5D classic to D700

T

twist

Messages
17,878
Edit My Images
No
Thinking of getting a D700 but before I do I need to know some decent replacement lenses for what I have currently to figure out a budget.

My first lens is a 24-105 L, only thing I can find to replace that would be a 24-70. I also have a 70-300 but can get that in Nikon mount so thats not an issue. Would the Nikon 85 1.8 be a decent replacement for my 85 1.8 usm?

Also, is the D700 that much better or would I be better off sticking with what Ive got? I mainly take portrait and landscape, not many moving subjects.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Easy answer is get a Canon 5D2 - arguably the best portrait/landscape camera anywhere.

D700 is a fanstatic camera, and beats the Canon for fast action shooting, but overall the Canon's sensor has the edge. Plus it'll cost you a rocket to swap all those lenses too.
 
Yeah they're different cameras really. The D700 is a great 'general purpose' FF body whilst the Canon is better for studio/landscape/wedding work.
 
for portrait and landscape the 5DMk2 is a better camera.

The D700 is better suited to action and low-light in comparison to the 5D2.

If you did make the swap, the Nikkor 24-120 or 28-300 would replace your 24-105 and yes the 85 1.8 would be okay but it will be motor driven i.e. really noisy.

Save your money and focus either on a 5D2 or upgrading your glass e.g. 85L
 
If you're not often shooting moving subjects, there isn't really any reason to go for the D700 over the 5DII, unless you fancy some of nikon's lenses or have decided you prefer nikon's ergonomics (or for some reason need a pop-up flash :D).

I wouldn't imagine the nikkor 85 f/1.8 is that noisy, I've got a friend who uses an 80-400 (motor driven) on a D300 and the noise on that is far from bad (you can definitely hear it, but it's not disturbing to be sitting in a hide next to it), and that's gotta move a lot more elements than on the 85.
 
Last edited:
A quick Google to DXO shows the D700 beating the 5DII by one point to an overall score of 80 v the Canon's 79, and the Nikon scores with a higher DR and better high ISO which are both possibly more important than an overall victory by one point... if these things are to be believed...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Canon

The question I'd be asking myself is "Would changing my camera and / or lenses get me better photo's?"
 
Vertigo1 said:
Yeah they're different cameras really. The D700 is a great 'general purpose' FF body whilst the Canon is better for studio/landscape/wedding work.
Click to expand...

Yet there are quite a few threads here on TP where wedding togs have switched from the Canon to the D700 :shrug:

If any one thing stands out for me with the D700 it's the way it handles high ISO shots. With my D300 I would never have dreamt of going over 1600, with the D700 I'll happily shoot at 5000 and even 6400 still produces very useable images.
 
its a hard one as you have canon gear and it makes sense to go for a 5dmk11 but the d70o is one hell of a camera and the difference in the mp is nothing certainly not twice the detail, the d700 has a far superior af and has a pop up flash and weather sealing, and as flash has said lots of togs on here hav switched to buy the d700 for weddings, and i dont see the 5dmk11 sensor having the edge over the d700.
5dmk11
E5D2INBI00100.jpg

crop
E5D2INBI00100c-1.jpg

d700
D700INBI00100.jpg

croped and upscaled to match the 5d. its not perfect test as it was done by someone else.
D700INBI00100c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the info guys, and the crops, very helpful. Im not sure the move from 5D to 5Dii would be that large an advantage, lenses i have aside it seems the d700 would be a better move as it has much better af, better hi iso performance and some other neat bits. It seems canon definitely has the edge with cheap primes and the superb 70-200 L is.

Ideally I suppose what Im looking for is the d700 but with Canon lenses.
 
twist said:
Ideally I suppose what Im looking for is the d700 but with Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting years for that, and there's still no sign of it. Until it comes I can't see myself buying a new Canon DSLR.

PS. Siggy 85mm f1.4 works very well on my 5D.
 
Last edited:
24-70 is like 100+ more than the canon, 24-120 is way more than a 24-105 and i read its not as good, the 70-300 looks good value and the 70-200 vr is supposed to be worse than the canon equivalent. Im pretty happy with the 85 1.8 but again the canons meant to have a slight edge on the nikon, if i want better i need to look at the 1.4 for more than double the price.

Just seems Nikon lenses are overpriced but the bodys are priced well or atleast on par.
 
twist said:
Just seems Nikon lenses are overpriced but the bodys are priced well or atleast on par.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, the cases where nikon lenses are more expensive are usually the one's where they also have an edge in quality over the canons.
Where canon has an edge in quality (like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II), they tend to cost more than the nikon counterparts.
 
A used 70-200 is is 1000, so is the vr. Thought i saw something regarding the vr2 not quite being a true 200mm?

Flash- pretty much most reviews say the canon 70-200 lenses are better than the nikons. Surely that doesnt mean the nikon bodys are at fault but more to do with the optics?

Just seems the nikon body is superior, but lenses are more expensive for very slightly worse quality, so what you gain in camera functions you lose in optical quality vs price. Very annoying but i guess there cant be a clear winner.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
A used 70-200 is is 1000, so is the vr. Thought i saw something regarding the vr2 not quite being a true 200mm?

Flash- pretty much most reviews say the canon 70-200 lenses are better than the nikons. Surely that doesnt mean the nikon bodys are at fault but more to do with the optics?
Click to expand...

You'd need to point them out to me, I've done a Google and I can't find any that aren't on Canon fan sites. As I said though, as you can't swap the lenses between the brands (I realise you you can get adapters to fit Nikon lenses to Canon bodies), it's a moot point.....
 
See the above posters flash, they agree.

i do understand its a moot point, just a pity each brand has its pitfalls, if nikon took the prices of their lenses down slightly im sure theyd sell a lot more gear and that wouldnt involve r&d like for canon to improve their body.
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
Where? I can't see anyone offering evidence that one is better than the other, and you neatly sidestepped the question of where the reviews you were referring to were.....;)
Click to expand...

No sidestepping, im not putting the lens down just saying from what ive read the canons got a slight edge. Im not knocking canon or nikon, remember im trying to choose one or the other. Go on the web and have a look, people on here have already agreed so no need to be so defensive.
 
Always do take them with a pinch of salt, im pretty sure I wouldnt notice the difference anyway between 2 such great lenses. But what I do notice is price differences for the specific lens equivalents I would use.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
No sidestepping, im not putting the lens down just saying from what ive read the canons got a slight edge. Im not knocking canon or nikon, remember im trying to choose one or the other. Go on the web and have a look, people on here have already agreed so no need to be so defensive.
Click to expand...

I'm not being defensive, it's just that you said "pretty much most reviews" and "See the above posters flash, they agree", but I can't see any of the posters above saying that one lens is better than the other, nor can I find any reviews that say that either :shrug:
 
Seriously, people get far too hung up on gear. If you are looking to upgrade your (very good) 5D classic, the 5dmk2 is an amazing camera and produces stunning images with good glass and the D700 is an amazing camera and produces stunning images with good glass.

Your choice isn't really that much of a choice as both cameras are amazing, its which system you wish to use that is more the choice. I prefer Nikon for the ergonomics of the body as it suits my shooting style, but I would love to also have a 5dmk2 in my bag with some cracking canon glass, especially for the video ;)

Neither camera will make you take better photographs, so I would only consider upgrading if you are pushing the limits of your 5D classic (which if you really looked at it, I would seriously doubt it). ;)

Oh, and pixel peeping to see which 70-200 has the best IQ, canon or nikon? seriously, just get out and shoot, they are both amazing.

p.s. I passed my Associateship using a Canon 20D with a Sigma 10-20, when printed out and mounted the assessors were shocked when I told them what gear I was using.
 
Last edited:
jamesoliverstone said:
Oh, and pixel peeping to see which 70-200 has the best IQ, canon or nikon? seriously, just get out and shoot, they are both amazing.
Click to expand...

Outstanding statement...............:clap:
 
Ill quote a bit then as you seemed to have missed them...

Where canon has an edge in quality (like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II), they tend to cost more than the nikon counterparts. "Pretty much the same price"

The vr2 is not 200mm at close focusing due to focus breathing, and the nikon 70-200mm vr is a cracking lens might not be quite up to the new canon 70-200mm but i bet there is nothing init before that. "If the Canon can do 200mm at closer focussing why cant the Nikon, more interested than anything else"

DPReview gives Canon the slight edge.
 
twist said:
Ill quote a bit then as you seemed to have missed them...

Where canon has an edge in quality (like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II), they tend to cost more than the nikon counterparts. "Pretty much the same price"

The vr2 is not 200mm at close focusing due to focus breathing, and the nikon 70-200mm vr is a cracking lens might not be quite up to the new canon 70-200mm but i bet there is nothing init before that. "If the Canon can do 200mm at closer focussing why cant the Nikon, more interested than anything else"

DPReview gives Canon the slight edge.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly say either of those were conclusive reviews, they're just opinions.....
 
That may well be true, but the real question should be "does any of this stuff mean anything in the field, or in real world situations?"

My answer would be no.

I am not trying to be argumentative about it, just trying to say that all of this in depth pixel peeping, brand loyalty from fanboys and techno waffle from DPreview etc. means nothing really when you just get out and use your gear properly.

If you are a good photographer who knows how to use photographic equipment properly, you would take just as good a picture with a modern consumer level DSLR as you will with top of the line pro gear.

If however you were comparing a D700 to a Phase One, it would be a different discussion altogether. :)
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Seriously, people get far too hung up on gear. If you are looking to upgrade your (very good) 5D classic, the 5dmk2 is an amazing camera and produces stunning images with good glass and the D700 is an amazing camera and produces stunning images with good glass.

Your choice isn't really that much of a choice as both cameras are amazing, its which system you wish to use that is more the choice. I prefer Nikon for the ergonomics of the body as it suits my shooting style, but I would love to also have a 5dmk2 in my bag with some cracking canon glass, especially for the video ;)

Neither camera will make you take better photographs, so I would only consider upgrading if you are pushing the limits of your 5D classic (which if you really looked at it, I would seriously doubt it). ;)

Oh, and pixel peeping to see which 70-200 has the best IQ, canon or nikon? seriously, just get out and shoot, they are both amazing.

p.s. I passed my Associateship using a Canon 20D with a Sigma 10-20, when printed out and mounted the assessors were shocked when I told them what gear I was using.
Click to expand...


I understand how good they both are, as stated before all Im saying is each system has pitfalls, which is why Im not sure which to go for, think the 70-200 thing just took over the initial discussion.

Okay, so theyre both great cameras but given a budget as most, its either get the better body (D700) for the same amount as a 5D2 and reap the benfits of the camera functions or get the 5D2 and ever so slighty better lenses that suit MY type of shooting.

Again, in my case im stuffed, as the Nikon body seems best but I prefer the Canon lenses. Really not getting into brand loyalties just looking at whats best at a given budget vs camera vs lens. I really dont care what name it has as Ive used them all and come to the same conclusion each time at different budgets.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
as graham says that only my opinion as i have only used the nikons and have only seen very good reviews of the canon saying just how good it is.
but in the real world who nos.
Click to expand...

I wasn't demeaning your opinion, Scott, I haven't shot with the Canon lens either, however I'm in the same camp as James when it comes to the ergonomics, when I tried a 5D (because I really like the iq of images I've seen from them) I just couldn't get on with how the camera felt in the hand.

To the op, you'd really be advise to go and try one in a shop before planning any sort of move, just in case you find the Canon layout suits you better.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
To the op, you'd really be advise to go and try one in a shop before planning any sort of move, just in case you find the Canon layout suits you better.
Click to expand...

This.

Honestly, don't get hung up on which is better. And to be honest, its a question that no one can answer but you as its just too subjective.
 
scottthehat said:
its a hard one as you have canon gear and it makes sense to go for a 5dmk11 but the d70o is one hell of a camera and the difference in the mp is nothing certainly not twice the detail, the d700 has a far superior af and has a pop up flash and weather sealing, and as flash has said lots of togs on here hav switched to buy the d700 for weddings, and i dont see the 5dmk11 sensor having the edge over the d700.
5dmk11
E5D2INBI00100.jpg


<snip>
Click to expand...

Wine spiked?
 
Thanks Graham, really dont want to debate to much as I value your opinion as Id like both Canon and Nikon opinions as this helps alot.

Ive always much preferred Nikon ergonomics etc. I started out with Nikon, then Sony, then Canon and now still prefer the Nikon layout and build quality especially of the D700 compared to the Canon equivalents having tried one. This is highly debatable and I understand that as each individual has their own likes/dislikes.

What I have noticed is each system has downfalls, when moving to FF I always knew Sony wouldnt be my ultimate choice as they make pretty good entry level stuff at good value but cant really compare with Canikon when it comes to top end cameras.

I really want the D700 as it has clear benefits over the Canon body, but the lenses are holding me back as it means spending even more. Perhaps I should scrap the 85mm and just get the 24-70 and 70-300 as that would even out my budget a bit.
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
I wasn't demeaning your opinion, Scott, I haven't shot with the Canon lens either, however I'm in the same camp as James when it comes to the ergonomics, when I tried a 5D (because I really like the iq of images I've seen from them) I just couldn't get on with how the camera felt in the hand.

To the op, you'd really be advise to go and try one in a shop before planning any sort of move, just in case you find the Canon layout suits you better.
Click to expand...
no probs graham, as saidwist go try both, its your money and you might not like the d700.
 
twist said:
Perhaps I should scrap the 85mm and just get the 24-70 and 70-300 as that would even out my budget a bit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get the 70-300 VR, it's a consumer grade lens, when I swapped from it on my D80 I was amazed at how much better the iq of the 80-200 f/2.8 (well worth considering, at around £500-550 s/h) was.
 
Thanks perhaps its better to have a look at the 80-200, not being used to shooting at such hi ISO levels I tend to favour the IS/VR models. I wont really use the tele so much so thought for the odd long shot a cheap long lens may do.

I wouldnt touch a Sigma 70-200 again, had 3-4 copies in various mounts, one went in for calibration and was pretty good but not even close to my Minolta 80-200 wide open. Now Id prefer to stick to big name lenses and a couple Tamrons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top