CANON EOS-5D MK II DIGITAL SLR vs NIKON D700 DIGITAL SLR

Here's some video shot using the 5D II:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/620339/

I am waiting for the Canon myself. Have invested in Canon lenses but even if I had not would still go for the Canon.

I have owned the D300 and before that the D50 which was my first step into Dslr's for me the Canon always felt better in the hand.

(Please Remember I said this is my personal Opinion from my experiences with the to brands)

As far as the HD goes take a look at the review @ http://www.cameralabs.com this will speak for itself. They have the reviews in both SD and HD.

As far as lenses go I have the to listed below, the 24-70 is a fantastic lens, but should you choose the D700, Nikon will have something comparable.

my 2c

sud said:

I am waiting for the Canon myself. Have invested in Canon lenses but even if I had not would still go for the Canon.

I have owned the D300 and before that the D50 which was my first step into Dslr's for me the Canon always felt better in the hand.

(Please Remember I said this is my personal Opinion from my experiences with the to brands)

As far as the HD goes take a look at the review @ http://www.cameralabs.com this will speak for itself. They have the reviews in both SD and HD.

As far as lenses go I have the to listed below, the 24-70 is a fantastic lens, but should you choose the D700, Nikon will have something comparable.

my 2c

Click to expand...

The Nikkor 24-70mm G AF-S lens is a fantastic lens. Gets glowing reviews from most people who use it.

I think no matter which you choose you'll be happy they are both really good camera's for the money.

One thing I would note though from experience is that Canon's glass is more expensive for the same comparable lense then Nikons. Once again this is from my experience.

sud said:

One thing I would note though from experience is that Canon's glass is more expensive for the same comparable lense then Nikons. Once again this is from my experience.

Click to expand...

Both make great glass, but that pricing comment isn't accurate at all. For the same lenses (and note that some low/mid-range Nikon zooms are slower than Canon's equiv) -- the Nikon's are actually a bit more expensive. Below are the ones that are directly comparable. Most prices below are from B&H, a good benchmark for the market.

24-70mm f/2.8 -- Nikon=$1429 Canon=$1039
70-200mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$1600 Canon=$1488
50mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$110 Canon=$80
50mm f/1.4 -- Nikon=$280 Canon=$310
85mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$380 Canon=$330
135mm f/2 -- Nikon=$1070 Canon=$935
300mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$4450 Canon=$3728
400mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$7900 Canon=$6750

Grimace said:

Both make great glass, but that pricing comment isn't accurate at all. For the same lenses (and note that some low/mid-range Nikon zooms are slower than Canon's equiv) -- the Nikon's are actually a bit more expensive. Below are the ones that are directly comparable. Most prices below are from B&H, a good benchmark for the market.

24-70mm f/2.8 -- Nikon=$1429 Canon=$1039
70-200mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$1600 Canon=$1488
50mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$110 Canon=$80
50mm f/1.4 -- Nikon=$280 Canon=$310
85mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$380 Canon=$330
135mm f/2 -- Nikon=$1070 Canon=$935
300mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$4450 Canon=$3728
400mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$7900 Canon=$6750

Click to expand...

Interesting, but there are caveats buried there. Nikon's 24-70 is a very new lens, released in 2007. I believe Canon's is several years older than that.

everyone is raving about the 5dmk2's night and video capabilities.

luminosity said:

Interesting, but there are caveats buried there. Nikon's 24-70 is a very new lens, released in 2007. I believe Canon's is several years older than that.

Click to expand...

True, but good glass doesn't necessarily work better if it's newer. The high end long Canon primes came out in 1999 and are still the very top (in my biased view). Nikon didn't even offer those identical focal lengths/apertures until a few years ago.

The pricing largely comes from the volume that the manufacturer can ship. Canon has historically shipped a lot more high end glass and so the prices can be a bit lower. Nikon simply didn't have lenses in those areas until very recently, so the prices are a bit higher.

The Nikon glass will naturally come down with time, but the prices are technically higher now. I'm not looking at quality, I think both brands have fantastic glass -- just the prices.

Grimace said:

Both make great glass, but that pricing comment isn't accurate at all. For the same lenses (and note that some low/mid-range Nikon zooms are slower than Canon's equiv) -- the Nikon's are actually a bit more expensive. Below are the ones that are directly comparable. Most prices below are from B&H, a good benchmark for the market.

24-70mm f/2.8 -- Nikon=$1429 Canon=$1039
70-200mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$1600 Canon=$1488
50mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$110 Canon=$80
50mm f/1.4 -- Nikon=$280 Canon=$310
85mm f/1.8 -- Nikon=$380 Canon=$330
135mm f/2 -- Nikon=$1070 Canon=$935
300mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$4450 Canon=$3728
400mm f/2.8 IS -- Nikon=$7900 Canon=$6750

Click to expand...

If you noted I said in my experience.

I buy my lens's from http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001191/displayproductcategory/pro-lenses--2082853.html where the prices vary some what from yours.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight - sorry if it came off that way. There is a bit more of a discrepancy in your hemisphere ('though all of the high-end Nikon lenses say "On Special" and the Canons do not).

From the one 5dmkII video I have seen which is the snow in Vegas one, it would appear to be making quite good video, that being said, I don't know if you will find people selling their video equipment any time soon.

For someone who wants some extra flexability to take the occasional video to enhance a project etc it certainly adds a lot of pluses to both cameras. So long as the video functionality doesn't take away from the primary objective of taking top quality photos then all is good.

Vincent Laforet (Blog) has been going crazy with the 5DII since he got a early peek at it from Canon. According to him the low-light 1080P HD video it can record is going to shake up the budget/indie industry a LOT. Couple the camera with Canon's top L fast primes and he's getting amazing results.

Also, keep in mind that Canon has been making CMOS video cameras for years as well, so adding video to the 5DII wasn't just something to see if it was possible, it was merging two focuses.

One thing I've heard about Nikon's newest glass offerings is they were designed around a crop sensor, so on their new Full Frame there is some vignetting occurring.

Well yeah, the 5D MkII video recording capabilities is amazing, some people say that it is not good since its not 27fps or something but hey, to me, having a DSLR that can record stuffs is pretty darn good. There is a lot of events out there that sometime you wish your DSLR can record it rather then snapping it.

I am interested to see a side by side image comparison of the 5D mk2 vs D700 set at 10mpx. Especially at high ISO.

If high quality video is important to you, get the Canon. If still images are your purpose, get the D700 - it's has far better AF system, better construction, higher framer rates (especially if you add the grip), and truly astonishing low-light performance.

If high quality video is important to you, get the Canon. If still images are your purpose, get the D700 - it's has far better AF system, better construction, higher framer rates (especially if you add the grip), and truly astonishing low-light performance.

Click to expand...

Well thats a bit of a unfair comparison isn't it, better construction is more of a personal thing and if being nit picky, the 5D should be more solid and durable then the 700D since it doesnt have a built-in flash.

Hmm, from the test picture shown, the 5D low light performance is just as capable as the 700D.

I wondered why Canon cannot make the 5D achieve higher frame rates when battery grip is added or more AF points, I wished the 5D to keep the current AF points it has (like the 6 invisible AF points) and add some extra wide AF points. I dont understand Canon philosophy that the 5D and 1Ds is for portrait and landscape photographers while the 40D and 50D is for sports photographer. So what, sports photographers cant use a proper Full Frame DSLR?

wheezy said:

One thing I've heard about Nikon's newest glass offerings is they were designed around a crop sensor, so on their new Full Frame there is some vignetting occurring.

Click to expand...

Nope, just the 70-200 so far, which wasn't made for cropped sensors either, it was made for film, and since the newer FF camera have much more resolving power than film all defects are showing up. The issues with the 70-200 only became noted once used on the D3.

As for the 5D and D700, the one thing many are missing out on is what actually got updated. Canon put in a new sensor that does video and some features that would have to go in there since they are already in every other DSLR on the market. Other than that it's the same body as the first 5D.

The autofocus is the same, which was rather slow, the shooting speed is the same, the ISO range is the same, and other than that the only thing they changed for the IQ was adding the Digic 4.

When it first came out I thought, "Where's the new camera?"

As a video guy, I doubt many will be shooting high end video or wedding with it. It's a nice idea, but the body isn't robust enough to handle pro video. So other than that you have still IQ to go on, and compared to the D700...... at high ISO's......

wheelhot said:

Well thats a bit of a unfair comparison isn't it, better construction is more of a personal thing and if being nit picky, the 5D should be more solid and durable then the 700D since it doesnt have a built-in flash.

Hmm, from the test picture shown, the 5D low light performance is just as capable as the 700D.

I wondered why Canon cannot make the 5D achieve higher frame rates when battery grip is added or more AF points, I wished the 5D to keep the current AF points it has (like the 6 invisible AF points) and add some extra wide AF points. I dont understand Canon philosophy that the 5D and 1Ds is for portrait and landscape photographers while the 40D and 50D is for sports photographer. So what, sports photographers cant use a proper Full Frame DSLR?

Click to expand...

No, you can get a 1Ds-Mark III and get a full frame sports camera. It just costs a lot more than a D3.

luminosity said:

No, you can get a 1Ds-Mark III and get a full frame sports camera. It just costs a lot more than a D3.

Click to expand...

That, and it's going to be slow as a dog at 4 fps. Also, with a price tag of $8000 I think it's better to keep it indoors or at parties and weddings. Sports photogs and journalist usually work the hell out of their gear, and damaging an $8000 body would ruin anyone's day.

The Canon 1D Mark III shoots up to 10 FPS. I think it may be full frame as well.

I think Canon's numbering gets a bit confusing.

Digital Skunk said:

...the ISO range is the same.

Click to expand...

Skunk, just to nitpick on you, I don't believe this is correct. The 5D MKII will go up to 25,600 , which is quite a feat since my 5D classic only goes to 3200.

luminosity said:

The Canon 1D Mark III shoots up to 10 FPS. I think it may be full frame as well.

Click to expand...

No, it's a 1.3 crop (APS-H). A friend of mine shoots surfing with one, an activity for which a cropped sensor brings a lot of value. He had a 1Ds Mark II for a while, but he quickly traded it for his current body.

And yes, Canon's naming conventions for the 1D variants are confusing as heck.

wheelhot said:

Hmac said:

If high quality video is important to you, get the Canon. If still images are your purpose, get the D700 - it's has far better AF system, better construction, higher framer rates (especially if you add the grip), and truly astonishing low-light performance.

Click to expand...

Hmm, from the test picture shown, the 5D low light performance is just as capable as the 700D.

Click to expand...

Hmm, from the pictures I've seen, the D700 is still much better from ISO 3200 and higher, and a little better at ISO 1600. Am I incorrect in that statement? I am still deciding between the two cameras at the moment (since my last thread a month or so asking the same question).

Over Achiever said:

Hmm, from the pictures I've seen, the D700 is still much better from ISO 3200 and higher, and a little better at ISO 1600. Am I incorrect in that statement? I am still deciding between the two cameras at the moment (since my last thread a month or so asking the same question).

Click to expand...

The Canon is amazingly close given the resolution difference, but there's not getting around the laws of physics and the well depth is going to be shallower. If you're not highly invested in lenses of one system or the other, then you should decide if ultra-high ISO or high resolution are more important to you. If you're not shooting a lot at ISO 1600 and above, then I think the Canon is the obvious choice, since the cropability is significantly better.

I post this one day after I listed my 5dmk2 on eBay.

I originally shot a d300. I wasn't happy with the d300 for portrait work, so I got rid of some of my nikon lenses and decided to buy a 5dmk2 and a few primes. I got the camera and an 85 1.8.

Then I realized how poor the build of the 5d is. The AF is ridiculously bad, something I thought I could get around because I was not going to use the canon for sports. The interface is clunky and dumbed down feeling. The focus points are a joke. I didn't bother to try the video, I just reboxed it all and loaded up eBay. I really wanted to like this camera, because I sold off at least one lens I really loved in anticipation for the mpe-65. But it is just no where near the same level as a nikon camera. I can say the ISO was very nice.