Advice needed - Canon 5DmarkII or Nikon D700
- Thread starter quixilver
- Start date
to users that have tried both the canon and nikon, is it true that nikon has a faster AF? i have tried d300 vs my 7d, found that d300 focus is a tad faster than my 7d, and of course, the images are a lil sharper too...
perhaps it takes a L lens to bring out the same feel on my 7D...
perhaps it takes a L lens to bring out the same feel on my 7D...
Please understand that on a D3, noise levels are quite high also. It doesn't mean that just because it is a FF, there is no noise. But with the noise in the D3, you still have very good details. So when you do NR, it will look better.
If you really want performance and super low noise, go for the D3s.
for the note, that 51-points AF + 3D tracking will not fix ur back/front-focus problem, u need to calibrate the lens or trial and error with the micro adjust function either on D700 or 5Dmk2 to fix it, cheers
Don't misunderstand. But such questions have almost no answers ... I have often discussed why we chose specific brands with my fellow colleagues. Gets us nowhere.
Best solution, get both. You would then need deep pockets for good lenses from both brands + the mother of all dry cabinets. :think:
Best solution, get both. You would then need deep pockets for good lenses from both brands + the mother of all dry cabinets. :think:
He was not talking about front/back focusing due to lens AF accuracy.
He was talking about OOF problems when he used the compose-focus-recompose technique due to too thin DoF.
my bad, just got up when post this, brain still half way starting up lol
, in this case i think D700 will do a bit better IMO but from the TS needs i think either 5Dmk2 or D700 would sufficeas a wedding photographer, why are u shooting at high ISO?
Im not a wedding photographer, but every single wedding I attended, the photographers will be taking indoor shoots during the wedding with flash. ISO should be as low as possible.
Outdoor shots even more chance to use multiple flash or natural light, so again high ISO isnt needed.
not all wedding photographers uses flash... it depends on their shooting styles. Some only uses it when they have to, usually they are shooting with primes and higher ISO (but if you are using 5DMKII, the ISO control is so good that even if you use ISO 800-6400, the noise level is not very significant and visible as compared to entry level DSLR).
not all wedding photographers uses flash... it depends on their shooting styles. Some only uses it when they have to, usually they are shooting with primes and higher ISO (but if you are using 5DMKII, the ISO control is so good that even if you use ISO 800-6400, the noise level is not very significant and visible as compared to entry level DSLR).
Even with flash, need to bump ISO up to get a balance of ambient lighting and subject lighting...
If shoot at base ISO with flash, most of the pictures will look like those from PnS - lighted subjects but dark dark or black background.
agreed with daredevil.. even with flash, ISO & aperture needs to adjust to closely match the desired shutter speed too, in order to achieve the 1/focal length rule.
Different photographers have their unique style.
Indeed 5Dm2 has a good control in higher ISO..
Last edited:
Actually 1/focal length rule is not as critical in flash photography because flash is very fast light, and it is able to freeze motion.
High ISO is so as to expose the background properly so as not to drag too long a shutter speed.
I don't use the flash for indoor shoots unless if the lighting requires me to do so and I will use the flash to fill the subject as much as possible to keep the balance between foreground and background intensity.
The hi-ISO is more needed for outdoor-casual night photos in the pre-wedding sessions, many clients like this style (especially in the CBD area) and normally they asked me to capture the natural lighting so I have to get the correct exposure of the backgrounds as well.
I had the same problem a month ago, and I bought the 5D mk II. So, what I can say is this:
- AF is great, I really can't see an advantage of a 51point AF
- high ISO, well I really don't know if I will ever use the high ISO performance the mk II offers, I mean how many times are there that you really need more than 3200 ISO (I'm not criticizing, just pointing out that this camera performs really well in low light - I just had a shoot recently, it was getting dark, no flash, f/5.6, ISO 100, 24-105mm lens, and I just couldn't believe the quality of the image in that light situation)
Summa summarum:
Both great cameras, you can't go wrong with either one of them. In the end I liked the 5D mk II better even though I had a Nikon system before that.
-
- AF is great, I really can't see an advantage of a 51point AF
- high ISO, well I really don't know if I will ever use the high ISO performance the mk II offers, I mean how many times are there that you really need more than 3200 ISO (I'm not criticizing, just pointing out that this camera performs really well in low light - I just had a shoot recently, it was getting dark, no flash, f/5.6, ISO 100, 24-105mm lens, and I just couldn't believe the quality of the image in that light situation)
Summa summarum:
Both great cameras, you can't go wrong with either one of them. In the end I liked the 5D mk II better even though I had a Nikon system before that.
-
Could it be they were sponsored, rather than a canon-better-than-nikon-or-vice-versa thing?
If they all, the photojournalists used Canon, 1DIV or 5DII, were to jump off a bridge, Would you follow them?
Similar threads
