D700 vs. 5D mkII

C

Carlos Fandango

Messages
25
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been a happy D80 user for the last 3 or 4 years - but now want to go FF.

So Canon or Nikon? Just priced up a Canon kit (5D + 24/70 and 70/200) and it does seem quite a bit cheaper - especially the lenses. On the other hand the reviews seem to regard the D700 as a better product. Weather proofing seems to be an issue for the Canon as does it's AF speed.

BTW I have always had Canon compacts (S90 currently) and they've been great so I'm quite neutral on this in terms of the brand.

What is the TP wisdom on this?
 
when I bought my 5D2 (which is forsale BTW lol ) I nearly went for the D700 because I sold all my gear to buy a 135 camera so it was quite a hard choice to make. I went with the 5D2 because I prefer the way the camera feels and the menu system which I prefered. in terms of IQ there is nothing between them untill the higher ISO's were the D700 is slightly ahead (3200 and beyond)
 
The D700 isn't weather-proofed either Carlos but it does have a built-in flash which can come in handy and avoids the need to carry one around.

The AF on a 5D2 can hunt in extreme lowlight where there is little contrast. Simply focus on another subject at at the same distance or switch to manual. You can also go into Custom Functions and turn off focus search when AF is not possible. This prevents the AF from continuously hunting which can be annoying. Then simply attempt to acquire focus. I don't think the D700 is better in this regard. Can't comment on IQ at high ISOs as I've been happy with my 5D2's IQ even when shooting concerts in churches at night when using ISO6400. The HDVideo has been very useful when I did a family shoot as I incorporated a couple of HD clips on disc.

If you have Nikon gear ( meaning lenses ) do you want to change systems? That said, I'm a 110% Canon man and your choice of the 70-200 and 24-70 too were my preferences when I acquired my 5D2. Never looked back ;)


Cheers

a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
Last edited:
firstly, im not a pro, photography is just my hobby. so here it goes - i own both cameras for a moment. i have always been a canon guy. so i bought the 5D2 first, use it for around 3 months, and then i bought a D700. i sold the 5D2 after a month owning the D700. both cameras have their own advantages/disadvantages. D700's AF system is better than the 5D2, it handles noise better at higher ISOs (3200 and above..below that its almost identical), 5fps (8fps with an external BG), what else huh? (u can always google the specs :p) and the 5D2 inherits its older bro's AF system for that matter, got 21MP(for huge prints), and the remarkable HD video. the video quality is amazing i must say. but i dont really use it so i decided to sell it off.

btw, here's a personal comparison i made when i own both cameras. i find that even though the 5D2's AF system is a bit slower than the D700, but i must say i like the 5D2's viewfinder. the focusing points are brighter and the beep's (when it focuses) more easier to notice. and the 5D2's body fits nicer in my hands too.

but other than that, i choose the D700 over the 5D2. it has got an internal flash too, which is handy for me to trigger speedlights or i just want to travel light. and me myself i love to snap low light pics. so the ISO performance does matter to me.

hey, that's just one man's opinion aight? haha im just sharing my experience and opinion. there's people who can do wonders with the 5D2. its an amazing camera. but just not for me.

here's a website that shows the comparison between these 2 low light monsters.

click me
 
The d700 is most certainly weather sealed.
 
The only advantage the Canon has for a serious photographer is the extra resolution. In every other way the Nikon is better.
 
canon set up.
70-200mm f2.8 is usm mk11 £1799
http://www.jimreedphoto.com/content.html?page=5
Canon EOS 5D Mark II plus 24-70mm f2.8 Lens Kit £2548.99 ********************or 24-70mm on own is £969. 5dmk11 is £1649
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-plus-24-70mm-f2-8-lens-kit/p1031343
=£4347.99 kit price. or Individual prices = £4417
nikon stuff
d700 = £1759
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-d700-digital-slr-camera-body/p1027395
24-70mm = £1199
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051
70-200mm = £1639.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957
=£4597
just used warehouse express as an example.
but im sure you can get a better deal if buying all together
the nikon 70-200mm is cheaper than the canon version mk 2 that is, and the canon cones as a package with the 24-70mm so makes it abit cheaper.
if the d700 had a packae deal it would be cheaper.
both cameras are top, both have the advantages, nikon better af and better high iso and weather sealing, the canon has higher res.
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
The only advantage the Canon has for a serious photographer is the extra resolution. In every other way the Nikon is better.
Click to expand...

But if you shoot studio portraits or landscapes at 100 ISO do you need a fancy AF system, high FPS rate, weatherproofing and terrific high ISO performance, or would you rather have more detail in your images? The AF performance of the 5D2's centre point is actually pretty decent. I agree the outer points can be a let down, not always, but occasionally. It's not about which tool is better in a Top Trumps shootout, but which tool is better for your needs. The D700 will never produce a 21MP image, but there is plenty the D700 can focus on that the 5D2 can equally well. Not everything about a camera has to be "brilliant" - it just needs to be good enough to do the job well.
 
tdodd said:
But if you shoot studio portraits or landscapes at 100 ISO do you need a fancy AF system, high FPS rate, weatherproofing and terrific high ISO performance, or would you rather have more detail in your images? The AF performance of the 5D2's centre point is actually pretty decent. I agree the outer points can be a let down, not always, but occasionally. It's not about which tool is better in a Top Trumps shootout, but which tool is better for your needs. The D700 will never produce a 21MP image, but there is plenty the D700 can focus on that the 5D2 can equally well. Not everything about a camera has to be "brilliant" - it just needs to be good enough to do the job well.
Click to expand...
i agree, but if doing studio or landscape save some money and buy a 7d or a d7000 if only using low iso, both will handle low iso no probs both have great af systems and high res for pleanty of detail, both are cheaper and both will use cheaper lenses with a wider range available.
 
Wouldn't you say though, that the 5DII is pretty much the perfect camera for portraiture/studio and landscapes?
 
scottthehat said:
why. nikon d3x
Click to expand...

Okay, if we are in silly mode buy a Hasselblad 500CM/80mm Planar (about £500) a 40mm Distagon and a 180mm Sonnar (about £1100 for the pair) and a CFV 50MP back (£12,000).

Now you have the ultimate portrait/landscape kit. :p
 
Last edited:
EdBray said:
Okay, if we are in silly mode buy a Hasselblad 500CM/80mm Planar (about £500) a 40mm Distagon and a 180mm Sonnar (about £1100 for the pair) and a CFV 50MP back (£12,000).

Now you have the ultimate portrait/landscape kit. :p
Click to expand...
I thought an 80MP back was recently released? ;)
 
Didn't someone on here have a D3X and not rate it at all? Arcady maybe?

D700 is probably a better camera but Nikon lens prices take the wee wee IMO.
 
grum said:
Didn't someone on here have a D3X and not rate it at all? Arcady maybe?

D700 is probably a better camera but Nikon lens prices take the wee wee IMO.
Click to expand...
you could well be right.
as for nikon prices some are ruddy pricey. but the 70-200mm nikon is cheaper than the canon version.
thats probably the only one that is.
 
I had a Nikon D700 before the 5D2, there was some overlap while I decided which one suited me better, and the Canon 5D mk II won.
It had better high ISO than the D700 and held more detail. The D700's out focus points are better, but the out-most ones are still linear (not cross), so not as accurate in low light as I would have hoped. I found the menu system much better on the Canon, just better laid out with the headings along the top.
As far as lenses, the Nikon 24-70 is slightly better than the Canon 24-70, whereas the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II is better than the Nikon version and doesn't suffer from any of the annoying focus breathing characteristics.
I also found Canon's live view implementation better, it's something I use a lot when framing wide-aperture shots.
To be quite honest though, you will be spoiled by either camera, it's like choosing between Ferrari and Lamborghini, either will exceed your ability.
 
POAH said:
I went with the 5D2 because I prefer the way the camera feels and the menu system which I prefered.
Click to expand...

That I find strange, the one thing that really put me off Canon as a brand was the poor ergonomics. When it comes to the 5DII, which, on paper looks fantastic in addition to the above it just felt "cheap" in my hands and that's not purely a Nikon owner bias, I tried the Sony A900 as well and really liked the way that that handled.

Ultimately though it is just down to personal taste and, I would suspect, budget.
 
I found the D700's ergonomics a right old mess. Too much clutter.
 
I was deciding between these two at one point and all my glass was Canon. A few reasons the Nikon won in the end is because the 24-70 I wanted was better than the Canon version and the HD video was pointless to me as I have an HD video camera. The 5D MK II felt a bit cheap to me and the fps was slow (3.9 vs 5 or 8 with the battery pack) and the built in flash on the D700 is handy when I don't fancy getting the SB-900 out and with the 5D I couldn't envisage myself getting the 430/580 out every time I wanted to take a picture with flash.
 
i think that nikon users will say nikon and canon user will say cannon.
ive recently gone full frame and didnt have much invested to make me stick to one brand.
but for every 5dmk2 owner that says that there good in lowlight i saw twice as many switching to the d700 because it was better and not regretting it when they did.
ive seen very few switch from nikon to canon though.
so i found myself drawn to the d700 that and i new the layout of a nikon camera
 
If you're ever going to seriously need speed (especially in low light) or serious toughness, the nikon is the obvious option.

If you're ever going to print the size of a wall, the canon is the obvious option.

Anything in between they'll both do great.

If you're used to nikon now, why switch? If you are going to get an advantage from the slight edge in ISO performance, or the better speed and toughness/weather sealing, you'll kick yourself if you go with the canon just because it's cheaper.
Buy once and buy right, and which one is right depends on your needs.

Have you tried both in a shop? You might hate the feel of one of them or really like the feel of one of them.
Ergonomic preferences are totally personal, there isn't a better one.

One thing that isn't often mentioned are the canon's custom modes. You get 3 completely customisable modes on the dial for instant recall of settings. After having this feature on my 40D, I wouldn't want to go shooting without it.
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
That I find strange, the one thing that really put me off Canon as a brand was the poor ergonomics. When it comes to the 5DII, which, on paper looks fantastic in addition to the above it just felt "cheap" in my hands and that's not purely a Nikon owner bias, I tried the Sony A900 as well and really liked the way that that handled.

Ultimately though it is just down to personal taste and, I would suspect, budget.
Click to expand...

if I never shot over iso 400 I'd have got the Sony lol

menu system was just what I was used to bit of a pathetic excuse really lol

canon flash guns are significantly more powerful too
 
I expect I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but isn't the closeness of the high iso noise between the two cameras despite the 5Dii's 70% extra number of megapixels testament to just how good the 5Dii's noise handling is? Similarly, the 5Dii's is 'only' 1.1fps slower (out of the box) despite putting many more pixels on the target, all of which needs to be processed by the digic4....

Anyway, they're both great so as consumers we're all winners! Just choose which one you want and be a happy photographer!
 
Now downsize the 5DMk2 crop to match the crop of the D700 and upscale the D700 crop to match the crop of the 5DMk2.
 
POAH said:
if I never shot over iso 400 I'd have got the Sony lol

menu system was just what I was used to bit of a pathetic excuse really lol

canon flash guns are significantly more powerful too
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard it's not much cop at higher ISOs, but as they were available for under a grand complete with a lens....

I don't know about significantly more powerful, but I do know the Canon flash system is nowhere near as user friendly as Nikon's
 
they look quite identical there. n one more reason (i dont know if i stated that reason already or not..oh well..) why i took the D700 over the 5Dii is internal flash. really useful when i want to travel light :D

scottthehat said:
but nikon are suppose to have the best flash system are they not.
could be wrong.
Click to expand...
that's a yes for the moment. but im sure canon will come out with their own soon just to put up the fight :D
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yeah, I've heard it's not much cop at higher ISOs, but as they were available for under a grand complete with a lens....

I don't know about significantly more powerful, but I do know the Canon flash system is nowhere near as user friendly as Nikon's
Click to expand...

Not really a problem if you know what you are doing :p

So the D700 is better for photo illiterates :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top