5D Mk ii vs D700

[bb45pz]

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.

[Jimbo]

I've never weighed that option as I shot Canon previously, but I can only say good things about the 5D.

The high ISO performance is brilliant, the only weakness at all is the AF system and the motor drive compared to something like the 1D (more AF points, faster motor drive), but then again you pay extra for that I guess.

Be aware that 21MP means BIG files - longer transfer times and more storage. A full RAW file can be ~27MB. I got a bit of a shock when I put in my old 2GB memory card!

My biggest complaint is that I don't have enough good glass to make the most of it! lol.

[I @ M]

There is only ONE question that needs to be asked to reply to your original post.

How large do you want to print?

[Redgum]

I shoot with a Nikon D3X (24mp) and a D700 (12mp) and often defer to the D700 as my preference. Megapixels shouldn't be a priority.

[darkc]

I had the same choice to make a couple of years ago when I upgraded my system. I went with the D700 purely because of the superior ergonomics and build quality. I have never regretted it, not even for a second. It's the best all round camera I have ever owned (not that I have had that many). My mate has a 5DMKii and I can safely say I prefer the results of the D700's 12 megapixels over the 5DMKii's 21. I prefer the slightly softer appearance, it looks more real to life.

So i guess the question I would be asking myself is how important is it to me to make larger prints?

[Bear Dale]

From every review I've read, I've always been happy that I own the 5DMKII

[bb45pz]

Oh dear, I should have known I'd get totally mixed responses.

I guess the inevitable question is, at what print size will you notice the difference in image quality?

If I can get away with getting the D700 and print high quality at say 50-70 inches then I guess thats what I'll do. The autofocus was the primary reason for my preference towards the D700, just in case I start to do other things with it.

[Redgum]

I've got a 8m billboard in Moorooka, Brisbane shot with the D700. Is that big enough?

[jasevk]

D700 is 12mp.... 5DII 24ish mp... Same sized sensor. Half the mp (d700) on the same size sensor means bigger pixels. Bigger pixels equals superior low light performance

[TEITZY]

I think for your situation the 5D2 is a no brainer really. Looks like you're not that heavily invested in Nikon glass and you would probably be up for 14-24 anyway to get the most out of the D700. Nikon will probably release a higher MP prosumer body in the next 12 months but why wait for something that may or may not happen

Cheers
Leigh

[Kym]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/...rand3%29/Nikon

[scpleta]

check out this DxOMark website and maybe it will give you a clearer perspective of what to choose.

[darkc]

50-70 inches! You must have some huge wall space to fill :-) I just returned from a trip to Tibet and while in Lhasa photographing people in amongst the crowds I would not have got the people shots I did without the quick tracking autofocus on the D700. Its amazing! Almost feels like your cheating letting the camera do so much of the work. The landscapes I shot were none to shabby either, I am always amazed at the quality of the files out of this camera.

[scpleta]

ooops. kym and i seem to have one thing in mind by posting the same website. hmmm... how should i delete mine to avoid the double up? help please...

[JM Tran]

I've got a 8m billboard in Moorooka, Brisbane shot with the D700. Is that big enough?

bad example actually, all depends on viewing distance and DPI

I would go with the 5DMKII for the extra megapixels and ability tor resolve greater details at a good DPI, when viewed from a meter or more away. Not 30 meters away when driving past in a car or something.

[TOM]

both cameras will do essentially the same thing. and don't concern yourself too much with the camera, you will have likely given it the flick in a few years....but the lenses you have and buy now should last for decades. lenses should be the main choice in your decision, and both companies make decent glass. so imho, the choice is obvious; your wife has nikon glass, you already have nikon glass, so if the D700 fits the budget, then grab it and start taking some pics. 50-70" is a massive print, but for the average print, both these diggicams will romp it in.

[rwg717]

both cameras will do essentially the same thing. and don't concern yourself too much with the camera, you will have likely given it the flick in a few years....but the lenses you have and buy now should last for decades. lenses should be the main choice in your decision, and both companies make decent glass. so imho, the choice is obvious; your wife has nikon glass, you already have nikon glass, so if the D700 fits the budget, then grab it and start taking some pics. 50-70" is a massive print, but for the average print, both these diggicams will romp it in.

Yep, this is what I was going to say, the camera body comes and goes but the glass stays. Think you would be wasting money on high-end Canon lenses which might be better put towards new Nikon cameras, these 2 companies go really hard at each-other with new models but the lenses don't change that much I have found, sure they add an IS or a VR here and there and then a Mk.II or Mk.III version, then people start "blowing-up" that the new version isn't as good as the old one....it's endless. Stick with Nikon
Richard

[Redgum]

bad example actually, all depends on viewing distance and DPI

I would go with the 5DMKII for the extra megapixels and ability tor resolve greater details at a good DPI, when viewed from a meter or more away. Not 30 meters away when driving past in a car or something.

All relative JM - like watching a 30" TV screen from 10 metres compared to a 20" screen from 5 metres. Also depends on the picture and the processing. Megapixels are not paramount.

[TOM]

true Red, resolution rarely has anything to do with a good photograph.

[bb45pz]

Thanks for the help everyone. Looking at the DXO website it seems that the Nikon has the edge (I hope I'm reading that right).

Ok say I stay with the Nikon, and I do like that my wife and I can share gear. I'm looking at getting a Sigma 10-20mm and keeping the existing Nikkor 50mm and 28-105.

Are these 3 lens's considered to be quality lens's, or should I sell the lens's that I have with the D80 and get a kit with say a 24-120 VR and some other lens's that will likely provide better results.