Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II

Well, I don't have many Nikon lenses and the ones I have are DX format so if I get the Nikon D700 I will need to sell them anyway.

Since Canon have les expensive lenses I'm looking that the Canon 5D MKII is the better option for me. Look at these prices...

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - $1,799.95
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 - $1,359.00

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII - $2,399.95
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS - $1,699.95

In almost all the lenses that I'm interested in buying the Nikon version are more expensive. This is something I need to consider before getting into a D700.

honestly .. alot of ppl do hate the 5d2's AF .. but from what i use it for .. its good enough! its not as bad as it seem online and but its not the greatest either .. if you're already comfortable with Nikon, i would stick with it .. paying a hefty price tag for Nikon glass, well .. its worth it to some

They guy I bought my 20D from blessed me with a sweet deal as he had switched to a Nikon D700. I understand that they're pretty awesome. So, if you already have nice Nikon glass, why not continue? (unless you have only DX glass that fit only a cropped camera)

gkarris wrote in post #9107429
They guy I bought my 20D from blessed me with a sweet deal as he had switched to a Nikon D700. I understand that they're pretty awesome. So, if you already have nice Nikon glass, why not continue? (unless you have only DX glass that fit only a cropped camera)

That is my case... I only have two DX lenses

tsw910 wrote in post #9107330
honestly .. alot of ppl do hate the 5d2's AF .. but from what i use it for .. its good enough! its not as bad as it seem online and but its not the greatest either .. if you're already comfortable with Nikon, i would stick with it .. paying a hefty price tag for Nikon glass, well .. its worth it to some

Is the Canon's AF so bad?... I mean, I'm gonna use the Canon for landscape, models and food photography so I don't think I will be needing 3dTracking and 51 AF points

Soto wrote in post #9107463
That is my case... I only have two DX lenses

Soto wrote in post #9107486
Is the Canon's AF so bad?... I mean, I'm gonna use the Canon for landscape, models and food photography so I don't think I will be needing 3dTracking and 51 AF points

I tried a Nikon and didn't like it. You may be prime for like the guy I got my 20D from - able to switch formats.

Maybe rent a Canon body before you buy?

Soto wrote in post #9107486
Is the Canon's AF so bad?... I mean, I'm gonna use the Canon for landscape, models and food photography so I don't think I will be needing 3dTracking and 51 AF points

For me, the 5DII's AF is great, but that's 'cause I started with Pentax . I think for landscapes, models and food, it's great - It tracks my two year old running around well, and large (slow) birds in flight too (see this and the next shot in the gallery, they are in sequence.) For moving subjects, especially in low light, I'm tending to use the center AF point and frame slightly loose (well the loose framing with birds has more to do with too short a lens ), then I can crop a bit to tighten up the composition.

For landscapes and "product shots" on a tripod, I'm loving fine tuning focus manually at 10x magnification in live-view.

although I am a Canon user, I would say this: If you don't need 21MP or video capability, get Nikon D700. For two reasons: 1) you slready own Nikon gears 2)D700 is really a better body, not much, but a little better equiped photographic tools.

Soto wrote in post #9107486
Is the Canon's AF so bad?... I mean, I'm gonna use the Canon for landscape, models and food photography so I don't think I will be needing 3dTracking and 51 AF points

i personally dont think its so bad .. but do wish it "could" be better .. but i still use it and love it

the OP is just gunna get more confused the longer this thread gets, lol, its okay though, more for the OP to think about, lol.

In all honesty it looks like your gunna have to get an all new set of lenses and other gear if and when you get it for your new camera wether it be D700 or 5D Mark II.

So that gets the whole "I invested this much into this gear and now its useless" squabble.

This leaves me with a few more questions, are you going to keep a backup body to your FF camera? if so, then your probably just better off once again getting the D700 as you can keep your current D300 as your backup and remain "all Nikon".

If your not gunna be keeping a backup body and only one new FF camera, then you need to decide what your priorities for your type of shooting is:

(in your case so far based on the points you've raised)Is it faster and better AF OR megapixels. Also, consider that if you've never used an EOS camera then your gunna have a learning curve and learn a whole new camera system and how it works. In addition, consider which lens lineup do you like more : Nikon or Canon.

IMO assuming that your gunna sell your D300 I think you should pick up the 5D Mark II for reasons that a) Canon lens are cheaper b) For your purposes the 5D Mark II IMO is a better camera and c) the Canon looks better

On the other hand if your gunna be keeping your D300 then get the D700 and stay all Nikon for the sake of compatibility and simplicity and enjoy the insane AF on the D700, lol.

Just know either way you go your getting a pretty awesome camera.

how important is high ISO to you?

Initially when I switched over to nikon last year, I was debating on this same issue.

I found that I needed good AF in low light. I also wanted clean high iso. For me, the D700 cleans up with a minimal NR (and I mean so minimal that I made a lower preset than default to clean up my shots on high iso). The examples I saw of the 5D2 high iso shots showed a lot of chroma noise that, imo does not clean up well. (this doesn't include the weird pattern noise it does at high iso)

While I think the 5D2 has very nice IQ on the mid to lower iso's I'm just not a fan of the higher.

oh one other point that could be significant...how much do you use wide prime lenses...nikon cannot compete with canon in this area. In fact, their closest nice prime (to canon's) is the 85 1.4 and it's still not in the same league as the 85 1.2. So thinking about the type of lenses you use (as well as the cost) is important as well.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9109643
the OP is just gunna get more confused the longer this thread gets, lol, its okay though, more for the OP to think about, lol.

In all honesty it looks like your gunna have to get an all new set of lenses and other gear if and when you get it for your new camera wether it be D700 or 5D Mark II.

So that gets the whole "I invested this much into this gear and now its useless" squabble.

This leaves me with a few more questions, are you going to keep a backup body to your FF camera? if so, then your probably just better off once again getting the D700 as you can keep your current D300 as your backup and remain "all Nikon".

If your not gunna be keeping a backup body and only one new FF camera, then you need to decide what your priorities for your type of shooting is:

(in your case so far based on the points you've raised)Is it faster and better AF OR megapixels. Also, consider that if you've never used an EOS camera then your gunna have a learning curve and learn a whole new camera system and how it works. In addition, consider which lens lineup do you like more : Nikon or Canon.

IMO assuming that your gunna sell your D300 I think you should pick up the 5D Mark II for reasons that a) Canon lens are cheaper b) For your purposes the 5D Mark II IMO is a better camera and c) the Canon looks better

On the other hand if your gunna be keeping your D300 then get the D700 and stay all Nikon for the sake of compatibility and simplicity and enjoy the insane AF on the D700, lol.

Just know either way you go your getting a pretty awesome camera.

Hello... I will be selling my D300 to purshase the Canon or the D700. I'm going to stay with ony one camera. If I decide to get the D700 I'm gonna stay with the Nikon SB900 and the Battery Pack since it's the same. Thanks for the comments... they really help

Permagrin wrote in post #9109670
how important is high ISO to you?

Initially when I switched over to nikon last year, I was debating on this same issue.

I found that I needed good AF in low light. I also wanted clean high iso. For me, the D700 cleans up with a minimal NR (and I mean so minimal that I made a lower preset than default to clean up my shots on high iso). The examples I saw of the 5D2 high iso shots showed a lot of chroma noise that, imo does not clean up well. (this doesn't include the weird pattern noise it does at high iso)

While I think the 5D2 has very nice IQ on the mid to lower iso's I'm just not a fan of the higher.

ISO es important since I take photos of acticities from time to time and they are not all the time during daylight. I heard the D700 has great ISO performance so thats one point to the Nikon body.

Soto wrote in post #9110083
Hello... I will be selling my D300 to purshase the Canon or the D700. I'm going to stay with ony one camera. If I decide to get the D700 I'm gonna stay with the Nikon SB900 and the Battery Pack since it's the same. Thanks for the comments... they really help

If your gunna sell the D300.... then get the Canon simply for the reason that Canon has better and cheaper lenses over the Nikon lineup IMO.

Good luck deciding from here on in!

What about the performance between the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

Those are the lenses I will be using with the one I choose