5D Mk ii vs D700

[bigdazzler]

Ah! I see. Much the same as a Canon or a Nikon.

I dont necessarily agree .... I find both of them a lot harder to navigate when you go deeper into the menus, and a lot more confusing in where the features are placed within the menus. I was on a workshop the other day, and had a bit of a look at one of the students 7Ds .... well, Im glad Im not using that camera.

Im not saying the Sony is any better or worse overall than anything else, but in that regard I find it much more user friendly. Horses for courses I suppose.

[peterb666]

If you already have a collection of Nikon lenses, stick with the Nikon. Likewise with Canon.

If you don't have any ties with either, choose the camera body based on the lenses you want.

The body will be obsolete in 4 or 5 years but you will probably use the lenses on a number of camera bodies. Both Canon and Nikon make fine cameras (and lenses).

[2cr4ck]

Thanks for the information Arthur.

There is a limited cash amount (probably around $7000 including whatever lens's and a few filters). I don't have a problem changing brands but for some reason have either Canon or Nikon stuck in my head and probably am not comfortable going away from these two when talking about this price range.

After looking at the DXO website I came to the conclusion that, particularly for an amateur like me, dynamic range is more important that MP so I think I'll stick with the D700.

Say I go for the Nikon 12-24mm and keep my 50mm and 28-105mm, which telephoto would you recommend for the D700, was considering the Nikkor f4.5-5.6 80-400mm ED?

Thanks again for all the help.

Do you mean 14-24mm rather 12-24mm? 12-24mm is DX lens and if you going for D700, I would go with FX lens.

[ricktas]

OK I did a bit of a search on here and couldn't find any threads with this subject. I'm looking to upgrade from a D80 to either 5D Mkii or D700.

Advantages of the Nikon is that I possibly wouldn't have to replace the lens's that I already have (please correct me if you think that I should) and that my wife also shoots with Nikon and we could probably share some gear (although she isn't really that serious and doesn't like to even change lens's).

The main concern that I have is that the Nikon has only 12ish Megapixels and the Canon 21ish. I'm looking to get more serious about landscapes so printing large is probably going to be part of the brief. I like all the other Nikon features over the Canon but this one feature seems to be a bit glaring.

I've also noted that the other photographers on this forum and others whose work I most revere, from what I can tell shoot with the 5D mk ii.

So, anyone with the D700 or 5D mk ii that has done the research and picked one or the other please pipe up.

Thanks in advance.

Some thoughts:

You have a 28-105 listed in your signature, did you mean the 18-105? If so, that is a DX lens, designed for a cropped sensor camera. It will work on a D700, but will leave you with photos that are about 5-6 MP.

Now, what is the new camera body going to offer you that your D80 cannot? To give you a direct thing to answer on. How would this photo or this photo be better if you took them with a D700 or a 5d mkII? When you know the answer to that, and can give it to us, then you are ready to upgrade.

[bb45pz]

Thanks Rick.

The lens is a 28-105 and not a DX lens. The actual focal length wide open on my current body is 42mm instead of 28.

I'm just about to invest in a wide angle and telephoto lens and thought that I'd upgrade the body to a full frame sensor body.

I guess this is where I haven't entirely got a handle on it however, if I use a 10mm DX lens on a DX sensor, and a 10mm full frame lens on a full frame sensor, do i capture exactly the same field of view?

Despite the question above, my other reasons are...

I'm hoping to gain some improvement in dynamic range and colour vibrance as the sensor in the D80 is only a CCD sensor rather than CMOS. I know that I could just go for the D90 or D300 but the cost is not that much extra.

I'm also hoping that the D700 will have much improved noise characteristics allowing higher ISO settings without the noise of the D80. I have noise problems currently on ISO400 and above and as such, shoot almost always on IS100. Its not that I have any intention of shooting on higher ISO than necessary but there are times when it would be convenient.

I would also like to do some longer exposures, several minutes for example, and the D80 has some real problems with sensor hotspots so this is also a consideration.

As for the two photos that you referenced... #1 I don't think would have been improved significantly with a different body and #2 required a fair bit of post processing to get it where it is, mainly in the sky area. It would also be much closer to what I want to see with the wide angle lens. Now I'm aware that filters are the key for this type of problem and part of this upgrade is going to be more filters on top of what I already have, but an increase in dynamic range would be nice.

I guess the other point is that the photos that i post here are the ones that I'm happy with, it'd be nice to be able to try some different things or possibly get away with a bit more and hopefully have a better useful--not useful hit ratio.

Now I know that most of this can be achieved without going to a D700 and a D300 would probably suffice, however if spending $2000 why not just spend $3000 on the body ???

[bb45pz]

I'm pretty much set on Nikon, based on the opinions here that MP isn't the be all and end all. I've been using the D80 for about 3-4 months and am quite happy with the Nikon layout and ergonomics.

Besides, if I can keep my existing lenses and make use of them then that'll save a bit.

[Jimbo]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics, I've never had a problem with either of mine. On my 5D, everything I ever need is on the series of buttons across the top, I rarely have to go into the menus.

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me

To the OP, it's sounds like Nikon is the camera for you, enjoy your new toy

[AdamR]

I would go with Nikon as you mentioned thats what your wife shoots with. They are both wonderful cameras and you wont know what your missing from the other one unless your using both. The D700 is a gem.

I liked Nikon but I went Canon as that is what my family and wife use. Made it a no brainer for me.

[bb45pz]

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me

Yeah I'm a bit the same with that as well, it takes a day or so and I've got most of the buttons and menus down pat. Its probably good that my wifes camera is the same brand as mine though as she isn't quite as good with the tech stuff and it makes it easy to help.

Thanks for the help.

[joele]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics, I've never had a problem with either of mine. On my 5D, everything I ever need is on the series of buttons across the top, I rarely have to go into the menus.

I like the Canon ergonomics too.. Though I think with all models it is just a matter of getting accustomed to how each works..

[farmer_rob]

...
The lens is a 28-105 and not a DX lens. The actual focal length wide open on my current body is 42mm instead of 28.

I'm just about to invest in a wide angle and telephoto lens and thought that I'd upgrade the body to a full frame sensor body.

I guess this is where I haven't entirely got a handle on it however, if I use a 10mm DX lens on a DX sensor, and a 10mm full frame lens on a full frame sensor, do i capture exactly the same field of view?
....

To paraphrase another member of the forum - "focal length is focal length is focal length". The concept of "equivalent focal length" is wrong, and a misrepresentation of the crop factor.

You are confusing field of view with focal length. The 10mm focal length will be the same regardless of DX/FX (or for that matter 4/3rds, m4/3rds or MF/LF). However, the image circle that results on the sensor is what matters.

10mm on a DX sensor will give a narrower (smaller) FOV than the 10mm on a FX sensor, because the FX sensor gets the parts of the image "that fall off the edge" of the DX sensor.

Note - this is why there are DX lenses - they produce smaller image circles that waste less light (ie less falls outside the sensor), but because the image circle is smaller, they are cheaper to produce (less glass etc.)

If you use a DX lens on an FX camera, only the central portion of the FX sensor will have an image circle, giving a somewhat extreme vignetting effect if left alone. (However, I believe the FX cameras automatically recognise the DX lens and only use the DX equivalent area of the sensor for those photographs.

(Check luminous landscape here for some more detailed information with diagrams)

(Oh, and the actual focal length of your 28-105mm is 28mm.)

[Redgum]

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me

But of course, being a tech geek has absolutely nothing to do with being a good photographer, often a handicap.

[Jimbo]

But of course, being a tech geek has absolutely nothing to do with being a good photographer, often a handicap.

But of course, I never claimed to be a good photographer

[bb45pz]

(Oh, and the actual focal length of your 28-105mm is 28mm.)

Thanks for the info Rob. You're right I was confusing the two.

I guess the main question that I had further to this would be if using a 10mm lens thats suited to DX sensor on a DX body and a 10mm lens thats suited to FX sensor on an FX body, would the field of view produced by both be the same?

[ricktas]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics

1

I don't either. Once you understand your camera, with a DSLR fairly much everything is available via buttons and wheels. It is on the initial setup that sees me entering the menu all that much, setting RAW, colourspace etc. Once that is done, I use my Nikons and rarely enter the menu system.

[I @ M]

bb45pz, around 18 months ago I hand held ( sat in a chair actually ) one of our D200 bodies with a Sigma 10-20mm on it @ 10mm and took a couple of shots then straight away repeated the shots with a D700 and a 14-24 Nikkor @ 14mm and the depth of field and field of view ( same aperture ) was almost identical.
The BIG difference was the level of distortion and detail rendered on the D700 14-24 combo -- much better.

And --- as far as I know, for a full frame Nikon body at the moment the widest lens other than a fisheye is going to be a 12-24mm Sigma.

[bb45pz]

I @ M, thanks for that info.

I'm tossing up between Nikon lenses at the moment. As I want the wide angle to be my primary lens for landscapes I don't mind spending a bit on it, particularly as if I do go for the FX body then I want to make the most of any other advantages it might have also.

[Zac]

Doubling resolution only gets you 41% more DPI. To double the DPI you need 4x the resolution... think about two images : 1000x1000 pixels vs 2000x2000 pixels and you'll see what I mean.

As others have said image quality depends more on things like having the best quality glass. The D700 is an excellent camera...

[farmer_rob]

I @ M, thanks for that info.

I'm tossing up between Nikon lenses at the moment. As I want the wide angle to be my primary lens for landscapes I don't mind spending a bit on it, particularly as if I do go for the FX body then I want to make the most of any other advantages it might have also.

As I see it, you have two major advantages on FX for landscapes:
- better choice of wide angle lenses, without the need for very short focal lengths to get the same FOV (Note that in I@M's example, he used a 10mm on DX and 14mm on FX to get the same field of view),
- higher quality wide angle lenses (at a price)

[RaoulIsidro]

Both are very good cameras, no doubt.
Putting aside all techno gizmo reso wambo jumbo...
Each has a unique sensor design that displays a different "feel" from each other.
One can only discern this after thousands of images from both cameras.
I would use the Nikon for people photography because to me, it renders flesh magnificently.
I would use the Canon for everything else.