Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II

I can't wait to see the UPS truck in front of my house...

If I could do it all over again, I'd go Nikon all the way. I have a 5D2, and it's not the greatest camera. I prefer my 50D. I just can't seem to control shadow noise with the 5D, it's almost unbearable.

fly my pretties wrote in post #9776106
If I could do it all over again, I'd go Nikon all the way. I have a 5D2, and it's not the greatest camera. I prefer my 50D. I just can't seem to control shadow noise with the 5D, it's almost unbearable.

So in your opinion the 5DMKII is not as good as the D700 in low light or noise performance?

JayStar86 wrote in post #9105746
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!

Agreed

I still have this weekend to click the buy button and I see more people saying get the Nikon D700 than the D5MKII in a Canon forum... interesting!

There is another detail of me going to Canon... the nikon lens lineup doesn't have a lens like the MP-E65 and I love to shoot macro.

Depends on what you shoot, if you shoot moving objects D700 is better than 5D II. Canon has better lens line up for now.

Soto wrote in post #9776174
I still have this weekend to click the buy button and I see more people saying get the Nikon D700 than the D5MKII in a Canon forum... interesting!

maverick678 wrote in post #9776366
Depends on what you shoot, if you shoot moving objects D700 is better than 5D II. Canon has better lens line up for now.

That's right!... and for what I do I think it would be better the 5DMKII

Then you make the right choice. In addition if 5D III comes up with 7D AF then the D700 advantage will be over. I'll be back to Canon camp 100%.

Soto wrote in post #9776535
That's right!... and for what I do I think it would be better the 5DMKII

Soto wrote in post #9776148
So in your opinion the 5DMKII is not as good as the D700 in low light or noise performance?

I'm just one guy man, I think with things of this expense you really have to be careful taking one persons opinion. But even in studio conditions when I'm shooting with my 5D2, if I have to push the exposure in post production anymore than 1/2 stop, I can see pattern noise creeping into the shadows. Beyond 1 stop and it's unbearable.

All in all I'm pretty disappointed with my 5D2. I was absolutely blown away by my 50D, and while the 5D is a good camera, it just falls short when I factor in how much I paid for it.

I'm still not clear on exactly what it is you are looking to get out of your move to FF. Better high-ISO results? Perhaps a little bit more on the wide end? A chance to maybe save some money on future glass?

From what I can tell, I'd go with the Nikon. Honestly, I don't know what you have for glass, but I'd maybe even rent a 17-55 f/2.8. If you haven't shot with it on your D300, then you are missing out BIGTIME. I might as well glue mine onto my D300. I'll take it off for some macro stuff, when I'm trying to be inconspicuous, or when I need to go to f/1.8 or faster, and that is really it. It is definitely my workhorse lens. Before you swap, you should really look into glass. I have 3 pieces of DX glass that I actually love. My Sigma 10-20, my 35mm, and my 17-55. Granted, most DX glass is not the best stuff out there, but there are exceptions.

If you want better skin tones SOOC, then Canon for sure. If you want to shoot landscapes, Nikon glass all the way. I've seen photographers adapt Nikon glass to their Canon bodies to shoot landscapes. If you like primes, Canon. if you like zooms, Nikon. If you use AF, Nikon. If not, Canon.

I've been pondering a move to Canon for the 5Dmkii as well, but I just don't know if it is worth it for me at this point in time. For now, I'm trying to just spend more time shooting with both systems, and will see how it goes.

Bit extreme there on the generalisations; Canon's AF works just fine for most everything. In landscape land, the best ultrawide zoom anyone, anywhere makes is a Nikon, and thanks to Canon's modern mound (and Nikon's small, old-fashioned one) someone figured out a way to adapt it. As well as to adapt old nikon MF, Contax Zeiss, some Minolta, some Olympus...basically, if you like shooting alternative, MF glass, get a Canon. I also think the basic zooms lineup (particlar the F4L, IS stuff) is a bargain with Canon. Bodies come and go, the glass stays, and I like the Canon glass I have.

Can't really comment on the sports end of things, since I rarely shoot much in the way of action. When I have done, my 5DII has done OK, and it's hardly the finest AF system in the Canon lineup. The 5DII AF system is plenty good for people and landscape photography, in my experience. Would I mind 'better'? No. Do I need better for 98% of what I shoot? No.

Pretties: I don't find shadow noise a particularly significant issue with the 5DII with good post-processing; it's there to slightly too great a degree in some instances, yes, but it's a wash in print sizes up to stupid big, which is all that really matters to me. Also, just expose properly in the first place

Well guys... at this point I sold my D300 with the battery grip and what are left are the SB900 and two lenses. I'll be selling them this weekend so pretty soon everything will be gone. What I shot mostly is landscape, food and macro so I know the 5DMKII will be a great choice. I know the D700 is a great camera too but Nikon is getting very expensive lately.

Cool. Hope you dig the 5Dmkii man.

And, in hopes of not receiving a strong internet lashing; yes, I was overly extreme in my generalizations.

mattia wrote in post #9778760
Pretties: I don't find shadow noise a particularly significant issue with the 5DII with good post-processing; it's there to slightly too great a degree in some instances, yes, but it's a wash in print sizes up to stupid big, which is all that really matters to me. Also, just expose properly in the first place

With the money I spend on equipment, any noise is an issue to me, especially when that noise isn't present on an identical shot using a 50D. Where you say it's there "to slightly too great a degree" are the times I'm talking about. Those times are when I wish I'd bought a 1dsIII or a Nikon.