Canon 5D mark II or Nikon D700 ??

Lucid

Hello all

I am going to start a professional photography course and i wish to buy a full frame camera since its required.

I am stuck between these 2 choices..On one hand we have the 5D mark II with a 21.1 MP sensor with 9 point AF system , 3.9 FPS, 98%View finder coverage..and a great kit lens bundled (24-105MM L) and various number of lens in canon artillery, but crappy camera ergonomics.


On the other side we have Nikon D700 12.3 MP sensor size...really small for industrial photography i feel, 5fps continuous shooting (or up to 8 with the optional battery grip), a considerably more sophisticated 51-point AF system, a popup flash, on-demand grid lines in its optical viewfinder, a virtual horizon facility and in-camera correction of chromatic aberrations...also this is around 50 K cheaper with a kit lense..also i would point out the lens along with FX format in nikon are not really that good compared to canon..also the bundled kit lens with D700 is below par

Now consider this, i love Landscape photography and also industrial photography to fill up my pockets ..and on the side i can concentrate on landscape photography.

Now i need all your expert views on this situation..should i really consider the FPS on d700 and AF points..along with it..and totally ignore the 12.1 MP on D700 ??
Because of reading lots of reviews nikon is bundled with features while the canon has great image quality and the lens in their artillery...i also want a user friendly camera out of these 2.

I dont wish to stress to much on megapixel while buying.. their case can be arguable..if we take out the MP out of the hat, what do we think is a good camera ? including the lens which can be bought for a full framer..in coming times !

D700 look packed to me :S

Help please !!

__________________
"The understanding of nature is the understanding of complex integrated systems of such complexity, that to deny them consciousness, is just a reluctance of the reductionist mind"
Terrence Mckenna

Travelmonk

It would first depend on whether i am a Canon or Nikon user as it is not advisable to change from Canon to Nikon and vice a versa and for geeting the best of these cameras will the lenses you will be using. If you are going to buy full frame (FX) cameras then it is advisable you go with the pro lens..

Both the Canon 5D mark II or Nikon D700 are very good choice... i am providing you links where the experts have reviwed both these camares which will be of help

http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii.htm

__________________
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.Lao Tzu

http://www.indiamike.com/photopost/s...0/ppuser/52785

Lucid

Hello travel monk i have gone through ken rockwell sites, he is a nikon user and has totally bashed the 5d hehe, besides i haven't used either brands before.

Now lenses is whats bothering me, nikon pro end lenses are expensive and no where near the L series of canon.

chinaphotographer

I purchased a Nikon d700 specifically for my India trip, which began a few months ago. I also purchased 3 prime Nikkor lenses: 50mm 1.4, 14-24mm, and 70-200mm 2.8. You can see some of my recently uploaded photos here:

India Travel Photos

I am a street photographer and focus primarily on people, so I can't speculate if the d700 would be ideal for landscape. I also can't compare it with the Mark II execpt to say that the 5D is a "pro" camera; I have pro pals who swear by the Mark II; I don't know any pros who shoot with a d700. If you want to shoot pro, consider the Nikon d3X as the ultimate DSLR.

For travel/street photography, I personally think the d700 is nice though there are features I also dislike about it. But as anyone will tell you, it's mostly about the lenses. I love my 50mm, I unfortunately hardly use my 14-24 (too fragile), but I mostly use my 70-200 2.8, though I am finding it is not very comfortable for walking around India 10-hours per day.

Obviously, Canon has more lens selection. However, most photogs I know (including the pros) shoot midrange zoom (the kind with plastic bodies and cost next to nothing) and are very satisfied. I don't shoot midrange because I like shooting low-light and appreciate a crisp zoom, though I am truly hating having to always change lenses in India in these conditions; it's killing my sensor.

Lastly, the d700's 12 megapixels is outdated and now below the industry standard. If you want to sell to Getty or Corbis, or blow up your prints to billboard size, get the d3X for it's awesome mpx.

I'm a new DSLR user, and have only been shooting Nikon for a few months, so please solicit other opinions. I'm published, but I photograph primarily for fun, so technical comparisons between the two cameras are beyond me

I'm not online much while I'm traveling, but feel free to ask any more questions while you've got me here...

Tom Carter

__________________
http://www.tomcarter.org

abracax

The Nikon D700 is undoubtedly the best deal, especially when you consider that you would need a speedlight for the Canon (another $600 minimum), which lacks a built-in flash (we're waiting, boys). The Nikon's resolution is not so much outdated as a trade-off between resolution and sensitivity in favour of what dpreview.com called "Class-leading high ISO performance, usable up to ISO 12800". The Canon with that lens (I have one, it's sweet) will definitely take better pictures in the sunlight, but the Nikon package is more adaptable and better value. Decisions, decisions....

__________________
tbontbtitq (Shakespeare's password)

Lucid

Yes its understood that Nikon performs better in low light since the pixels density is less on FX format hence bigger and more sensitive to light, but both camera have practically sufficient low light results irrespective. (Maybe we'll see a D700x sometime soon)

The big issue with the d700 are the lenses, nikon still has to catch up with full frame standards of their camera's..which takes us to the canon 5D, the L series are a league apart and on this basis i can safely vouch for canon..since lens matter a lot in the quality of an image also its a tad cheaper then d700.

Difficulty in deciding...

paintedlotus

There is another alternative: Instead of spending close to $3500 US for the 5D Mark II and kit lens-- a LOT of money considering you've never shot with a Canon or Nikon before-- you could get a used 5D Mark I, also full-frame, for probably less than half (body only).

It's an AMAZING camera. I know this because I have one. You can spend that extra 2k on a nice lens or two instead.

There are arguments for/against either the Nikon or Canon ad nauseum all over the internet. What it comes down to is what's 1. more comfortable for you; 2. in your price range (as you've noted already, Nikon glass is VERY expensive and generally not quite the same quality as Canon's) or 3. what features on the camera are more important to you.

If it makes any difference, I work with a wonderful professional fashion & portrait photographer who uses a 5D (mark I) with a Canon 30D as her backup body. It's not always about the bigger gear, it's more about the experienced eye.

stocklotgarment

Canon -Nikon .. Not again .
The 5d is a really good camera ,but for the price of a new one check it thoroughly .
The reason being , many of the home ,travel consumers have taken advantage of the digital revlution and now to develop a pic does not require any expense or consumables . So , inorder to sell manufacturers are introducing new models everyday . It doesnt make sense to invest 2500 dollars and after a year find out that the camera is just worth over 200 dollars . GO for a pre used body , but buy new lenses . But , again make sure you buy the correct lenses that are required for your type of photography .

Finally canon or Nikon does not matter as you also have sigma , tamron making lenses for both of them . And sometimes you will be surprised with the perfromance of 3rd party lens over the manufacurer lens .

Bhaswaran

Setting aside all theories.......a full-frame sensory will give better details, quality and enlargements compared to a non-full frame. It depends on what type of photography are you going into and upto which sizes you need to go up. If you want to get into professional photography, better go for a full-frame with quality lenses. That will deliver.

__________________
....life is a journey.....and the journey is more important than the destination........

Photos in Indiamike :http://www.indiamike.com/photopost/s...0/ppuser/15496

Photos in Flickr :http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhaswaran/

Darjeeling trip Video : "Darjeeling - The Queen of Hills" DVD

Lucid

The price is with warranty and kit lens(L Glass with canon (24-105) and 24-120 with nikon)
Canon - 1,96K
Nikon - 2,24K

I am definitely picking up canon inspite of all the fancy features d700 has, its purely because of lens, price and the features i would need in future point of view.

Tough decision though...

paintedlotus

What kind of photography class is this for? Is it in a university? (I'm really shocked at the "requirement" of a full-frame camera as plenty of pros shoot with crop-sensor bodies and they do just fine.) What type of camera have you been shooting prior to this?

Also what type of photography are you planning on doing? If you're going to be shooting wildlife and/or sports, you're going to want a body with a faster frame rate (fps). For anything besides fast-motion subjects, the FPS isn't anything that should be heavily considered when trying to decide between bodies.

I still think you would be better served with a slightly-used body which will free up some money for lenses or a good tripod and ball head. Those are absolutely crucial tools for any photographer.

EDIT: Never mind, I see that you're going to be concentrating on landscape and industrial photography. If that's what you want to specialize in you're REALLY going to want a good tripod and ball head in order to get sharp, properly exposed photos.

stocklotgarment

I second paintedlotus with the argument .

abracax

Wow - those cameras are a lot more expensive in India compared to Canada, even with our rapacious sales taxes!

Lucid

Hello,
Now i have used a Canon 40D in the past, although not for a longer duration of time, so where the SLR techniques are concerned i am still a novice.

I have a manfrotto tripod with a panhead and it does work wonders.

@abracax >> how much are these camera's for in canada ?

chinaphotographer

I was living in Tokyo last year and thought I'd purchase my new DSLR kit and prime lenses there for cheap before coming to India. On the contrary, Japan was ridiculously overpriced in all things camera, despite the fact that they make everything just down the street! So I purchased my d700 body and Nikkor lenses, etc. on B&H's website for a couple thousand U.S. dollars LESS than Japanese retail!!! B&H also gave me a slight discount since I bought everything at once, and offered free shipping. I am not endorsing B&H (I don't endorse anyone unless they are sponsoring me), but just saying you should compare a Mark II + lenses package with a d700 + lenses package on B&H's shopping cart (and Calumet while you are at it) before making your final decision.

Tom

India Travel Photos