d700 Vs 5d Mk II

S

smalls

Messages
848
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
will be looking to upgrade from my d90 to full frame either a d700 or 5d mark II.
i shoot mainly landscapes but wouldnt mind going for a little bit wildlife now and then.
which camera will suit me best in landscape situations?
i would pair the d700 with the 14-24 = £3000 est
and the 5d Mk II with the 17-40 = £2400 est
 
Landscapes, not much in it. For occasional wildlife, the AF of the D700 is far superior.
 
D700 will have marginally better AF for day to day use but for wildlife it'll make the difference. 5D MkII is a lot of camera for the money though and despite it's "simple" AF compared to the likes of the 7D and 1DMk IV is still highly reliable and accurate. Hell, my 5D classic very rarely lets me down!!

If you haven't already take the obvious choice and have a play with both at a high street store to see which you prefer using though you'll probably be comfortable with the D700 as the design is pretty similar to what you use now. Both brilliant cameras though :)
 
For static things in reasonable light, the 5D AF is fine. Poorer light, not at all great, tracking birds in flight, pretty dire. Had two folks over at the Raptor Foundation on Monday, one with a D300, one with the 5DmkII (the D300 and D700 AF is very similar). Both were novices in terms of birds in flight. The person with the D300 got a dozen or so keepers that were very sharp. The person with the 5DmkII had to resort to prefocussing with manual focus and trying to snap at the correct time. Both were using quite fast-focussing lenses. I'm sure with tweaking and practice, both could get better, but as it stands, the margin in the AF performance looks pretty large.

Andy
 
^ The above is what I mean, for normal use the AF advantage the D700 has may not be immediately obvious but for stuff like that D700 will much better.

Would be interesting to know what AF focusing mode(s) and AF point selection the person with the 5D MkII was using though because "prefocussing with manual focus and trying to snap at the correct time" with a fast-focussing lens like you said sounds pretty wrong in my mind. I've shot red kites at a feeding centre in mid Wales and shot in football at night got good results using my 5D and a middle of the range telephoto at f/4 and slower so I disagree with this:
For static things in reasonable light, the 5D AF is fine. Poorer light, not at all great, tracking birds in flight, pretty dire.
Click to expand...
 
sigma 12-24 is poor wide open, its ok from f8 to f16.
i am a nikon use and always have been but for landscapes the 5dM2 is better(with good glass)

wildlife the d700 is better (with good glass)
 
"sigma 12-24 is poor wide open,"

This must be the much reported Sigma sample variation. I must have been very lucky with Sigma lenses as I have no complaints. I suppose it's best to try before you buy if you have any doubts. Having said all that I can't think of too many occasions I'd want to use the Siggy wide open, but if I do want to I don't hesitate.

Back to the question, I'd take the Nikon.
 
woof woof said:
"sigma 12-24 is poor wide open,"

This must be the much reported Sigma sample variation. I must have been very lucky with Sigma lenses as I have no complaints. I suppose it's best to try before you buy if you have any doubts. Having said all that I can't think of too many occasions I'd want to use the Siggy wide open, but if I do want to I don't hesitate.

Back to the question, I'd take the Nikon.
Click to expand...

sorry. on a full frame (as thats what they r talking about) it is poor wide open . it is a lot better on a cropped sensor.
 
Bendihossan said:
^ The above is what I mean, for normal use the AF advantage the D700 has may not be immediately obvious but for stuff like that D700 will much better.

Would be interesting to know what AF focusing mode(s) and AF point selection the person with the 5D MkII was using though because "prefocussing with manual focus and trying to snap at the correct time" with a fast-focussing lens like you said sounds pretty wrong in my mind. I've shot red kites at a feeding centre in mid Wales and shot in football at night got good results using my 5D and a middle of the range telephoto at f/4 and slower so I disagree with this:
Click to expand...

Flood-lit footy matches, no problem. Truly low light, the 5D's lack of ability seems to be well documented and complained about. The birds-of-prey centre type shots put a lot more strain on the camera's AF system than the types of shots at places like Gigrin farm. The b-o-p centres have fast moving birds often less than 20 feet away from you. I'm not intimately knowledgeable about what settings my friend used with the 5D, but she did try with servo AF first, also trying with all points and just the centre, with and without the helper points turned on and didn't have much luck.

I've also been with a friend with a 40D - which I think has a very similar AF system to the 5D - also not great.

I'm not saying it won't work (and I think we are probably in agreement anyway), it's just in the extreme situations, often arising with wildlife (i.e. low-light and/or fast motion), the D700 is better for this.

Andy
 
Most has already been said, both are cracking cameras.

The af ability of the D700 is better but the image quality of the 5D2 and the ability to crop up to 50% and still produce a top quality image is far better. As most of my shots are static and landscapes i went for the 5d2
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Most has already been said, both are cracking cameras.

The af ability of the D700 is better but the image quality of the 5D2 and the ability to crop up to 50% and still produce a top quality image is far better. As most of my shots are static and landscapes i went for the 5d2
Click to expand...

That would make a case for keeping the D90 to use with the D700 - the D90 will give you the extra 'reach' (the pixel density is equivalent to 27MP full-frame) and will outdo the 5DmkII in terms of cropping to the same equivalent size.
 
smalls said:
which camera will suit me best in landscape situations?
Click to expand...

Definitely the 5D2! The image quality will knock your socks off. :thumbs:
No problems with the autofocus either! I've tracked my two black dogs as they run, and a neighbour's white dog, not a problem.
High ISO between the 5D2 and D700 there is nothing in it.
For landscapes you can crop 'till your heart's content :D
You won't be disappointed with the image quality that's for sure!

Spend the difference on lenses - I have read that the 2x converter works well on the 100-400mm L (but adds CA with the 70-200 2.8L, which is what I have). I have the 16-35L which I love, but recently the 24-70 L has been on 100% of the time, the sharpness very impressive. Go for it - you won't regret it. :thumbs:
 
Could just hang on until Canon put the 5D mkII sensor in a 7D body (5D mkIII ?) and we'll all be very happy.
Mike
 
User Name said:
No problems with the autofocus either! I've tracked my two black dogs as they run, and a neighbour's white dog, not a problem.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying the 5D mk2 can't autofocus or even track - it's just nowhere near as good as the D700. That's why the 7D and the 1D (various versions) have a different system and why they are much better suited to wildlife than the 5D. That is the main motivation for wildlife shooters upgrading from the 40D, 50D to the 7D - the resolution increase, is, at best, a marginal benefit.
 
PlaneMike said:
Could just hang on until Canon put the 5D mkII sensor in a 7D body (5D mkIII ?) and we'll all be very happy.
Mike
Click to expand...

Will Canon do that and rob sales from the 1D cameras?
 
AndyElliott said:
Flood-lit footy matches, no problem. Truly low light, the 5D's lack of ability seems to be well documented and complained about. The birds-of-prey centre type shots put a lot more strain on the camera's AF system than the types of shots at places like Gigrin farm. The b-o-p centres have fast moving birds often less than 20 feet away from you. I'm not intimately knowledgeable about what settings my friend used with the 5D, but she did try with servo AF first, also trying with all points and just the centre, with and without the helper points turned on and didn't have much luck.

I've also been with a friend with a 40D - which I think has a very similar AF system to the 5D - also not great.

I'm not saying it won't work (and I think we are probably in agreement anyway), it's just in the extreme situations, often arising with wildlife (i.e. low-light and/or fast motion), the D700 is better for this.

Andy
Click to expand...


Should have mentioned that the footy pitch I've shot at is very poorly lit! If memory serves I was barely getting 1/160th at f/4, ISO 3200. Yeah the 5D's AF system is often complained about but I really can't see why as it never causes me problems and I often shoot in low light in socials at pubs with relatively slow apertures. I think it's swings and round-a-bouts to be honest with you. If it works for some and not others then there's probably a missing variable somebody isn't including somewhere ;)
 
1/160s, f4 ISO 3200 is quite dark, but not that dark. Again, a relative thing here. I suspect some people expect too much! I do know the 7D is quite a bit better, both in terms of low-light and very fast (I think it is angular speed rather than linear speed - a falcon that is flying at 60mph 1/4 mile away is a lot easier to track than one doing 60mph 20 feet away!).
The low-light capability of a friend's 7D was well tested with shooting badgers the other night, using only a very dim red bulb to illuminate a large area of garden.

In terms of the fast moving / fast distance changing, the benefit of the d700 is much more clear-cut.

Andy
 
I'm sorry but I've used a 450d at BoP centres and got perfect auto focus nearly all of the time, in fairly low light. If anything it was my poor technique, the close proximity of the birds and my lack of knowledge of bird movement that let me down. I can appreciate the fact that the D700 is better than the 5D2 in this respect (In fact I'd quite like a D700 as my next camera), but I struggle to believe that the 5D2 is really that bad that manual focus is necessary..

However, as I haven't used either camera I'll hold off taking sides. :)

I'd say for landscapes the 5D2's extra pixels come into play (take a look at Lucie Debelkova's flickr stream, she uses a 5D2 and 17-40 a lot of the time); but in general the D700 has the edge for low light and AF.

I'm planning to get one of these two cameras anyway, so I'll be interested to see how this progresses. End of the day a camera is just that, a camera, though. :thumbs:
 
Just on a totally different point... Looking at the sensor comparison on dxo (http://dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Im...296|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon)

...the dynamic range, tonal range and colour sensitivity appear to be quite a bit better on the Nikon. I appreciate the 5D has higher resolution, allowing more cropping, but surely on landscape shots, there shouldn't be much excuse not to get the crop right in camera? I'm sure the 5Dmk2 users are very, very happy with their kit, but one wonders whether the numerical differences of shown for the D700 would be noticeable. Has anyone tried both for landscapes?
 
IanFlaherty said:
I'm sorry but I've used a 450d at BoP centres and got perfect auto focus nearly all of the time, in fairly low light. If anything it was my poor technique, the close proximity of the birds and my lack of knowledge of bird movement that let me down. I can appreciate the fact that the D700 is better than the 5D2 in this respect (In fact I'd quite like a D700 as my next camera), but I struggle to believe that the 5D2 is really that bad that manual focus is necessary..
Click to expand...

The close proximity of the birds is what makes AF performance differences much more noticeable. Getting AF lock in low light is one thing, keeping it when the bird is flying at you is quite another.

As I said, I'm sure with practice and better familiarity of the camera, my friend with the 5D would do a lot better and would not have to resort to manual focussing. It was an interesting comparison as both folks were n00bs to BIF and were using their camera without any specialist knowledge of how to set them up for BIF.
 
smalls said:
i know the 5d will be good for large prints but how will the d700 cope printing up to A2 size?
Click to expand...

If you aren't cropping, 12MP should be fine. As I said, for landscapes, there isn't much excuse to have to do heavy cropping as you have the time to get it right in-camera.
 
For landscapes, 5DII I think would be better, it seems that and the 1Ds MKII are the 'tools of choice' for a good percentage of recognised DSLR landscape photographers.

Can't judge in respect of wildlife.

And unlike r1andy in an earlier post, I find the sigma 12-24 to be very sharp across the aperture range on a FF camera, but it's ultra wiiiide, and can't take filters.

5DII+ 17-40 F4L would be a better bet IMO
 
Joe T said:
I'm no expert, but sometimes its better pixels not more pixels that is more useful for big prints. :)
Click to expand...

Once you get beyond a certain print size (around the A2 size), you have to stand further back to view it - so there is a maximum number of pixels you can 'appreciate' in a single view.

It would seem that the D700 is better in both dynamic range and tonal range, but whether this makes a difference to someone looking at a print is hard to say.
 
Canon simply don't make anything as good as the Nikon 14-24/2.8 which is why that adapter has come out (in several versions) and lots of landscape togs want one!

However, depending on the performance of the 16-35/4 then that could have the potential to be a great landscape lens if it's inherited anything from the 14-24. Plus takes 77mm filters.... :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top