Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II

Hello guys,

I've been reading lots of places about this dilema that I have right now. I have a Nikon D300 and want to change to full-frame so my choices are the D700 or the Canon 5D Mark II. I've seen that Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon's so thats one of the things I like about getting the 5D MKII... the other thing is the 21MP from de 5DMKII but the AF is not as good as the D700...

My two options are:

Nikon D700 with Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8
Canon 5D Mark II with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8

Need to read opinions to help me decide what to do... thanks!

Have you taken advantage of the D300's AF and would you continue to take advantage of the AF of the D700? If you would then that's your best choice. If not, the 5D2 is an amazing camera and you'd be more than happy with it, I think.

I love my 5DII.

But for you, stick with Nikon. The D300 and D700 combo is pretty nice apparently. I doubt you'll really need more than 12MP too. In fact a lot of the time I keep my 5DII in sRAW1 mode (10MP).

Didn't expect that on a Canon forum did ya?!

I agree with "the moose".... the only REAL reason to buy the D700 over the 5D Mark II is the AF of the D700. If you think you NEED the AF system of the D700 then get the D700..... if you dont then, well, get the 5D Mark II

Simple!

Thanks guys

Well, I shot landscapes, models and food most of the time. I guess that I won't be needing Nikon's AF over Canon's... The only thing pulling me to get the Canon is the 21mp over the 12.1mp from the D700.

I think the AF of the 5dm2 is pretty deadly, 51 AF points on the d700 but you only use one at a time and the 5D2 has 9 + 16 assistance AF points to those 9. Though low fps but if you're considering going FF you're not really wanting a sports cam anyway (why not a 7D for half the price or a d300 for under a grand?).

After 12 mp it doesn't matter. I have been shooting in SRAW for a long time on my 5D2 (10.1 mpx) and my most recent print sale was a 30x70"....no problems.

21 is good for people who are doing high end commercial work, or high end fine art...I guess I fall in that category too but generally you're not going to see it yourself, off hand. Cropability is another thing too.

Karl, dude, he has a CROP camera for the cropability. LOL

Seriously though, it is sorta handy to have 21MP at times. You can shoot a bit wider and let the client crop (or you could crop yourself I guess).

It turns a 16-35mm lens into a 16-50mm if you shoot 21MP that is.

HOWEVER, if you're getting it for landscapes, I can't see why you'd want to swap systems. You can use the Nikon 14-24.

So 21MP is really not necessary... With 12MP is all you may need

Karl Johnston wrote in post #9105782
I think the AF of the 5dm2 is pretty deadly, 51 AF points on the d700 but you only use one at a time and the 5D2 has 9 + 16 assistance AF points to those 9. Though low fps but if you're considering going FF you're not really wanting a sports cam anyway (why not a 7D for half the price or a d300 for under a grand?).

After 12 mp it doesn't matter. I have been shooting in SRAW for a long time on my 5D2 (10.1 mpx) and my most recent print sale was a 30x70"....no problems.

21 is good for people who are doing high end commercial work, or high end fine art...I guess I fall in that category too but generally you're not going to see it yourself, off hand. Cropability is another thing too.

and what Karl says.... I think people make the AF system of the 5D Mark II seem "incapable" by way of describing that its slow and what not.... really when its not bad at all.... its a very "capable" AF system..... it just falls short when you "compare" it to other higher end AF systems out there.... thats all.... I think a Canon 5D Mark II is in your near future (im a psychic....... NOT, lol).... no seriously though, given what you said you would be using the camera for in your last post get the Canon 5D Mark II IMO.

oh and just checked out your site and pictures on it.... first off, nice work and secondly, love the lower angle shot of the Roush front end with the procharger on there (although not a fan of the headlight splitters).... i have a s197 myself!

JayStar86 wrote in post #9105848
oh and just checked out your site and pictures on it.... first off, nice work and secondly, love the lower angle shot of the Roush front end with the procharger on there (although not a fan of the headlight splitters).... i have a s197 myself!

Thanks for checking out my site... Are you talking about the Mustang photo?

Soto wrote in post #9105812
So 21MP is really not necessary... With 12MP is all you may need

Depends on how large you'll need to print right?!

I've taken pictures that have ended up very large (bill board size) and on a wall that's very close to people (go into the YMCA in Hong Kong and check out the rocks/water picture that's on one of the walls, that's my photo). Even then 21MP wasn't big enough (because of how close people would be to it) so the company that did it (the printing), put of a sort of brush effect that makes it a little less realistic, but better to look at up close.

HOWEVER, normally I don't print larger than A3 so 12MP would be fine.

According to an online MP calculator. 12MP can get you the following print sizes:
72dpi 59.1" (1,501mm) 39.3" (999mm) screen resolution
photo 28.4" (721mm) 18.9" (480mm) normal photo print
300dpi 14.2" (360mm) 9.4" (240mm) hi-res print (this is a little less than A3+ size I think)


21MP will get you this:
72dpi 78.0" (1,981mm) 52.0" (1,321mm) screen resolution
photo 37.4" (951mm) 25.0" (634mm) normal photo print
300dpi 18.7" (475mm) 12.5" (317mm) hi-res print (this is a little more than A3+ size I think)

21MP is actually just a little larger and in real life probably not all that much difference. Like Karl said, unless you're doing high end sorta stuff it's not really necessary.

I dont print large photos so I guess that 12MP is ok... What I do I lot is take photos for magazines

Soto wrote in post #9105899
I dont print large photos so I guess that 12MP is ok... What I do I lot is take photos for magazines

Were they happy with the sizes before? If so, stick with Nikon.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 5DII and wouldn't swap it for a D700. I just think the D700 is a fine camera too (IQ is basically the same, especially at low ISO settings).

How many Nikon lenses do you own? If you've invested a lot in glass definitely stick with Nikon.

If you haven't you could change to a 5DII more easily. If you want to keep your D300 too, then definitely stick with Nikon.

IMHO you should either make a clean swap to Canon, or keep within the Nikon system

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9105913
How many Nikon lenses do you own? If you've invested a lot in glass definitely stick with Nikon.

If you haven't you could change to a 5DII more easily. If you want to keep your D300 too, then definitely stick with Nikon.

IMHO you should either make a clean swap to Canon, or keep within the Nikon system

i agree with this 100%. If you have a lot of $$$ invested into Nikon lenses and gear that is Nikon only compatible then dont switch IMO.... get the D700 and be happy (you would be on the dark side av-course lol, j/k!)

If you dont have much invested into gear and lenses that are Nikon only.... then get the 5D Mark II. And if you do make the switch... then ditch the D300 too and get a Canon backup that is equivalent (say Canon 7D, 50D).... although I dont know what your plans were with regards to your D300 once you got a FF camera..... point is either go all Canon or all Nikon.... and if youve got a lot of dough$$$ into Nikon compatible gear then get the D700

^^^^ This is the most unbiased opinions your ever going to receive on a Canon forum about Nikon stuff, lol.

And yes i was talking about the Mustang on your site.