in regards to options and handling. The 5D was an excellent camera, but I do like having the flexability of the D700 and the speed of use (not just FPS-rated speed) in how quickly one can change options and tune the way the buttons work to the user's liking. Some of the things that I worried about with the D700 (ergonomically) are turning out to be a function of familiarity. I'd say picking either is win, and the glass options may make your decision for you.

I agree with you A.C on your post in all but this:

A.C. wrote in post #7036220
I've used the D700 a few times, and I own a 5D Mark II.
With the 5D Mark II, you get 21 megapixels which is great if you print, or plan to print, some large sizes. Like 16x20"+. The higher pixel count also gives you a better cropping ability. With the D700, you can definitely print as big as you could with the 5D Mark II, and if you stand around 2ft away from the print, prints from both cameras will look identical. It's when you look up close to the print that you start to notice the difference in detail and sharpness. This is where the 21 vs. 12 megapixels comes into play.

Yeah but...nobody pixel peeps a print, and the difference is so marginal it doesn't make a difference when making a print above something as small as 16x20, maybe not even until 40x60 or larger still. For years photographer's used no more than 10, and it's arguable you don't need more than that even now. Better sharpness and detail on a 5D mark II is insubstantially claimed compared to a d700, or vise versa, there's way too many factors to even consider this an arguement.

OP: Make your own decisions.

Poe wrote in post #7036478
I have been doing my research. And frankly, not much discussion has taken place on this board between these two cameras.

I have my choice? I don't recall making any kind of decision here in this topic. Where did you read that?

Your first link is broken, BTW.

And the 2nd link provides mostly D700 vs 5D reviews or D700 vs 5D2 ISO reviews. I care for none of that. I want camera to camera comparisons. I guess everyone is calls off the debate just on that fact that one is a 12MP camera and the other is a 21MP camera. I'm trying to learn more about the other things that matter such as the handling and features and how they compare between the two.

This forum is not the only place that has comparison reviews between Nikon and Canon.

Honestly, I thought it was also a bit lazy asking others to do the research for you. But I guess that's only because I would only request feedback and make the real decision by doing a lot of research of my own.

I know we are all here as a resource. But I think a lot of opinions on a Canon forum will be biased.

Poe wrote in post #7036386
Do you base that on the FPS being faster for the D700 than the 5D2?

Comparing the two cameras specifications, the D700's AF and FPS technology leans more towards the photojournalism and action/sports scene. That's why I say that it would most likely perform better/faster in those specific fields than the 5D Mark II.


For now, I'd only be working on an Epson 3800 and 4800 which only accepts paper with a width of 17", so print sizes would be limited to about 16" on one dimension. Since the 4800 takes roll paper, the length could be anything I want, but I'd probably stick to something like 16 x 24.

Then if you take two identical photos, one with the D700 and one with the 5D Mark II, and you put them on the wall and step back about 2ft away, they will most likely look exactly the same. If you put them on the wall and look at them up close, side by side, you will most likely see that the detail/color rendition, and overall sharpness will be better on the 5D Mark II than on the D700.

I do like that the D700 is 5FPS and can be increased with the optional grip.

Me too.

I read that the 5D2 has a wider range for bracketing. I can see myself getting into HDR landscape/still photography.

The D700 actually has a wider range for bracketing. The D700 can let you go up to -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 all in one sequence. Or just -5, 0, +5 in one sequence. The 5D Mark II can only do -2, 0, +2 in one sequence, but can also be expanded to -4/+4. But you could only bracket -4, -2, 0. Or 0, +2, +4 in one sequence. Not -4, 0, +4 in one sequence.

One of the disappointments to me is that the 5D2 doesn't have it's AF points more spread out on the viewfinder. They were kept bunched towards the middle in a weird diamond pattern. I would have prefered something like my Rebel XT only extended. Does the D700 fit this?

This is what the AF spread on the D700 pretty much looks like.

This looks like a fun option but isn't a deal breaker to me.

Video is fun to shoot, and could let you see photography in a different way. Through panning, and/or adjusting depth of field on a specific subject.

I have held the D700 and the 50D (the store didn't have any 5D or 5D2s at the time). The D700 looks different as I'm more used to my Rebel XT, but I do like the bigger size of both the D700 and 50D and by extension I should appreciate the larger size of the 5D2.

The 5D Mark II is slightly heavier than the 50D, otherwise the feel, grip wise, is very close if I remember correctly.

Yes. Unfortunately this is another place where I am torn. I really like the 70-200 F/4 IS but that Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 looks really sweet. However I'm really looking forward to the Zeiss offerings for Canon. Nikon already has those. I was thinking about just going with the tilt-shift offerings as primes and forgoing anything else for the 24 to 90 mm range. Nikon and Canon seem equally strong here (I could be wrong) but I'm waiting for more sample shots to show up on Pbase.com. I definately want a high quality normal lens, but I'm not impressed with the AF of the Canon 50mm 1.8. And I've read that the 1.4 and 1.2 offerings aren't that much better in terms of wide open IQ. And if I'm getting something like that I want decent performace wide open, which is why I really like the Zeiss 50 2.0 makro, but I'd have to wait for them to release that for Canon when I could get it now for Nikon.

14-24 is an outstanding lens. I got a chance to use one a few times. But the range is very limited, and I see it only as a special purpose lens. On full frame, 24mm is standard wide. 24mm on a Full Frame is like 15mm on your XT, quite wide. Both Canon and Nikon make great lenses. I just find that the Canon line-up is a bit more versatile than the Nikon. As far as primes are concerned, I'll be honest and say that I haven't had enough experience with Nikon primes to give a valid opinion on how they compare with Canon.

How do the macro lenses compare? Canon seems to have more interesting macro lenses, especially the MPE 65mm one. I like macro photography.

Nikon has some good Macro lenses, Canon has good macro lenses.

Nikons:
105mm f/2.8D
60mm f/2.8D
105mm f/2.8 VR

Canons:
100mm f/2.8 USM
180mm f/3.5L USM
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x (like you said)

I haven't used any of them except the 100 f/2.8, so someone else can answer more specific macro lens related questions.

^My responses are in Royal Blue and bolded...

RandyMN wrote in post #7036561
This forum is not the only place that has comparison reviews bewteen Nikon and Canon.

Honestly, I thought it was also a bit lazy asking others to do the research for you. But I guess that's only because I would only request feedback and make the real decision by doing a lot of research of my own.

I know we are all here as a resource. But I think a lot of opinions on a Canon forum will be biased.

If anything, a person should only be replying if they've had experience with both cameras instead of trying to add snippy comments as can me seen on the first page. I don't think it's lazy to get feedback from users.

And the one link I found on luminous landscapes, the author of that article ends up prefering the Sony A900 better than either the 5D2 or the D700. Now I won't go with Sony because their lens selection as well as the 3rd party lens maker selection is severly lacking compared to Canon or Nikon (I know because my brother has an A350 and I was looking to buy him a lens this past Christmas).