5D MII or D700???

[hassiman]

I am about to start fresh with a DSLR and would like opinions on the best choice between the Caonon 5D MII and the Nikon D700?

Looking at quality of build, optices and most importantly IQ and dynamic range.

[DarkPenguin]

The 5D mk II isn't available until the end of November.

So if you're starting now get the D700.  Otherwise check back in December or so.

[mas55101]

I am about to start fresh with a DSLR and would like opinions on the best choice between the Caonon 5D MII and the Nikon D700?

Looking at quality of build, optices and most importantly IQ and dynamic range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For what it's worth, I am totally happy with my D700.

Good luck.

Michael

[Pelao]

What do you shoot?  Do you print your photos?

[stever]

there are a lot of Canon vs Nikon threads

- consider the current lens offerings for your needs: Nikon in general is better on the wide end and Canon on the long end (although Nikon had done a lot on the long end in the last couple years)

- in the long term my money is still on Canon camera technology for their depth of resources which allow huge R&D investment compared to Nikon and their in-house production of sensors and processors

- with aggressive management, Nikon has recently become a nimble competitor while Canon was a little complacent.  i think the 50D and 5DII show that Canon is paying attention again

they both make good cameras and lenses

[dchew]

I would go to a shop and handle both.  Think about what subjects you shoot, get to know each of them well enough so you understand how their handling/features meet your style and subject needs.  

I would not make the choice on either "build, optics, IQ or dynamic range."  It's a safe bet they will both be very good in all those regards.

Dave Chew

[MarkL]

I am about to start fresh with a DSLR and would like opinions on the best choice between the Caonon 5D MII and the Nikon D700?

Looking at quality of build, optices and most importantly IQ and dynamic range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Build and dynamic range are likley to be very close. For lenses it depends which lens line fits you better. Canon's wides leave a little to be desired especially now given nikon's impressive 14-24mm. Zeiss are now making lenses for canon mount just like their ZF line for nikon if that matters. IQ is likley to go to the 5DmkII at 21MP assuming the high iso performance of the 5D is kept.

If you need decent auto iso feature, faster frame rates, the best high iso and good AF system go for the D700. It should be a better press/wedding/event camera.

If you need 21MP and are ok with the 5D AF and frame rate go for that. It would make a better landscape camera.

I have a D700 and it is an excellent camera, I just wish it had 21MP for landscapes so I didn't have to sitch but at the time the 5D mkII was not around and was rumoured at 16MP.

I have not used the 5DmkII.

[lovell]

It would be foolish to come to any conclusions before several endepth reviews have been published about the 5DM2, and comparisons between it and the D700.

I am guessing here, but I strongly suspect that when it comes to image quality (and features be damned) the Canon will win.  If the noise levels are the same or very nearly the same, then go for the higher MP's.

Don't let features destrict you from image quality, which is the prime directive.

Now if you shoot journalism, sports, maybe my criteria is not the best....

[NashvilleMike]

It would be foolish to come to any conclusions before several endepth reviews have been published about the 5DM2, and comparisons between it and the D700.

I am guessing here, but I strongly suspect that when it comes to image quality (and features be damned) the Canon will win.  If the noise levels are the same or very nearly the same, then go for the higher MP's.

Don't let features destrict you from image quality, which is the prime directive.

Now if you shoot journalism, sports, maybe my criteria is not the best....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224330\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd take the opposite approach - while I think the 5DmkII will be an *awesome* camera for a low ISO landscape/studio shooter, I still think there will be a divide between better real-world hi ISO performance and dynamic range (which the D700 or D3 will have an edge) and resolution (which obviously the 5DmkII will have an edge).

I seriously doubt in every aspect of image quality the 5DmkII will automatically be the best camera. So which body is right for a user isn't going to be a slam dunk and it's still going to involve some choice. While Canons sensor development is quite good, I just don't see them instantly making up *that* much progress (in the divide between low pixel density but high DR and pixel quality vs high pixel density and high resolution) to be able to provide a D3-like tonal, DR, and hi ISO performance in a 21mp body. We're not quite there yet -maybe someday, but like you said, we'll see once the tests and real-world shooting experiences come out.

I also feel that when you're talking about something in the 21mp arena, lens, support, and shot discipline are so amazingly critical in order to take advantage of all of that resolution and many folks won't even be remotely near extracting all that resolution when they shoot.  I'm not so sure that Canons wide glass is of the quality neccessary to fully take advantage of that level of mp at this point either.

Either way the 5dmk-II looks excellent - and thus it should put some pressure on the other guys (essentially meaning Nikon) which ultimately benefits us all.

[bob mccarthy]

I would be concerned that Canon tried to throw a hail Mary on the 5DmkII. To get better low light (high ISO) performance, Canon, reduced the density of the bayer filters to pass more light. I read a number of discussions by technical people in the know who are questioning the decision and what impact the reduction will make on the color palette.

Jury is out from what I can tell.

Nothing like a "big" pixel.

bob

[Deep]

Depending on what you shoot, you should also consider the Sony A900.  It has similar resolution to the Canon and a faster frame rate.  There was some "noise" on the internet about noise but now people are processing and posting RAW files it's looking pretty clean.  There are some really nice wide and mid tele lenses for it too, not to mention two blistering portrait lenses.  Not that much in the way of really long lenses (unless you can find the super-expensive older Minolta offerings)  The shots I've seen from the upcoming 16-35 suggest it will be as good as anything out there.  I know there is a lot of pressure to get Canon or Nikon but if you are starting from scratch you owe it to yourself to try out all options.  I have tried the Sony and it is pretty good.

I have an older Canon system and an Olympus system so I'm not biased towards a particular brand.  Nice to have some choice at last!