Apologies in advance - 5D Mk II or D700

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
As stated in the title - Apologies if this twangs the strings of Canon V Nikon but it's a genuine question which I feel worthy of asking given my current situation.

I currently own a Canon 40D which I'm more than happy with but I'm now getting cold feet over investing in better glass as to do so would mean making that commitment to Canon.

At present I have a EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens which 'when' I go full frame would be AWOL. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 which is not the most expensive lens to replace and my only other Canon 'fit' lens is the Sigma 10-20.

At the moment I'm thinking about glass rather than cameras but I feel that I should really be thinking ahead.

Prior to my Canon 40D I really enjoyed my Nikon D50 and I really do sit on the fence.

Whatever new lens/es I get for my 40D would be with a full frame upgrade in mind but with the lens expense I think it's a good time to take a step back and think about the 700D as well as the obvious 5D Mk II Canon upgrade.

The Canon EF 400mm L 5.6 (or similar) is what I'm considering for my 40D but the very thought of more serious lens/es makes me think ahead to the 5D Mk II or Nikon D700.

I guess it's a chicken and an egg thing but thanks in advance.
 
If I was starting out right now, or had minimal investment in glass, I'm not convinced I'd have gone the Canon route - the D700 would be calling loudly(!)

I may be unpopular with what I say next, but.... from a build quality standpoint I'm really not keen on the 5D - it doesn't feel worth the money. 99% of my work is done outdoors, and I'm not convinced in my mind that the 5D (and MKII) is up to me being out in the Great British elements. Those are purely my thoughts, and go some way to explaining why I'm giving longing looks at S/H Canon 1DS (due to my investment in Canon glass and accessories).

There y'go! :)

-Rob
 
Robert Davies said:
If I was starting out right now, or had minimal investment in glass, I'm not convinced I'd have gone the Canon route - the D700 would be calling loudly(!)

I may be unpopular with what I say next, but.... from a build quality standpoint I'm really not keen on the 5D - it doesn't feel worth the money. 99% of my work is done outdoors, and I'm not convinced in my mind that the 5D (and MKII) is up to me being out in the Great British elements. Those are purely my thoughts, and go some way to explaining why I'm giving longing looks at S/H Canon 1DS (due to my investment in Canon glass and accessories).

There y'go! :)

-Rob
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Highland landscapes are my thing (often high) so build quality counts. Also future lenses matter and I take it you feel previous investment in Canon glass has left you wanting a more robust body ?

Jayst84 said:
5D has lots of pixels, D700 has autofocus goodness. What will you be shooting with it, and what will the shots be used for / how will they be reproduced?
Click to expand...

Landscape mainly. I would like to be able to crank up the ISO with minimal loss but I'd also like (hence currently looking for a better long lens) to get into wildlife. Reproduction won't be large for landscapes but best possible crops for wildlife will help.

Not bothered about portrait / studio stuff.
 
dinners said:
Thanks for that. Highland landscapes are my thing (often high) so build quality counts. Also future lenses matter and I take it you feel previous investment in Canon glass has left you wanting a more robust body ?
Click to expand...

I'll put it simply...

If you use or own a 'Pro' body like a D3/D2x/D1x or a Canon 1D/1DS, just about everything afterwards feels 'flimsy' :lol: It's Faustian, they own your soul for all time thereafter :bonk:

:lol:

-Rob
 
Robert Davies said:
I'll put it simply...

If you use or own a 'Pro' body like a D3/D2x/D1x or a Canon 1D/1DS, just about everything afterwards feels 'flimsy' :lol: It's Faustian, they own your soul for all time thereafter :bonk:

:lol:

-Rob
Click to expand...

Cheers for that :lol:

I feel a 'justification' conversation with the wife imminent. I think she will let my soul go - for better or for worse :rules:
 
IMO it's all about the lenses, Nikon produce some spectacular lenses but boy are they expensive, £6500 for a 400mm f/2.8 VR,£4400 for a 200-400mm F/4 VR, they don't have anything like canons 400mm f/5.6 in their range, where the D700 excels is ultra high ISO , when I had one I was amazed at the quality of pictures it could produce even at ISO3200.

You're not going to need that shooting landscape and probably not for wildlife, it all depends on your lens budget, if you can afford Nikons very expensive long lenses you won't regret your purchase for a second as they're brilliant, if not you could be struggling with your longer length photography due to not being able to get hold of long lenses at a reasonable price
 
If wildlife is your bag, not sure that going full frame is the answer, although for IQ, very wide AOV and high ISO capabilities they are.

Consider lenses, Canon 300 f4 IS costs about £1000 can be got secondhand for £650ish on a FF camera it is exactly that a 300mm f4, but on a Canon 7D it has the AOV equiv of a 480mm f4 lens, add a 1.4x converter and you have gone from 420mm f5.6 on FF to an AOV equiv of 670 @ f5.6 on the 7D.

You could of course crop the 5DMk2s image to match that of a 1.6x crop, but that only gives you about an 8MP image, cropping the D700 image would give you in the region of 5MP, whereas on the 7D you would still hav 18MP to play with.

Unfortunately you seem to want both ends of the spectrum to cover landscapes and wildlife and to that end you may be better off with neither a full crop or FF and go for a 1DMk3 body which will give you a wider AOV with it's 1.3x crop and the weatherproofing and AF that you may need for wildlife.

At this time though for wildlife shooting the 7D has to be a contender, I also enjoy shooting landscapes, macro and portraits I feel that the 7D will do all that I currently require. To the end that I am selling my 5DMk2 s I feel for what I do there is nothing to gain from having it, if you are not planning on making huge poster sized prints, do not need the high ISO capabilities of either the D700 or 5DMk2 (not that the 7D is a slouch at high ISOs) or the AOV acheived in FF from 12mm-16mm then I am sure the 7D will fit the bill, with the added advantage that you can upgrade your current lenses when funds or requirements allow.
 
wack61 said:
IMO it's all about the lenses
Click to expand...

Totally agree - look at what you'll be wanting lens wise for your uses and go from there. Canon's pack of 70-200's and 24-105 for example might swing your decision. I'm sure Nikon have their gems as well of course.
 
Have you sat down - and worked out what your ideal kit would be from both manufacturers - and then totted up the prices?
 
I've got a D700, my brother has the 5D Mark II, both fantastic cameras and you won't be dissapointed with either. The D700 does have the AF advantage, so if you're going to be shooting low light and need the better AF then the D700 has it. I personally wouldn't compare the 2 in Noise as they are both fantastic. The 5DMkII has the megapixel trump card, which a lot of people say doesn't really matter but being able to crop heavily and still have a ton of detail is a godsend in some situations, my brother has shown me images with plenty of detail, and then he zooms out to show the whole image and it's annoying! :)

That's bodies, the other thing to think about is what lenses you'll be after, Nikon doesn't have anything like the F4 L range of glass Canon does if that's the kind of thing you're interested in.

I went from Canon to Nikon and prefer the design and use of the Nikon Bodies, but I'd have no trouble at all switching to a 5dmkii, I've thought about it many a time but I've been annoyed enough times by the AF in the Canon probably not to....probably.
 
EdBray said:
Unfortunately you seem to want both ends of the spectrum to cover landscapes and wildlife and to that end you may be better off with neither a full crop or FF and go for a 1DMk3 body which will give you a wider AOV with it's 1.3x crop and the weatherproofing and AF that you may need for wildlife.
Click to expand...

:plusone::agree: Miles better autofocus system for wildlife than D700 or 5DMKII, 1.3x crop so not as extreme as 7D or D300 for landscapes, a good compromise
 
I'd disagree actually, the D700 AF system is at least as good as the 1D MkIII (and I'm not even going to mention Galbraith, oops I did) and waaaay better than the 5D.

The real question is crop (of some sort) or FF... probably the best bet is a D300 and spend the rest on glass...
 
Thanks for all the feedback folks.

The reason I had asked about the 5D Mk II / D700 was if I decided to go full frame for landscapes.

I doubt I would change my 40D unless I decided to move to a full frame body.
 
jerry12953 said:
How about...

...stay with Canon for your landscapes, when you feel the need to try a bit of wildlife, you've got the 1.6x crop 40D to get started with.

If you then feel you want to upgrade, you can go for a 7D, or whatever the bees' knees is (are) at that time.

j
Click to expand...

Thanks - I think that's what I've decided.

I like my 40d so i plan to try and pick up a second hand 400mm prime. This will give me the reach I'm after plus the crop for wildlife. Somebody on here local to me has one that should stay available till I've saved some pennies !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top