D700 vs. 5D mkII

Flash In The Pan said:
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...


I would say so.

Weirdly, [some (I don't know if it's still true for all models)] canons default out of the box to slow sync mode in Av.

Obviously not a problem for anyone who knows flash, but to someone just trying to take a handheld snap with the pop-up flash, it's strange to make them alter a custom function before it works properly.
Bit of a canon quirk
 
Last edited:
5d
E5D2hSLI06400c2.jpg

d700
D700hSLI06400c2.jpg

which looks mottled.
which one has more detail.
 
Last edited:
I reckon they've used slightly different focal points in those comparisons.

The 5D looks sharper in the first crop on things closer to the camera and the D700 looks a little sharper on the things slightly further back

But noise wise, the D700 has slightly more clumpy luma noise where the 5DII is finer, but the 5DII has a little chroma mottling in the shadows that the D700 doesn't.
But they're so close I'm actually picking on the fine quality of the noise rather than the amount!
 
Last edited:
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...

Hmm...

I don't do studio stuff - it's mostly outdoors (motorsport/rugby etc.) so the weather sealing does matter. The D80 has got wet more times than I care to think about. FPS matters too - so I guess I'll stick with Nikon. Thanks everybody... (y)
 
They are both boxes that capture light. Either are superb.
 
I'm currently in the same predicament...

I started out with Canon years ago and currently running around with a cheap-as-chips D100 and 55-200 and a Sigma wide angle just to start shooting again.

So far it seems the 5D MK II is more like a medium format like camera, tons of MP and detail but slower AF, not weather sealed. And superb video.

Where the D700 seems to be more rough and ready, but not up to doing hi-res advertising jobs. More for weddings, journalists etc.

But then I've seen a guy who took the original 5D with only a 24-70 into iraq and it was stunning!

I really can't decide which way to go... I change my mind almost hourly! Canon's primes beat out Nikons for me, but Nikons zooms beat out Canons zooms. 5D has a 'medium format' esque look about it wheras the D700 doesn't, but then the D700 is much faster than the 5D with a grip and better AF and more of a 'camera' in some aspects. Canon's lenses are generally cheaper than the Nikons, but the Nikons 70-200 isn't ghastly oh-look-at-me white/eggshell!

It's starting to drive me mad!!!
 
I have used both and while the d700 does have good low light proformance, the 5d2 was supprisingly good at 6400, and it does have a lot more pixels.
 
EdBray said:
Not really a problem if you know what you are doing :p

So the D700 is better for photo illiterates :LOL:
Click to expand...


What I mean is, the Nikon system just does what it's meant to, without the flashguns emitting more radio interference than Jodrell Bank :LOL:
 
i have to ask will the jump in MP from the d700 to 5dmk2 make a noticable difference to most users that dont blow pictures up to a3 or larger ?
would you notice the difference when posting picture on here or for a photo album ?

agian im expecting the same answers but though i would see what peoples opinions were
(canon users will say yes,nikon no.)
 
The problem with the 5dII is if you use fast primes wide open you have to either place the subjects eye miles off the third and crop or focus/recompose. If it had the sexy Nikon or even 1 series/7d AF I'd never have switched.
 
Carlos Fandango said:
Hmm...

I don't do studio stuff - it's mostly outdoors (motorsport/rugby etc.) so the weather sealing does matter. The D80 has got wet more times than I care to think about. FPS matters too - so I guess I'll stick with Nikon. Thanks everybody... (y)
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of a 5D mk2 then as that's really positioned as a portrait/studio camera. Have you considered a second hand 1d Mk3?

New bodies come out all the time with better or improved features, but my glass doesn't change. I'd factor in the cost and features of the lens you want as well.
 
Byker28i said:
I was going to say that all the shots from the canon look slightly under exposed and the nikon over exposed.
Click to expand...
not really looked to be honest, all i know is the jpeg straight from camera,
it just gives a ruff idea, i think both cameras do an awsome job, but the thing the supprises me is the lack of difference from the mp differnce of both cameras.
 
The23rdman said:
The problem with the 5dII is if you use fast primes wide open you have to either place the subjects eye miles off the third and crop or focus/recompose. If it had the sexy Nikon or even 1 series/7d AF I'd never have switched.
Click to expand...

Tripe. The outer points work, just not as well as the centre in low contrast situations. In a studio this isn't really a factor. I use the outer points all the time in all sorts of conditions and have not had reason to complain.
 
I'm gonna bite. :)

I do sometimes wonder whether all these 5D Mark II nay-Sayers who bang on about it's inabilty to focus on anything whatsoever have ever actually used one. I think they'd be somewhat surprised. Granted it's af is archaic by today's standards (and by it's contemporary D700's standards) but it does work! It's just not as flash, but do people actually use their superduper af system to it's limits? Doubt it in the majority of cases...

/bite over! :)
 
I have only once had a problem with a 5D2 outer focus pointing failing me in a real world shooting situation. That was when I was trying to take a candid shot of someone indoors while they were backlit against a very bright sky through an open doorway out onto a veranda. The simple solution was to aim at an area of the person with a bit more contrast Problem solved. At other times I have had no problem at all with the outer points.

Of course, now that the OP has had the decency to share with us the fact that he will be shooting sports in the pouring rain I do wonder why the thread was ever started. It's all been a bit of a waste of people's time if you ask me. I mean, if you knew that was your intended use why would you ever pose the question in the first place? It's a slam dunk for the Nikon.
 
tdodd said:
I have only once had a problem with a 5D2 outer focus pointing failing me in a real world shooting situation. That was when I was trying to take a candid shot of someone indoors while they were backlit against a very bright sky through an open doorway out onto a veranda. The simple solution was to aim at an area of the person with a bit more contrast Problem solved. At other times I have had no problem at all with the outer points.

Of course, now that the OP has had the decency to share with us the fact that he will be shooting sports in the pouring rain I do wonder why the thread was ever started. It's all been a bit of a waste of people's time if you ask me. I mean, if you knew that was your intended use why would you ever pose the question in the first place? It's a slam dunk for the Nikon.
Click to expand...

I disagree it's probably neither and he should be looking at either the Nikon 3D series or the Canon 1D series. THen he needs to also look at the cost of weatherproofed lenses and he will find he probably needs a S/H 1DMk3.
 
Trixster said:
Tripe. The outer points work, just not as well as the centre in low contrast situations. In a studio this isn't really a factor. I use the outer points all the time in all sorts of conditions and have not had reason to complain.
Click to expand...

It's not ****ing tripe. The outer points are badly positioned and not as reliable as a 1 series or D3. This is especially true in low light. I've already said if I shot in good light or studio I'd be happy with a 5d. I used Canon's for ages and have no brand loyalty.
 
Well yes, but since the D700 and 5D2 were the only two options put on the table and he wanted full frame and the decision appears to be price sensitive....
 
Last edited:
EdBray said:
I disagree it's probably neither and he should be looking at either the Nikon 3D series or the Canon 1D series. THen he needs to also look at the cost of weatherproofed lenses and he will find he probably needs a S/H 1DMk3.
Click to expand...


But out of D700 or 5DII, the D700 is obviously a more suitable choice for the OP.
 
tdodd said:
Well yes, but since the D700 and 5D2 were the only two options put on the table and he wanted full frame and the decision appears to be price sensitive....
Click to expand...
Agreed, but don't the D3 and D700 share AF systems?
 
i have used both extensively and marginally prefer the d700 but would happily have the 5d mark 2.

tbh i think they are so close its just what you like, i know thats been said a million times but id happily own either. i just prefer the way the d700 sits in my hands and the low light autofocus IS better but id love to have the megapixels of the 5d mark 2 and that rear wheel as well.

its just small differences imo, either are more than capable of stunning images and any photographer should be happy with either.
 
I'm watching this thread closely, as I intend to go full frame this year. However, most of my work is child portraits, and wouldn't want to miss shots due to slow or inaccurate AF. I think the D700 and its 51 point 3D tracking is for me, for this purpose, but I just can't get over the appeal of the 5d mkii and its MP count. God knows...by the time I've saved for it, I may well have even more choice, not sure if that's good or bad lol
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I'm watching this thread closely, as I intend to go full frame this year. However, most of my work is child portraits, and wouldn't want to miss shots due to slow or inaccurate AF. I think the D700 and its 51 point 3D tracking is for me, for this purpose, but I just can't get over the appeal of the 5d mkii and its MP count. God knows...by the time I've saved for it, I may well have even more choice, not sure if that's good or bad lol
Click to expand...

look at the samples i provided does there look like there is 9mp more i would say not.
 
scottthehat said:
look at the samples i provided does there look like there is 9mp more i would say not.
Click to expand...

I think it does.

When you're comparing the 5DII downsized to the D700 at 100%, it's going to be sharper.

If you upscale the D700 image it probably won't looks so good compared to the 5DII

And those samples are at higher ISO where details aren't as finely defined.
Do a comparison at ISO 200 or 400, and the 5DII definitely records details that the D700 doesn't.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
I think it does.

When you're comparing the 5DII downsized to the D700 at 100%, it's going to be sharper.

If you upscale the D700 image it probably won't looks so good compared to the 5DII

And those samples are at higher ISO where details aren't as finely defined.
Click to expand...
when looking at the original file and zooming in exactly the same the is nothing in it that my eyes can see.
take a look on the site down load them and compare.
 
tdodd said:
Of course, now that the OP has had the decency to share with us the fact that he will be shooting sports in the pouring rain I do wonder why the thread was ever started. It's all been a bit of a waste of people's time if you ask me. I mean, if you knew that was your intended use why would you ever pose the question in the first place? It's a slam dunk for the Nikon.
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh... apart from a few compacts I've never owned a Canon and just wanted to see if some of the grumbles on the 'net were real issues or not. I can see that you are obviously knowledgeable on Canon - sadly I'm not.
 
scottthehat said:
look at the samples i provided does there look like there is 9mp more i would say not.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the printing for me, I regularly go "quite" large, well 24x16 plus, no problem for either camera I admit, but the ability to crop significantly, and still print that size is of value. Not critical, but its certainly a factor I'm considering, rightly or wrongly :) lol
 
scottthehat said:
when looking at the original file and zooming in exactly the same the is nothing in it that my eyes can see.
take a look on the site down load them and compare.
Click to expand...


I have done, and at ISO's below 800 the 5DII picks up details that the D700 doesn't.

But the 5DII files seems to have a bit of NR done to them.

It's a shame that site doesn't use RAW files processed through ACR with the same parameters, would make for a fairer comparison than OOC jpg's.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I'm watching this thread closely, as I intend to go full frame this year. However, most of my work is child portraits, and wouldn't want to miss shots due to slow or inaccurate AF. I think the D700 and its 51 point 3D tracking is for me, for this purpose, but I just can't get over the appeal of the 5d mkii and its MP count. God knows...by the time I've saved for it, I may well have even more choice, not sure if that's good or bad lol
Click to expand...

I've never had problems in the studio shooting with a 5d mk2 when I've borrowed one. I've had the pleasure of borrowing one from someone at work a few times and every time I've been really impressed with the picture quality. It just has a crispness that my 50d doesn't have. Having said that it wouldnt suit me for my outdoor sports shooting. I'm really not sure where this miss of slow af comes from. I've shot gigs and it's never not focussed, not really noticed only having 9 af points as generally I only used centre point only then recompose the shot if needed.
 
squishy said:
It's a shame that site doesn't use RAW files processed through ACR with the same parameters, would make for a fairer comparison than OOC jpg's.
Click to expand...
That would certainly be true for people who, like me, shoot to raw, but not so useful for those who shoot to JPEG. However, my recent experience examining JPEG files from various Canon cameras, including my own 5D2 and 7D, confirms the superiority of raw. For me personally those JPEG comparisons are a waste of time. For some they might be useful, but given the myriad of ways to set up each camera I somehow doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top