Well, I'm replying to this although I'm not sure I should because we're starting to sound like dpr here.
Replying? I do believe you
initiated this "DPR"-like dribble, did you not? The original post by Bruce just spoke of the realease of this camera, not of any kind of comparison.
Nikon is offering in the D700, 99% percent of its flagship camera used by pro's all over the place, for a fraction of the price. Canon hasn't. Isn't this 'another realistic' way of looking at it?
Nikon is offering, for $500 more money, a camera that cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II. And, as was just pointed out, the 5D Mk II can do many things that Canon's flagship camera can't, for a fraction of the price.
Only build quality you say? What about photographic responsiveness? Photographic responsiveness is not only fps. It's AF, shutter delay, blackout time and a host of other tangibles and intangibles that not everyone can appreciate (more so if one has not had a taste of them) but whoever can he can't do without them.
I am sure what you are saying is true, but at the end of the day if your camera
can't take as good a photo as this camera, what do you have, really? And for $500 more to boot
It's obvious where one comes from when he can so easily disregard these important issues in a comparative comment.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if you want to look down your nose at someone, an ideal candidate can be found in your mirror---for acting like "such behavior" as camera comparisons is beneath you, when in fact you initiated them, LOL
Where I come from, I try to get the most bang for my buck, and so to compare features in natural. I am just not hypocritcal about it.
IQ remains to be seen vs proven very high IQ. Mp are good for somethings irrelevant for others.
I agree, IQ has yet to be seen, though I am not sure you have the IQ to appreciate my joke
All in all, this discussion about which one is the best camera is absolutely silly as it all depends on one's priorities.
No, what's absolutely silly is the fact
you initiated this comparison, and then later raise your nose at the idea of "camera comparisons." I believe you are doing this simply because the Nikon is looking like a pretty crappy buy, when all is said and done,
by such comparison.
The fact is, only a complete moron would spend $2500 - $3000 on something
without making some comparisons first. Perhaps this is why every camera site in the universe offers comparisons
So since it was you who brought up the subject of these "silly" comparisons, if you think the Nikon offers "more" in its D700 than what the Canon offers in this new upgrade, then why don't you take me up on my bet? LOL For the majority consensus will be revealed in
whose prices go down ... and
whose prices stay level ... and my bet is that the $2500 5D Mark II will stay at this price for a long, long time ... because it offers the most camera for the money ... while the price for your hallowed D700 will begin to plummet as soon as the 5D Mk II comes out.
So speaking of money, would you care to put any where your mouth is?
Jack
.