D700 or 5DMk11

desantnik said:
Anyway, ignoring the obscure/impossible.... D700 popup flash = win
Click to expand...

Actually, it sorta is. It means you don't have to buy a separate SU-800/SB-800/SB-900 as a CLS commander to control your other AWL compatible flashes. You can control the power output of them all right from the body without having to move an inch.

I shoot a D300s, but I wouldn't consider a D700. I do use the HD movie mode, and if Nikon haven't released a D4 with 1080 @ 24, 25 & 50fps by the time I can justify spending 4 grand on a new body, I'll be going for a 5DMk2 and a Nikon lens to EOS adapter. :)
 
Peter said:
Trixter I'm sorry you feel like that. I started the thread with a genuine question and not with the intention of furthering a Canon v Nikon war. Maybe I should have asked "what is the cheapest way to get maximum pixels (or specifically sharpness) to the £ without shooting on film".

pete
Click to expand...

Pete, it wasn't a go at you at all - when you're thinking about spending that amount of cash you want to make sure you get all the details you can from people who have actually used the kit you're interested in.

What annoys me are the posts that flood in which are more about points scoring than actually answering the question to hand. It seems to me that the same old faces will do whatever they can to wade in and shout just how much better they think the D700 is than the 5D Mark II. I've no doubt the D700 does outperform the 5DII in certain areas but it gets a trifle boring to have that shoved down your throat every time you log in and read one of these threads.
 
Trixter I understand where you're coming from. Did we have these rivalries with film SLR's. I suppose not as effectively all brands had the same sensor
(35mm film). I guess there were arguments over which were the best lenses!.

A couple of years ago a colleague of mine sold all his broadcast video equipment and entered the wedding market. When I asked him what camera he said 2 x 5D (probably classic). I asked him why FF and he said it enabled him to crop whilst maintaining quality. I don't think he had any brand allegiance and I suspect Nikon didn't have an alternative when he purchased.

It's interesting that with all the amazing developments taking place in digital technology we always want more. Still it makes for an interesting way to while away the time in front of a computer. Maybe we should all be out taking pictures instead ;)

pete
 
Best of luck with whatever you choose - they're both great cameras!
 
They're both stunningly good cameras, I got burgled last year and ended up in a position where I could choose brands, I switched from Canon to Nikon. I think I'd have been happy with either and I never print larger than A4 anyway. The Nikon just felt better to use though I've had some issues adjusting. If I had to make the choice again then I'd still pick Nikon though. It just feels better put together and the AF is stunning especially in low light. In brief summation I don't think there's a lot between them.
 
Thanks everyone.

There have been lots of constructive comments on this thread. With limited funds you always want to make the right choice. Its a pity some people get so hung up with brands as you tend to forget what you're buying it for. I'm sure a youngster keen on photograhy in the third world wouldnt give a stuff as to whether it said Canon or Nikon.

Sorry to bring the tone down.


rip

pete:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top