Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D
vs. 
On the 22nd August 2005 - nearly three whole years ago - Canon announced what was then a quite shocking camera, in much the same way that the D700 is today. It was the first ever “affordable” full-frame 35mm DSLR, and at the time Canon claimed that it “defines a new D-SLR category”. Bold words, and justifiably so - the EOS 5D was a revelation for many as it opened up the world of large sensors for non-professionals, although in the following years it’s found it’s way into many a professional’s arsenal.
So, fast forward to late 2007 - over two years after Canon’s 5D - and Nikon announce the D3, their first full-frame (”FX”) DSLR. We all know about that; it turned out to be a winner not only for it’s feature set and performance, but for it’s amazing sensor. Now, a further six months down the line, that same sensor is finally available in a 5D-sized body. So of course, we want to compare the two cameras.
Why?
Let’s get this question out of the way first.
Yes, the Canon 5D is nigh on three years old - that’s pretty much 2 generations in DSLR terms. So why compare these two? Let me list the reasons:
- Because, quite frankly, the 5D has set the bar for image quality over the past few years. Can Nikon meet or exceed the incredibly high standards set by Canon?
- Both cameras are “full frame” - FX in Nikon-speak, with the 5D at 12.8mp compared to the D700 at 12.1mp. There are currently no other cameras on the market with these two qualities in the same body, so it’s natural to want to compare them.
- At the time of writing, both the 5D and the D700 are current models in the Canon and Nikon product ranges. There are no alternative FX 12-ish megapixel digital SLRs.
Yes, I know that Canon’s replacement for the 5D is likely to be available quite shortly, but as of writing (August 2008) it’s not even announced. There are no firm specifications, just unsubstantiated rumours. For that reason we’ll ignore it. When it finally is announced and available, I’ll try to get one in for another comparison…
Features
| Nikon D700 | Canon EOS 5D | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 12.1 mp 4256 x 2832 |
12.8 mp 4368 x 2912 |
This is a practically insignifficant difference; it translates into a 2.6% linear resolution increase. |
| ISO | 200 - 6400 in 1, 1/2 or 1/3 EV steps | 100 - 1600 in 1/3 EV steps | Much has been written about the D3 & D700’s high-ISO capabilities. Nothing else currently comes close. |
| ISO Boost | 100 - 25600 | 50 - 3200 | |
| Weather Sealing | Yes | No | |
| Viewfinder | Pentaprism 95% coverage 0.72x magnification) |
Pentaprism 96% coverage 0.71x magnification) |
No practical difference. |
| Viewfinder blackout | 74ms | 145ms | When you take a shot with the 5D, you can’t see through the finder for 145ms. Again, the 5D is no speed demon. The D700 excels in this area. |
| Built-in flash | Yes | No | Incredibly useful not only for fill, but also as to control remote Speedlights in Commander mode. |
| Flash sync | 1/320s | 1/200s | |
| Sensor Cleaning | Yes | No | |
| Storage | CompactFlash Type I | CompactFlash Type I & II Microdrives |
Used a microdrive in the past 5 years? I didn’t think so. |
| FPS | 5 fps 8 fps max with battery pack |
3 fps max | The 5D was never known as a speed demon; that was never it’s raison d’etre. |
| DX Crop Mode | Yes | No | The 5D does not support Canon’s EF-S lenses |
| Buffer | 100 JPEG 17-23 RAW (depending on compression) |
60 JPEG 17 RAW |
The D700 is rather dependant on having a fast UDMA-capable CF card - without one, these figures will be lower. |
| 14-bit image capture | Yes | No | No DSLRs (apart from the Fujifilm S3pro) supported 14-bit capture when the 5D was released. |
| LCD | 3.0″ 920,000 dots 640×480 |
2.5″ 230,000 dots 320×240 |
The D700’s LCD is amazing - detailed, crisp and colourful. The 5D’s pales in comparison - and it wasn’t even particularly good for 2005. |
| Live view | Yes | No | Not a feature on any DSLR of the 5D’s age. |
| Exposure compensation | -5 to +5 EV in 1/2 or 1/3 EV steps |
-2 to +2 EV in 1/3 EV or 1/2 EV steps |
Only -2 to +2 for the Canon - not good. |
| Weight | 1024g (37.9oz) | 895g (31.6oz) | In most cases, lighter is better - but the 5D doesn’t have the D700 build quality. |
| Build Quality | Excellent | Good | |
| Price | Check Price | Check Price | I get a small kickback if you order via these links, and this helps me to keep this site running. Thanks! |
Handling
I am a Nikon shooter.
I’m used to the way Nikon cameras handle.
This is just my opinion on the “Canon way”!
This is a very subjective point, and one I’m not going to comment on too much. I personally much prefer the Nikon way of doing things, some people prefer the Canon way. If you’ve not used either brand before, you’ll probably end up liking whichever one you become familiar with first - that’s the way these things usually work!
The best thing to do it to get yourself down to a local camera store, handle both, and see which feels better to you. However, having got that out of the way…
The Nikon D700 is streets ahead of the Canon EOS 5D ergonomically. Why? Let me list the ways…
- Construction:
The Nikon is weather sealed and has an incredibly solid-feeling magnesium alloy body. The Canon’s body is also made from magnesium alloy, but is not sealed and simply feels a little like a toy in comparison. Even the CF card door - not my favourite design on the D700, as they seem to have copied Canon here - feels better on the D700. The Canon’s door isn’t even sprung. Lens mounting is also a lot more positive on the Nikon.Having said that, I very much doubt that most people will encounter any problems with the construction of either body. Even the cheapest plastic consumer DSLR is often more robust than it’s user! This also contributes to the Canon’s weight advantage; it clocks in at 895g (1.97 lb) with battery compared to the Nikon’s 995g (2.19 lb).
- Controls:
This one is probably more subjective than any other on the list. Quite frankly, I find the Canon’s handling atrocious. At first the large iPod-like wheel on the back seems like a good idea; however, in use I find it’s positioned far too low and is impossible to use comfortably while gripping the camera normally. Thumb-ache ahoy, even after short sessions. It’s better with a battery grip attached, but the D700 and MB-D10 arrangement is simply better.I really miss the rear control wheel (Nikon always has two - front and rear - Canon does not). You have to use the “iPod” wheel - more aching thumbs.
The 5D has a Direct Print button. Why? Has anyone ever used this? Canon should have replaced it with a dedicated MLU button.
Zooming in on an image during playback. Unfortunately, Nikon have taken a backwards step on the D700 and made it more Canon-like, where you have dedicated “zoom in” and “zoom out” buttons. The previous Nikon hold-and-rotate-the-rear-dial method was far better, as you never had to keep pressing a button multiple times to scroll in and out. (Compare this to using your mouse wheel to scroll this web page, or using your keyboard. Which is easier?). One saving grace though is that Nikon have kept their middle-press-to-zoom-to-100% functionality, so it’s less of an issue than it could be.
I could go on (the location of the power switch, the position of the LCD backlight button, etc, etc) but I think the point is made!
Shutter Sound
I’ve recorded some mp3 files if you’d like to hear the difference between the 5D and D700 shutter mechanisms.
| 5D | [ Download 5D.mp3 ] | |
|---|---|---|
| D700 | [ Download D700.mp3 ] |
I think the D700 sounds more “solid” - though not as good as the D3’s shutter - but I must also admit to liking the 5D more “whirry” shutter.
Image Quality - Studio
I used the following basic scene to test image quality at various ISOs in a studio type setting. WB was set to Tungsten on both cameras, Aperture Priority at f/13. Lenses used were the Canon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.8 - at f/13, both these lenses should easily out-resolve a 12mp FX sensor.
RAW Conversions
The following shots are all converted from RAW using Adobe Lightroom v2.0. They have WB set to Tungsten, and have +0.66 exposure compensation applied. All other settings were at their defaults.
| 100 | 200 | 400 | 800 | 1600 | 3200 | 6400 | 12800 | 25600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canon EOS 5D |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- | - | - |
Nikon D700 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 100 | 200 | 400 | 800 | 1600 | 3200 | 6400 | 12800 | 25600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canon EOS 5D |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- | - | - |
Nikon D700 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Looking at these, I don’t see much if any difference at ISOs 200 and 400. ISO 100 isn’t a “true” setting on the D700 - it’s Lo-1 - but it looks just fine here, even if DR has been compromised slightly. At ISO 800, I’d give a slight advantage to the D700, more so at 1600, and at 3200 the D700 is getting quite far ahead.
Overall, I’d give the D700 a 2/3 stop noise advantage in this test. 2/3rds of a stop may not sound like a great deal, but it’s the difference between 1/100s and 1/160s, or 1/400s and 1/640s - definitely a worthwhile improvement.
Of course, the Canon can’t compete at ISOs 6400 and above, as it simply won’t shoot that high. That said, I’d only use the D700 at Hi-1.0 to Hi-2.0 if I had no other choice. I don’t consider them particularly usable, especially Hi-2.0 (ISO 25,600 equivalent).
Remember that these images are pushed 2/3rd stop during RAW conversion (I consider both cameras to have metered somewhat low, probably due to the white background), so you can expect even better results in real life.
As for detail - well, you’ll often hear Canon shooters claiming that the 5D resolves more detail than the D700 (and D3). I don’t consider this to be true when shooting RAW. See the “Grant & Sons / Banffshire” text in the crops above, and I think you’ll agree that they look pretty much identical in terms of detail resolved. The Canon image is just a little more contrasty, either due to the lens used (unlikely) or the default tone curve that LR uses.
Download Images
Not happy with the way I’ve processed the above, or want to take a look at the originals? Download them here:
5D JPEGs: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200
D700 JPEGs: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400 12800 25600
Warning: Large files! The (12-bit) 5D RAWs are between 12-15Mb each, the (14-bit) D700 RAWs are 14-18Mb. All images remain my copyright, please attribute the source if you post them on any websites etc. Thanks!
5D RAWs: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200
D700 RAWs: 100 200 400 800 1600 3200 6400 12800 25600
Night Scene - RAW
This is a shot of a local shop, taken by streetlight at 11pm. The full-size shot above shows how the scene was rendered out-of-camera (by both the D700 and the 5D). The crops below are after auto WB adjustment and export using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.0. This is a bit of a torture test - high ISO, combined with a quite severe Tungsten WB tweak will show up any noise that lurks within, especially in the blue channel.
Note that light levels were extremely low, leading to shutter speeds below 30s at ISO 100, and there is therefore no ISO 100 comparison shown. All shots are using the Canon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.8 at f/8.
| ISO | 5D | D700 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 |  |
 |
| 400 |  |
 |
| 800 |  |
 |
| 1600 |  |
 |
| 3200 |  |
 |
| 6400 | - |  |
| 12800 | - |  |
| 25600 | - |  |
In this test, I can see a sharpness advantage to the Canon. It’s subtle, but definitely present - whether this is due to the 5D’s weaker anti-aliasing filter or some other reason I can’t be entirely sure.
Noise-wise, the D700 shows the same lead it did in the previous test. However, after ISO 3200 I’d consider the results poor, and totally unusable at ISO 12,800. ISO 25,600 is a joke - it looks worse than the worst Point & Shoot I’ve ever used (though with the current tendency for ever-higher ISOs in P&S cameras, I’m sure it won’t be for long).
Night Scene - JPEG
I shot the previous test in RAW+JPEG mode on standard settings. Here are the JPEGs straight out-of-camera, with no processing.
| ISO | 5D | D700 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 |  |
 |
| 400 |  |
 |
| 800 |  |
 |
| 1600 |  |
|
| 3200 |  |
 |
| 6400 | - |  |
| 12800 | - |  |
| 25600 | - |  |
These were all on “standard” settings - there are simply far too many variations of baked-in JPEG settings for me to compare all of them. What’s interesting here is that the D700’s high-ISO noise advantage is even more clear, and the in-camera noise reduction (set to Normal) of the D700 does an excellent job of controlling unwanted blotchiness and smearing, even at ISO 25,600. Note that this is the same shot as in the RAW comparison above. Obviously, the RAW WB adjustment and perhaps Lightroom’s less-than-optimal NR at default settings could be improved upon.
An excellent showing by the Nikon here.
Sharpness-wise, the Canon definitely leads. Some of this is due to the 5D’s extra sharpening by default in JPEG mode - some might say too much - and this can be mitigated by adjusting the sharpening level on the Nikon. However, I can’t help but feel that Nikon’s JPEG engine doesn’t result in the most detailed of outputs, which is one of the reasons why I’m generally a RAW shooter.
I feel that the Nikon has managed to handle the WB here slightly better than the Canon.
| <—— Sample Photos | Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D Mark II ——> |
July 25th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Unfortunately for us Nikon users the Canon is sharper, not by a whole lot, but there is a visible difference. This is kind of a bummer since Nikon guys are always so proud of the sharp Nikkor lenses, but I’m afraid it’s the camera (5D) here that is making the difference and it’s sharper than any digital Nikon camera, even the D3. We still have a ways to go before we can claim we’re back on top. BTW My old 500C/M Hassy with Zeiss lenses blows the doors off any of these camera’s in terms of sharpness and resolution, and it doesn’t need batteries!
July 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Just a minor point; flash synch speed of the D700 in the manual says 1/320, not 1/250
Matt; it appears that the out of the camera difference in sharpness is due to a much stronger antialiasing filter in the Nikon, and that with appropriate sharpening, the Nikon and Canon are pretty much the same, with the Canon not benefiting from sharpening beyond that achievable by he Nikon. There are references to this in the sharpness thread on this site.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
The D700/D3 sensor is designed to stomp on ALL of the Canon line-up at high ISO’s and do so convincingly. Below ISO 2000 (aprox), the 5D has a TINY detail edge, but the D700 will be better for certain types of shooting. That stronger AA filter WILL aid in fashion shoots for example and that’s a strong arena for a D700.
At higher ISO’s, the D700/D3 leave the Canon line behind and that’s why they ARE on top according to most industry pros. If you shoot nothing but landscapes, the Canon 5D is a GREAT camera. But for a wider range of subjects, the Canon 40D or Nikon D300 are all around better cameras to use day-to-day. And the D700 is even better with it’s FX sensor and amazing low light capability.
Cheers!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Sharpness is relative to in-camera sharpening and NR which the 5D definitely does even with RAW files (which is why people’s skin often looks like something off a Barbie doll at ISO 1600 and above). And this person stole files from another site which makes the comparison even more ridiculous.
I don’t know why people take the time to do a comparison like this and then use dead subjects. Why not get a couple real live people, one a pale skinned red head and the other with dark skin and black hair and then examine the tonal range and quality of the picture with these two ends of the spectrum and take a look at the images.
Regardless the D700 should be compared to the 5D II camera. Never made sense that so many reviewers would compare a $3300 5D to a $1700 D200, or like a recent review that compared a 40D to the D60 that sells for half as much and is not the likely comparison a buyer would be making in looking at the two systems.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am
You say “The D700 is rather dependant on having a fast UDMA-capable CF card - without one, these figures will be lower”. The figure denote the camera’s buffer size which is independent of how fast the memory card is. The figures for “consecutive shots” will be dependent on the memory card’s speed.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
compared a d700 with my 5d in a store this afternoon. Was somewhat underwhelmed.
1) noticeably heavier,
2) irritating little button (’custom function’) on right-hand side of the lens _exactly_ where I would place my fingers around the grip,
3) viewfinder image a tiny weeny little bit larger than the 5d’s, but still nothing like any old F,
4) shutter noise: no improvement whatsoever.
5) Can you finally stick a USB stick into the side of the camera to unload your CF-card without computer? Nope.
But:
1) the LCD is really impressive
2) apart from that one button, ergonomics and user interface are so much better.
3) built-in flash commander should be cool
4) I use a 50/1.4 95% of the time, in manual focus. Nikon’s AF-version isn’t any better than crappy Canon’s, but I would love to try my old Ai-s. Afraid of CA though. If Nikon finally see the light, they’d rebuild this lens for digital capture!
Cant compare IQ. One or two stops faster? Maybe, but the 5d delivers more than I could hope for already.
have a great one!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Not really a fair comparison is it considering the age difference between these cameras.
Lets just see how it holds up the the 5D MkII
July 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am
sure matt.. the D5 applies more noise reduction to the image, that’s why it looks sharper than the D700. and if you think the hassy is sharper than both, why bother dropping such lines..
August 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Being both a Canon 5D / 1Dmk3 user at work and D200 user at home, I bought a D700 today to replace the D200. Just made some first shots and I must say: this camera is in a league of it’s own. The noise on the 5D is enormous if you compare it to this new D700, Nikon did a outstanding job there.
Brilliant sharpness, great sharp LCD at the back. If you owned a D200 like I did, everything feels really familiar. Ergonomically it’s superior to the 5D imho, the aperture and shutter wheels are placed more logical than the big wheel on the back of the 5D. The only thing I didn’t like is the selection/cursor button next to the LCD. Sorry Nikon, but this button feels really cheap in comparison to the D200.
Tip for those who are considering a D700 + 24-70: also have a look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (which actually was designed for use on FF camera’s). On the 5D it performs superb and the D700 is no exception. With a price of around $350 it’s a bargain (considering the Nikkor 24-70 costs 4 times as much).
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Of course it’s a fair comparison….. it’s two different brands but claiming to be their entry level DSLRs TODAY. Tomorrow may be different, if Canon release a 5D2, but at this point it’s not available. If Canon are embarrassed by the 5D, they would stop shipping it, but clearly they think it is still good enough to ship.
Now, in terms of sharpness of the different cameras, I would agree that the shots above show a clear advantage to the Canon. But, I shoot BOTH Canon AND Nikon bodies, so I come from this in a completely unbiased point of view. The Nikon requires slightly different post processing to the Canon, and if you are using software like ACR, Lightroom etc, I am afraid you don’t get the best out of the Nikon. Capture NX/NX2 gives far better details when converting Nikon raw files.
If you are comparing JPEGs from the two cameras, then you really need to spend time learning about the respective sharpening modes in each camera instead of using the ‘default’. My guess is that any one who knows both cameras inside out will get perfectly good shots from either.
I use different work flows for Canon & Nikon. If you use the same, then you are probably going to bias the results in favor of one or the other - without even realizing it.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Funny….comparing a camera that just hit the shelves with one that’s three years old! The MKII (or whatever they’re calling it) is due anytime and what do you want to bet it will more then meet the challenge. Hat’s off to Nikon for having an impressive past two years and they’re definitely working hard to get back lost ground. The ball is in Canon’s court and whoever does their marketing should be fired for taking so long to release the 5D successor!
August 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
@Justentime: The fact that the 5D is nearing 3 years old is somewhat irrelevant. At the time of writing, both these cameras are current in their manufacturer’s lineups, both have similar pixel counts, and both are “full-frame”. Therefore it is natural to compare the two.
Of course, I’m eagerly awaiting the 5D successor as much as the next person…
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 am
…Not really. Yeah, the 5D is still in the Canon line up but far, far overdue to be replaced and three years in the digital age is a lifetime. The real question is how a camera that was introduced three years ago is producing sharper images then Nikon’s latest offering? The truth is the 5D is sharper then any DSLR by Nikon, including the D3 and I don’t know if it’s the processor or better glass. I’ll be very interested to see a head to head comparison of the 5D replacement camera with the D700 and both of them being tested against the Sony a900.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Even Nikon lover Ken Rockwell admits that the Canon 5D has a better image quality then the D700 and D3.
I think the D700 is a great camera, also the 5D is still a great camera. I hope that Canon will introduce a new FF (FX) camera, but I think/hope that the 5D will be available for a great price. It is still a fantastic camera!
August 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I currently own a D300 and have had a chance to evaluate the D700 as a possible purchase. The thing that I was most impressed with in the D700 is the way the camera absolutely nails exposure. I don’t know whether that is the result of Nikon tweaking the exposure system or possibly just the addition of an auto setting to the active D-Lighting menu. Whatever the reason, the D700 never showed any overexposed highlights and shadow detail was sometimes too good (I don’t find things disappearing in shadows to always be a bad thing). Cleaner images - YES - but I would like to see this camera with a 22 mp sensor so that I would still have almost 12 mp if I chose to use one of my DX lenses.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
A little under year ago I was actually tossing up between upgrading to the 5D or to the (then new) 1D MKlll from my much beloved 20D. After investing in a few good L lenses from canon it was a natural decision. Later I got the idea to hold off and wait for the 5D successor, so I did, or, until the D700 came. I read many a 5DMKll rumors forum and came to the folloing conclusion:
I’m putting my canon lenses and flashguns up for sale because I’ve been waiting too long for this ellusive 5DMKll, nobody even knows if it exists, and this new nikon is everything I’ve been waiting for, and it’s here!, now! and in Norway it’s only 25% more of the price of a 5D, both selling in the same camera shop. So, I’m not sorry canon, because if you snooze, you lose!.
Thank’s for the comparison of these two cameras.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:51 am
from compare - *Much has been written about the D3 & D700’s high-ISO capabilities. Nothing else currently comes close.
[img]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6229/test5700bl0.jpg[img] up +3 stop
ISO100, f/9, 30 sec
example - http://album.foto.ru/photos/10768/
NEF source - http://www.mininova.org/tor/1665682/
August 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
One other point which may account for the subtle sharpness quality comparison issue is RAW convertor used. Many Nikon shooters feel that Capture NX2 provides noticeably better RAW conversion than other options, particularly Lightroom for most Nikon DSLR’s. I have gone back to using NX2 for my initial RAW conversion.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 am
Sharpness - advantage Nikon (raised eyebrow)
Here’s why- a standard test scene looks better as a camera JPG from the 5d because it uses a weaker anti-alias filter. However, tiny patterns result in moire (well documented), and this cannot be sharpened to improve the final image. Nikon D3/D700 images RAW or JPG require more sharpening, but not much more to achieve what is a superior result by a little but measurable amount. Nikon uses a stronger anti-alias filter so there is much less moire and what was irretrievable pixel bleed with tiny repeating patterns with the 5d can be much better resolved with proper sharpening, but not over-sharpening.
Take any web published controlled test comparing these cameras and you can repeat this for yourself. Better still, shoot it yourself to have ultimate control of the conditions.
Now, if either Nikon or Canon could manufacture something like a foveon sensor that is truly 12 MP, this wouldn’t even be an issue. You’ll understand why if you follow why and how anti-alias filters are applied to bayer filters as well as why this is not so necessary with 3d sensor technology.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 am
downloaded the files from the 800 ISO picts from both cam’s, view using ACR and I don’t really see the difference in sharpness until I zoom in 100-200 percent. When printed or squashed down to internet use size, will this additional sharpness ever truly be realized? Also wanted to point out that their are a lot of edge contrast sharpening artifacts in the 5D image, look closely at the text on the hard drive. Another thing is that, to me, it always appeared as if the 5D has a more aggressive curve, but could be due to a slightly lower dynamic range which makes darks darker and brights brighter.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
If you want to see the D700 in action on some long exposure lightning shots (and other random stuff), check out my gallery:
http://www.brettbrewer.com/gallery2/v/lightning_-_08_13_2008/
I have posted all images at full resolution with zero color correction or other enhancements, they were just straight JPEG conversions using NikonView and/or the Photoshop CS3 raw plugin. You can also view all exposure metadata for each image. I shot at a range of ISOs so you can get a decent idea of how it performs at various sensitivities. There’s also a variety of other images shot on the D700 in the rest of my gallery (some of which are in bad need of color and exposure correction due to my rusty photo skills) for those that are interested.
I’ve had the camera for about 3 weeks and now that I’m getting used to it, it’s almost too easy to get amazing images from it. The D700’s built-in sequence shot timer lets me set it up and take killer time lapse sequences of the storms in my area which is the main reason I bought it. I looooove this camera.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
my guess is the shooting by this person is what gives this review a bad taste in sharpness… although i dont see much difference at all, what i see is more white balance issue, than sharpness, these photos are too small to look at clearly with their full potential… i think its time people got over the MPixel and clarity(sharpness) wars, and start looking at ergonomics and full frame capabilities. lets face it, i love Nikon, but that 5D was clearly built to last a good 4 or 5 years in the competition, never mind last 6 or 7 in a photographers bag.. im sure by now that for most professionals, it probably been retired, but it goes without being said, that its remarkable that a camera has been on their website, being marketed, for three years and continuing. at the same time, i feel nikon has finally gotten their wits together, and produced a long over due full frame camera, that clearly does a fabulous job, and in my opinion, is much better than the 5D… but that all comes with aging, and new technology… ergonomics, special features, built quality, ISO, beautiful, brand new full frame, i think its time canon fans start gearing for their new debate, and stop living in the past.. and thats rooting for their 5D successor… as for nikon fans, enjoy your stay at the top of the mountain, because with the D3, D700, and now a newly introduced D90(which is a d50/d70/d80 successor).. is going to be a great camera for the consumer(amateur) based market… nikon is spreading their market, and bringing back the old days, thats thats amateur, and professional… i just hope once they rid of the d200 and 300, they will stop the pro-sumer crap.. such as like how canon offers sooo many different types its like walking into BJs or Walmart. and to clarify, my opinion is that nikon is filtering out their middle class, and leaving to options, amateur or professional… look for the d40, and d80 to say goodbye soon as well.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 am
I don’t want walk into the Canon/Nikon crossfire; the rivalry, bloodshed and almost religious zeal involved in this conflict has has been going on for ages and will go on possibly for ever… and there is nothing Nikon, Canon, you, God or even myself can do to change this.
I think there are Nikon users and there are Canon users. Trying to convince them to switch brands is like trying to convince an Atomic Reaction to stop. Don’t lose your time and energy in this, it’s hopeless.
I would rather say the following. I have been a Nikon user for decades now. Since I was 16 and had to buy my first 35mm SLR film camera, I chose Nikon. Don’t ask me why, I just did at the time. And that was sort of a baptism: I chose my religion at the time, and I have felt a higher urge to stick to that election. Switching to another brand is something I feel would betray my own humanity.
That said, I have to admit, brothers, that I have trembled in the Faith. Yes, I have been weak and I have faltered. I have even blasphemed against Nikon, blurting out all sorts of swearings and insults to the Great Builder in more times than none.
This, because I have felt abandoned, left to my own devices at times of great need. All this, obviously, since the advent of the Digital Age. Film Nikons were just too good to be true. Everything worked perfectly, and the machine fused with the man in a Communion of perfection which must have definitely been the expression of Photographic Heaven here on Earth.
But the Digital Era arrived and all my convictions crumbled to the ground. Since my first professional assignments with my D100 (which replaced my loyal F100), and now with a D200, I have felt the Temptation; I have seen things… they could probably scare Mr. Nikon’s Pope (the company’s Photograpic Division President, I guess???) out of his prayers…
Professional or Semi-Pro cameras whose plastic grips fall apart after scarcely a year’s intense yet careful and loving use; top of the line lenses (and I am talking the new 24-70 2.8 AFS lens) which do not zoom internally (in outraging comparison to the one it replaces, which did; and worse of all, this isn’t announced in any brochure, marketing piece or user review!!); and worse of all, a problem which is already stated in this thread: an impressive lack of SHARPNESS in focus…
I spent US$6,000 in replacing my midrange level Sigma Optics in pursue of the Nikon legendary Crispness, and found my Faith disappointed when the difference I saw in my top of the line lenses wasn’t what I expected to get given the steep investment…
Worse: Nikon ships products which, seemingly, do not undergo the most basic Quality Control test, as in the newest SB800 I bought last February (to replace an already defective one: the Xenon tube burned after a couple years use -ok, that is almost comprehensible-), which came factory defective and just pumped the whole juice out (in any setting: TTL, AUTO, M…) in my assignment at SteamBoat, Colorado…
Of course, when I brought the SB800 to service in my country, Chile, there was nothing they could do, since Nikon does not have an International Guarantee as it used to, which meant Nikon really saw and behaved as a professional’s brand, giving Pro’s support anywhere in the world…
Now that Nikon builds crappy, disposable cameras worth US$2,000 -wait!!! is a US $2 grand camera disposable now???!!! It seems so, given Nikon’s policy regarding the support they give them- one has to put up with things like these… or that my D200, which clearly has backfocus problems, will not be repaired by Nikon for free (as should be).
So here I stand, at the brink of the crevice… pondering wether I should hold to my faith and take the US$3 grand leap into the first Semi-Pro FX format D700 camera, hoping that Nikon will answer to my prayers for crispness, accurate AF system (which the D200 clearly and definitely lacks) and a solid build that will last longer than the money in our pockets…
But brothers, oh!! Do I have to say that I stand in fear, reluctant to trust.
I read a thread the other day, where someone, one of those weird guys who one way or another seem to have access to Confidential Corporate Information, stated that there was an up-stir in Nikon’s womb. That the Board of Directors for the company was pissed to hell over Nikon’s lame behavior in the Digital Realm (including Nikon’s almost 2 years delay at tackling the Digital World as a Pro’s Segment); that there had been something like an internal Earthquake; that high-standing executives had been laid over; that new blood had been claimed for, discarding old reigns within the company in favor of new, fresh, aggressive young people with ideas to bring the company back to the pillar it used to stand at not more than 5 years ago.
I certainly hope this is true… I certainly hope Nikon finds its way back to the top, not only to the top of the race against Canon. But more important, to the top of our hearts and minds, amateur and Professional photographers both.
Listen to us God, we pray.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Thanks for the comparison. Just a few comments….
I am one of those who prefer Canon’s interface to Nikon’s. I like the big wheel at the back and find Nikons dial awkward. That said, I hate using each camera after using the other fo a week! I have a 5D and D300. To each his own and in the end I could get use to either camera.
It appears the camera manufactures are coming to the end of what can be achieved in terms of image noise. The differences between the 5D and the D700 are small. The differences between 50D and the D300 also appear to be pretty small and in no small part due to signal processing. I don’t expect the 5D Mrk II to be very much different in terms of noise than the D700.
Difference in lenses and focus are certainly loom larger than any inherent differences in sharpness between these cameras. I have tested Canons 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 and Nikon’s 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the Nikon 50mm 1.8 by a bit. When using zoom lenses any discussion of camera sharpness moot.
All this is great - it’s almost like in the film days. We can now decide on which camera to use based on lens line-up, camera features and customer responsiveness. This is bound to benifit all photographers. Nikon better stop messing with it’s RAW format and get a better line up of lenses. Canon better stop teasing us with feature creep and put a decent Auto-ISO in the camera.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The comparison is ok but the cameras were build in different years (3 years I think and that is a big difference)
I can’t wait to compare D700 and new 5D replacement MKII or whatever the name is going to be.
Regards
Paul
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
I processed all the images in DXO by fooling DXO into thinking the D700 file is a D3 file. DXO generates better looking images than LR in my opinion. DXO seems to get maximum sharpness out of any lens, and also seems to get maximum noise reduction.
I find no consistent differences in noise or sharpness. Any differences degenerate into the worst kind of pixel peeping.
Sharpness winner varies from photo to photo and varies depending on where you look on a photo. Differences can easily be attributed to focus or DOF issues.
I also find no way to say which noise is better because they are different. Nikon seems to have more green splotchiness - Canon more red splotchiness. This can be attributed to how DXO is rendering colours, which is a bit different between the cameras.
This is to be expected when sensors have better than 90% efficiency in counting photons. A change from 90% to 95% efficiency is about 1/20 of a stop.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Hello,
it’s childish to compare a 3 year old model(Canon 5D) vs a new one(Nikon D700, D3), just to show how Nikon made any progression in FX-world.
It took Nikon 3 years finally to compare with a model of Canon.
Thumbs up Nikon, You won. Untill the Photokino 2008, where Canon will bring new models which will bring Nikon again in the shadow for many years.
It aint the numbers that takes the pictures(Like high Iso’s). First the photographers do, with good equipment.
It’s a pitty that people still compare 2 great brands while we have to respect eachothers choice. Sorry to say that most Nikonians do so. It looks they do it out of frustration.
Nikonians enjoy the last great models and look at the answer of Canon.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Bought a d700 4 weeks ago and took over 5000 shots since then. I love the D700 and it has changed the way I do things. In a church at weddings I now shoot at 3200 ISO with excellent results. My top of the range Metz 58 flash stays in my bag as I almost never need flash. When I do the D700’s small flash give excellent fill in flash. I normaly have a grip on my Nikons mainly to give an Increase in battery capacity. I don’t need a grip with the D700 as 1 battery lasts for 2 weddings no probs. I would normally set my WB manualy at about 3300k in a church. Auto WB and I get very similar results with the d700. Its also excellent in my Studio for portraits etc.
In reality both the 5D and D700 are top notch. Still not up to my old Blads standards but getting close! At this level its the person behind the camera that counts. We all strive for perfection but either camera will give top notch results. I have used D200 for the last couple of years and also tried a d300 but saw no reason to change from the 200 to the 300 and there was very little difference between the 2 in real picture quality. The 700 is in a different league.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Guess its time for an update to this site. Given the 5D MII is out now.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The results will be different if you compare D700 with 5D mark II…Let’s talk about which is the best after that, shall we? I’ll wait for an update. Of course, probably you will say “Oh, Nikon is still the best”. It is something normal since the address of the website is nikond700.com.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:36 am
Um, the 5D is history and was replaced with the 5D MKII. A recent comparison on flicker, with the iso set at 6400 showed the Canon is much more sharp with better contrast!
September 24th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I’m eagerly awaiting the 5DMarkII vs D700 comparison update !!!
September 28th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I work as a cinematographer and shoot a lot of stills in my spare time (4×5, 2 1/4, all kinds of formates). I just bought the D700 this week after spending many hours of online research reading everything I could get my hands on. Sadly I am not very happy with the D700 or impressed. My little Panasonic LX2 point and shoot, which I used sometimes for table-top even, is shaper and produces a much cleaner image, with it’s Leica glass. When using my D700 tests, I shot with primes and zooms all F2.8 or faster, in JEPEG and RAW formats.
My heart was set on the 5D, but after borrowing a friend on a movie set, I wasn’t happy with the weight and feel of the camera. Also my little LX-2 shot some amazing sharp image that in the looked better ascetically and exposure wise. The 5D didn’t handle low light as I wished. Which the D700 does.
I am impressed at night how sensitive the CMOS and the internal processing ability in low light. I have increases the sharpness setting in the camera and have adjusted sharpens settings in Photo Shop and Lightroom 2. I shot with tripods, with VR on and off.
I am really curious to hear what other think. I called the store where I purchased the camera, they told me they get this phones from time-to-time, ‘oh when you move up these types of cameras from point and shoots….”. The rub of it is I own very expensive glass primes and zooms for motion picture and video cameras. I have shot for over 30 years. Perhaps my exception are to high?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Robert,
I think you need to understand that P&S cameras do all the image processing in-camera & the image you see/get is a processed image. That also includes sharpening, contrast alteration, noise reduction, selective caolor enhancement/reduction and also a whole lot more. Your D700 or 5D or any other Pro DSLR dosn’t do much of postprocessing (with JPEG/TIFF file outputs). The manufacturers leave that part to the judgement of the user who ususally is a pro with his/her own taste of processing images suited to their style. You need to recognize this fact. Just image a scenario where the Pro DSLR that you shoot ends up saturating or sharpening the images so much that there is not much room left to do any sort of post processing. It would be a disaster for Camera manufacturers. The same is the case with Medium Format Digital backs that cost way $$ than your Nikon or Canon.
color Accuracy too will be an issue.
So if you need an image in which you need to spend as little time as possible in Post Processing, it would be wise to go for a P&S.
Envisage a scenario if the film stock (unless you’re using Digi systems) you use for cinema renders vividly saturated images much so that it loses details.
Hope you get the point.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
It’s suprise me a lot d700 even D3 can’t beat 3years older canon 5D completely, d700 for sure much more advantage 5d due 3 years newer camera, canon well ahead make it full frame camera 3 years ahead than nikon, if overall D700 beat 5D it’s not suprise me at all, hw about 3years ago comparing 5d to nikon with sama price range, nikon completely a loser, cause nikon wasn’t able make the camera to compete with 5D at those time, need take 3 years to beat 5d in full frame sensor camera ha ha ha , but still can’t beat completelety in sharpness of 5D, wake up
November 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
for guru canon actually already had a full frame camera back sept 2002 canon eos 1Ds, Nikon just made it last year with D3 , unbeliveable take 5 years to catch up,
November 16th, 2008 at 8:17 am
actually canon made it full frame since 2002 with D1s , 5D it was a first affordable full frame camera released 2005 , nikon just had full frame last year with D3, but this time Nikon seems ahead from canon in DSLR especially in high iso term, just wanna see What canon 5D MKII can compete with nikon D700 in high Iso, if canon can make v close or similiar to D700 , it’s mean canon make a huge step compare to nikon due 21MP pack in same size sensor, it’s easier make better picture in high iso with smaller MP, cheers
December 6th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Why in the world is everyone so preocupied with “My camera’s bigger than yours.” mantility? Go to your nearest camera dealer, test each camera for yourself, and buy the one you like best (if possible). Both companies make great camaeras and lenses. Now get out there and make great images
December 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Wow, a nother review comparing the D700 to Canons 3 yr old 5D.
Canon and Nikon handle iso differently. while Nikon has the edge on iso performance, Canon has always had the edge on image quality. I’ll chose image quality over iso any day.
Kudos to Nikon for producing a camera to compete with the Canon 5d, after 3 years. Oh, I forgot, the 5DMarkII is out now…..
Guess we’ll have another review in 3 years…
December 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
33 robert…lenses are not known for sharpness when wide open. comparisons have already been done on the new 5d vs d700. i prefer the image quality of the d700 especially in hi iso’s. let’s hope the 5d mkII’s mirror doesn’t fall out.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
oh…and if you want image/comparisons done right, go to imaging-resource, cameralabs and dxomark and you will see why canon is getting antsy - rushing to release models way ahead of schedule will cause problems. they did it to canon shooters when the 5d first came out, amazingly sharp black dots on the superbly sharp imgaes of the new 5d mkii, the faulty af of their flagship camera (which they vehemently denied for months.) here’s the 1ds mk iii, the fastest af camera on the planet. it’s so fast it focuses where your subjects don’t want to go..before they get there! especially static subjects! canon better get its act together. one can see the change of tides at the recent olympics.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
regarding the comment made about Ken Rockwell’s comparison of relative sharpness of D3, D700 and 5D images. I have looked at his website and the 5D did look a tad sharper. However, he is comparing the Nikon 24-80 f2.8 to the Canon 70-200 f4L, which he states is the sharpest zoom lens canon has ever made. Also, if you compare both lenses @ 70mm on SLR gear, the Canon lens IS sharper at 70 than the Nikon is at 70mm. So, I think his comparison is skewed by the difference in relative lens sharpness. A more accurate comparison would be made by using the exact same lens on both cameras, same aperture, etc, and focusing both manually. That would be a more fair comparison.
This can be accomplished as you can mount Nikon and other lenses on the body of the 5D with an adapter. I’m not saying the guy is being disingenuous, but he can be a bit glib or rash in his evaluations.
For the record, I own both Nikon and Canon gear, and am sedulously reading anything I can find on both the D700 and 5D mk ii in order to make a choice between the two.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Hi to all readers!!!back in 2004 I was shooting with canon 5 d + canon L 24-70mm f2.8, L 100-400mm ,L 85mm f1.2 , L 70-200 mm f2.8 lenses. Then in 2008 for some unknown reason I’ve switched sides to Nikon with d300 + NIKON 28-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR ,85mm f 1.4. And let me tell u something !!! A was deeply dissapointed, felt like I’ve been let down!!! Ask me why??? !!! Luck of sharpness,colour saturation, liveliness of Nikon pictures campeared to Canon ones. My God how much I’ve missed that quality of Canon . Mind you I’ve changed 2 bodies of d300, plus I did the same with all lenses as well, thinking that something wrong either with body or lenses . The people of the London Jacobs photo shop where thinking I’m mad. But anyways it’s all back to normal, back to Canon !!! Can’t wait till I get my hands on 5D mk2!!! sorry Nikon , but I think you’ve lost one more customer for good.
February 14th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Hi all. I’m intrested in doing some semi pro sports photography, for kids and adult sports. I have just sold my realestate photography business. We were using a D70 which was adequate for Realestate. Having spent hours reaserching my mind is ready to blow!!! The local dealer suggested a D700 and a Nikon AFS 70-200 2.8 VR IF ED Lens. From my reaserch I believe that being a DX lens will give only 5Mp instead of 12 ??? Also you will get much more out of that lens with a D300. So now I’m not sure which way to go. I think I would like to have the D700 FX so which lenses would be best( remebering it’s only semi pro ) sports and some wildlife stuff.
Also what sort of results can you get with converters.
D300 or D700??? Thanksfor your time.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Just Pay your atention on Boys Head !!!! on ISO comparation
Canon 5D deliver much better Image Quality Nikon (even after 3 years Nikon cant do anything with it )
May 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
The 5D’s LCD is so bad that the Canon G10 point & shoot camera has a bigger (3″) and sharper LCD. LOL.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Used the D700, I sell cameras and its a P.O.S. for the price. The guts are SONY. Good job nikon.
August 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
the guts are sony…good job! nikon’s cover is blown! i’ve been duped. now compare the images made by both and it’s hard to believe they share a lineage.
get a 5d if you want mirrors falling out.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/622376/1
here’s another one… 5dmkII 25% failure rate.
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SNBR
January 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
why the test images sample stop at 3200 for 5D ? why to not show his crappy high ISO
canon lens are crappy made (plastic) but the sharpness is better as Nikon
March 20th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
photomax, because it hasn’t got higher ISO…. it’s 5DmkI not mkII. And I have Canon lens and they are metal not plastic. btw Nikon has got plastic lens too (I had D300s).
April 20th, 2010 at 7:58 am
Thx for the comparation; very intersting and useful for me.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Superb is better that Passat? Of course yes:) Passat is better than Vectra? I do not know. Go ahead with what you have. Think always.