canon 5DmkII vs nikon D700

[pisduck]

I am looking to get either one of these two camera...

I shoot mainly on tours and probably my new 1month old baby girl.

since they are going to cost at least 5k including lens, I am having a hard time deciding which to get.

Options
1) Canon 5DmkII. + 24-105mm f4. Cost maybe $5k?
Pros:

Better Image quality. I have compared the high ISO samples of 1dsMkIII with the D700 and it seems that they are about equal if u downsample the 21meg pic to 12meg. And the 1DsMkIII offers better quality at low ISO. And canon is saying the 5DmkII will be significantly better than the idsMkII in IQ. wow.

No lens change. Huge plus on convenience. a good and light lens with IS. 24-105mm f4. GREAT LENS

Video recording. Minor plus. I already have a canon HF10 which will probably record much better video.

2) Nikon D700 + 105mm VR + AFS 50mm f1.4 + WA?? (sigma 24mm?) Probably cost $6k.
Pros:

Better AF. The AF seems to be much better. But I am more concerned with accuracy rather than fast tracking, etc. People seems to say nikon's AF is more accurate than canon's. Is that true?

More versatility with f1.4, macro, VR, etc. but tedious to go on travel.


any other pros that I am not aware of?

I guess I will have until end Oct to decide when the canon5DmkII is released...

[thinkvision]

I will selct 5DII + Leica R 35-70/2.8 , no one can beat its image and video quality. (even the zeiss 24-70/2.8 ZA)

[nemesis32]

If you shoot mainly ur baby, i'd say go for canon as it has better skin tones. D700 has another strong point which is the quality at low iso.

But i think main consideration is whether you have any gears at the moment.

For me, i am very tempted to jump to 5DmkII or even Sony A900. Both, i think are superior to D700. Another problem D700 has is that at full frame, there's not many "travel" lens that covers a wide range and it's light enough to carry.

My recommendation is that if you do not need full frame, consider going for the next best thing, D300, A700 or whatever, better value for money for now. In the long run, the trend is towards FF and thus my dilemma now as well

[chalib]

Originally Posted by pisduck More versatility with f1.4, macro, VR, etc. but tedious to go on travel.

u already got the answer to your question......

24-105 on FF body is a perfect combo for travelling........ most of the time, u won't have the time to swap lense often unless it is a photographic travelling.....

[pisduck]

Originally Posted by nemesis32 If you shoot mainly ur baby, i'd say go for canon as it has better skin tones. D700 has another strong point which is the quality at low iso. But i think main consideration is whether you have any gears at the moment. For me, i am very tempted to jump to 5DmkII or even Sony A900. Both, i think are superior to D700. Another problem D700 has is that at full frame, there's not many "travel" lens that covers a wide range and it's light enough to carry. My recommendation is that if you do not need full frame, consider going for the next best thing, D300, A700 or whatever, better value for money for now. In the long run, the trend is towards FF and thus my dilemma now as well

actually, I used to think that D700 has better low ISO performance. But I downloaded the high ISO samples (1dsMkIII and D3) from imaging resource, downsampled the canon one to same resolution as D3, ran both files through neat image and customed sharpening. My conclusion is they are VERY similar, and the canon high ISO images may even look a little bit better, more detailed.

I am thinking of cropped sensors too. but I think the extra 1-2 stops of ISO and smaller DOF may be useful indoors shooting my baby. D300 is around $2k. So the additional $$ for FF is around $1.5k. For FF, there are many advantages, like the nikon doesn't has a VR prime at 100mm or so. If I go D300, I probably get the nikon 85mm f1.4 which is around 130mm f2 and it doesn't has VR.

For canon, the 135mm f2 L lens is relatively cheap and VERY GOOD, according to reviews. Every reviews I have seen is super positive. That lens will not work well on a 50D, too long. So I either has to get the 85mm f1.8 (so-so lens) or 85mm f1.2 L (super EXPENSIVE). And the 17-55mm f2.8 is also not as wide or long as the 24-105mm.

my current gear is the SD14 + 10-20mm lens. the sigma is great (for its price) in good light. but it really really sucks in low light. So I am thinking of getting a 2nd camera. If I cannot sell the sigma, maybe I will keep it, and mount a tele prime on the FF DSLR, and carry both of them on my travels. I carried a SD14 + E510 on previous trip. the problem is that 80% of my pics are WA, so I will be using my cheapo DSLR 80% of the time, while the expensive one 20% of the time.... which doesn't make sense

[Luval]

sorry to burst your bubbles, falling back to the type of photography on hand. Do u really really need 6k of equipment for that. I am not questioning on the basis whether is it worth.

[nemesis32]

Originally Posted by pisduck actually, I used to think that D700 has better low ISO performance. But I downloaded the high ISO samples (1dsMkIII and D3) from imaging resource, downsampled the canon one to same resolution as D3, ran both files through neat image and customed sharpening. My conclusion is they are VERY similar, and the canon high ISO images may even look a little bit better, more detailed.

hmm... you are comparing the ISO files from 1DsMkIII against D700 and it's similar and yet you dont think D700 low ISO will be better than 5DMkII? You shd be comparing 1D with D3 and see which is better :P

Originally Posted by pisduck I am thinking of cropped sensors too. but I think the extra 1-2 stops of ISO and smaller DOF may be useful indoors shooting my baby. D300 is around $2k. So the additional $$ for FF is around $1.5k. For FF, there are many advantages, like the nikon doesn't has a VR prime at 100mm or so. If I go D300, I probably get the nikon 85mm f1.4 which is around 130mm f2 and it doesn't has VR.

Nikon has the 105 macro with VR now. And tbh, if you have Nikon 85mm, you dont need VR. VR is actually the poor cousin of large aperture lens :P I rather have all lenses at f1.4 then all lenses at f4 with VR as you still can't get the DOF With D300, you can easily get a 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 to shoot your baby pics. Just shoot at ISO400, 800 or even higher when required.

Originally Posted by pisduck For canon, the 135mm f2 L lens is relatively cheap and VERY GOOD, according to reviews. Every reviews I have seen is super positive. That lens will not work well on a 50D, too long. So I either has to get the 85mm f1.8 (so-so lens) or 85mm f1.2 L (super EXPENSIVE).

I think you are not comparing apples to apples... You should not compare 50D with D700 isn't it?

Originally Posted by pisduck my current gear is the SD14 + 10-20mm lens. the sigma is great (for its price) in good light. but it really really sucks in low light. So I am thinking of getting a 2nd camera. If I cannot sell the sigma, maybe I will keep it, and mount a tele prime on the FF DSLR, and carry both of them on my travels. I carried a SD14 + E510 on previous trip. the problem is that 80% of my pics are WA, so I will be using my cheapo DSLR 80% of the time, while the expensive one 20% of the time.... which doesn't make sense

I don't know much about Sigma, especially the cameras. I do know that their lenses are a bit soft compared with nikon/canon, hence the price difference.

My advice is to clear your mind 1st. Think of what you WILL shoot rather what you wish you CAN shoot. Most of the time, we end up buying unnecessary gear and collect dust. If you like travel photography, think whether you prefer landscape (FF) or candid (cropped). Also, i won't advice using 2 DSLR unless you are pro or on a photography-only trip. Carry a small dc (6mp++, durable with macro ability) + a DSLR is more advisable.

[geeteethree]

No one knows how accurate the 5d Mark II's autofocus will be.
No one knows how fast it will be.

There are many things now that have to be proved by the 5d mark 2

Specs on paper are one thing but whether they are all proven is another.

The Mark III had that exact problem.
I would wait before you start asking about a comparison between the two before the 5d mark 2 is even out.

[insanne]

Do you really need to get such cameras to shoot your baby girl and tour photos??? And you already have a video cam for the movies.

[pisduck]

Originally Posted by geeteethree No one knows how accurate the 5d Mark II's autofocus will be. No one knows how fast it will be. There are many things now that have to be proved by the 5d mark 2 Specs on paper are one thing but whether they are all proven is another. The Mark III had that exact problem. I would wait before you start asking about a comparison between the two before the 5d mark 2 is even out.

no lah. The AF module for the 5D mark2 is IDENTICAL to 5D. only firmware changes I think. So nothing will go wrong. it is just 5D speed lor. maybe a little faster.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by pisduck no lah. The AF module for the 5D mark2 is IDENTICAL to 5D. only firmware changes I think. So nothing will go wrong. it is just 5D speed lor. maybe a little faster.

Where did you find out about this?

[pisduck]

Originally Posted by nemesis32 hmm... you are comparing the ISO files from 1DsMkIII against D700 and it's similar and yet you dont think D700 low ISO will be better than 5DMkII? You shd be comparing 1D with D3 and see which is better :P

The D3 and D700 has identical high ISO performance, according to nikon. I did compare 1Ds and D3 and I think IdsMkIII is slightly better/same, contary to popular belief.

For low ISO, the nikons are lagging behind in detail. 21meg and 12 meg is very significant. I print in A3+ size, to achieve 300DPI, I need like more than 21meg, if I am not wrong. Of course at normal viewing distance, it probably would not matter but on closer examination, I think the higher resolution will show.

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Nikon has the 105 macro with VR now. And tbh, if you have Nikon 85mm, you dont need VR. VR is actually the poor cousin of large aperture lens :P I rather have all lenses at f1.4 then all lenses at f4 with VR as you still can't get the DOF With D300, you can easily get a 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 to shoot your baby pics. Just shoot at ISO400, 800 or even higher when required.

Actually given a choice of 85mm f1.4 D300 and 105mm f2.8 VR FF, I would take the 105mm. Remember f1.4 in D300 has the DOF of 130mm f2.1, which is not that far of from f2.8. I owned the nikon 85mm f1.4 b4 and I think the LCA is very bad, a lot of fringing in the OOF areas.

[pisduck]

Originally Posted by calebk Where did you find out about this?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08...ninterview.asp

quite a lot of information, including that the 5DmkII has better IQ the the professional IdsmkIII

[zac08]

Originally Posted by pisduck http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08...ninterview.asp quite a lot of information, including that the 5DmkII has better IQ the the professional IdsmkIII

So why are they still selling the 1DsMkIII? Just drop it and continue selling the 5DMkIII instead... it'll be cheaper.

[CYRN]

I'd say go for D700.

firstly, the 5D2 isn't proven. (unless you want to be Canon's beta testers )

Secondly, Nikon's 24-70/2.8 is simply better. Also, 5D2 sensor will be pushing the 24-105/4 IS to it's limits, this can be deduced from those using 1Ds3 with 24-105. mabbe you wan to search the web for it.

Lastly, go for 5D2 only if you need to resolution. You'll need a super high-end computer to open the thousands of files you will be accumulating over the years.

[CYRN]

Originally Posted by zac08 So why are they still selling the 1DsMkIII? Just drop it and continue selling the 5DMkIII instead... it'll be cheaper.

So that we know 1Ds4 is on the way...soon.

[eosdigital]

Im not sure about the 5D2, but what i can say from now is that if you want high ISO performance, i noticed that the D700's ISO 25000 and 12500 samples have the severe banding issues which may be a minus point for you.Well tentative, because 5D2 is unknown to have have that or not.

[Shin Howard]

Pisduck, have you consider getting an external flash unit?
Cos 5D II does not have the on camera flash...

If not then go for D700 or even the D90 might be a $$ saver.
Since you have a baby, might as well save more for her future education.

Ultimately, ask yourself what you really need. Then go straight to the shop.

[CYRN]

Originally Posted by Shin Howard Pisduck, have you consider getting an external flash unit? Cos 5D II does not have the on camera flash... If not the go for D700 or even the D90 might be a $$ saver. Since you have a baby, might as well save more for his/her further education.

take baby pics no use flash...

[zac08]

Originally Posted by CYRN take baby pics no use flash...

yup... dun use flash on babies eyes....