Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D Mark II
vs. 
Wednesday, 17th September 2008. Finally, three years after the original 5D, Canon announce the replacement - the EOS 5D Mark II. Headline features are a 21.1 megapixel sensor and 1080p HD video recording.
Other than that, the 5D2 (body-wise) is not really much of an upgrade over the 5D (see the 5D comparison earlier in this review).
Features
| Nikon D700 | Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 12.1 mp 4256 x 2832 |
21.1 mp 5616 x 3744 |
The 5D Mark II has received quite a resolution boost over it’s predecessor. It now has a 30% linear resolution advantage over the D700. |
| ISO | 200 - 6400 in 1, 1/2 or 1/3 EV steps | 100 - 6400 in 1 or 1/3 EV steps | The 5D2 has native ISO 100. The D700 allows 1/2-stop increments. |
| ISO Boost | 100 - 25600 | 50 - 25600 | The 5Dmk2 has received a D700-matching ISO 25,600 rating. When we get to see some samples, we’ll see if this is a stop too far or not. |
| Weather Sealing | Yes | Yes | Weather sealing on the mk2 is improved over the original. |
| Viewfinder | Pentaprism 95% coverage 0.72x magnification) |
Pentaprism 98% coverage 0.71x magnification) |
The 5D viewfinder coverage is better than the D700s. |
| Viewfinder blackout | 74ms | Unknown, expect in the region of 145ms | When you take a shot with the 5Dmk2, you can’t see through the finder for ~145ms. 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 | The 5Dmk2 doesn’t improve on the 5D here. |
| Sensor Cleaning | Yes | Yes | New for the 5Dmk2 |
| 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 |
3.9 fps max | The 5D was never known as a speed demon; that was never it’s raison d’etre. The 5Dmk2 adds just an extra 0.9fps. |
| DX Crop Mode | Yes | No | The 5D does not support Canon’s EF-S lenses |
| Buffer | 100 JPEG 17-23 RAW (depending on compression) |
78 JPEG 13 RAW |
The 5Dmk2 now supports UDMA cards (as does the D700). However, due to the large file sizes, the buffer is smaller than the D700s |
| 14-bit image capture | Yes | Yes | The 5D only had 12-bit capture. |
| LCD | 3.0″ 920,000 dots 640×480 |
3.0″ 920,000 dots 640×480 |
The D700’s LCD is amazing - detailed, crisp and colourful. The 5Dmk2 now matches it. |
| Live view | Yes | Yes | Not a feature on any DSLR of the 5D’s age. |
| Video Capture | No | Yes, 1080p HD at 30fps | The 5Dmk2 is the second DSLR in the world to support video capture (the first was the Nikon D90). |
| 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 too good. |
| Weight | 1024g (37.9oz) | 810g (without battery) | In most cases, lighter is better - but the 5Dmk2 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! |
| <—— Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D | Recommended Lenses - Professional ——> |
September 19th, 2008 at 12:46 am
[...] Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D Mark II [...]
September 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Forgot af
September 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Forgot price. Also both “check price” links go to the D700 page. Hmmmmmm… interesting!
September 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
[...] D700 vs Canon 5D MK II Nikon D700 vs. Canon 5D Mark II - Nikon D700 [...]
September 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Forgot price. Also both “check price” links go to the D700 page. Hmmmmmm… interesting!”
October 18th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Go for the Nikon D700.
Canon never learn the lesson from the previous.
October 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Both cameras have a Magnesium Alloy shell and chasis. Both have similar quality LCD screens. Both have seals against dust and moisture. Both have similar viewfinders. So I’m not exactly sure how the reviewer can conclude that “the 5Dmk2 doesn’t have the D700’s build quality”. I would understand personal preferences for Nikon ergonomics, but ergonomics should NOT be confused with build quality.
Why isn’t “Resolution” an advtantage for Canon? I would think 21 million pixels will have a resolution advantage over 12 million pixels. If it turns out that the 5Dmk2 is noisier, then the “ISO” section can be colored red to show the disadvantage. But as far as resolution goes, it’s kind of silly to call it a draw between 21 MP & 12 MP.
And what about the elephant in the room? The D700’s biggest advantage over the 5Dmk2 is the AUTOFOCUS system. Huge advantage. But it’s not even mentioned in the char.
Also on the DX crop mode being an “advantage”. Exactly what percentage of D700/D3 users out there would waste such a great camera on a 5-megapixel crop mode with DX lenses? Maybe 0.00001%? I think the percentage of people using Canon’s DirectPrint button and/or Compact Flash Type II cards is more than that. Support for DX mode in an FX camera is a marketing gimmick, designed to assuade fears that DX lenses are going the way of dodo birds. The D700’s support for DX lenses is about as “advantageous” as the 5Dmk2’s support for DirectPrint printers.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@marvin (#6): Give me an example in this matter? Don’t just shout out there like that.
, of course some bias is expected, right?
@karmatraveler (#7): Agree with what you said, but come on, look at the website name
November 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
@karmatraveler,
About what you think on the DX “advantage”.
You don’t buy the D700 to use always a DX lens, but sure it’s a “big advantage” if you have to, Canon don’t give that option.
Real situation…. news coverage with D700 with AF-S 28-70 f/2.8, suddently lens refuses to work, ask a colleage if he can borrow a lens for 5 min, he only can give you a AF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (DX) .. you snap the lens on the D700, take the picture and leave the scene with a big smile ’cause your boss didn’t fire you, you got the picture…
Apply same situation with the Canon system … you can insert the EF-S lens you know where… and start to look for a new job.
Regards
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
@charly
How pessimistic! I have never encountered a situation with my canon gear where the ‘lens has refused to work’!!! If you encounter/expect this situiation, I’d consider switching brands. Plus it’s a very strange argument for a ‘DX gimmik’.
@Karma Traveler - I agree, I’m constantly embarassed by the presence of the ‘direct print’ button!
November 16th, 2008 at 3:33 am
@karma traveler the 700 can use all the old Ais primes from the 1980 which is a big plus also you don’t have to shoot a DX lens in crop mode for example the 12-24DX gives full coverage from 18 mm & 18mm on the D700 gives the same field of view as 12mm on the D300 .
November 19th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I have always been nikon, and was just about to buy a D700, so reading this review has made me wait off for a few months, how soon will nikon bring in the HD video component - the very desirable bit as far as a wedding phot is concerned, no more speeches in stills only! The DX argument, well it wont apply if you already have only canon gear & lenses! I have a couple of DX lenses which i may or may not stick on the D700, but at least i have the option. Switching to the dark side will be a very expensive exercise, but if nikon dont hurry up and catch up i might have to.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Sorry but I find this review very biased toward Nikon. Just look at the comment column. For example:
Only -2 to +2 for the Canon - “not too good”. Why would anyone draw an attention to this ? If your shooting conditions require +5 compensation you must use an external lightmeter anyway to get anything good.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
u right papa carlo about compensation, because this review just about Nikon, hw not low iso at 50, auto iso range, huge diiferent on MP, it’s rubbish people say 21 mp it’s useless , yes maybe useless for beginner or amateur not for pro working in studio/advertising industry , many more……….
never said Nikon copying canon gear, first CMOS sensor instead using CCD canon gave it try and works and Nikon followed , full frame , it’s unbelieveable nikon behind 5 years, canon already Hv a full frame back 2002 1Ds, nikon just release last year D3, first affordable full frame camera canon have it 3 year ealier 5D, nikon D700 just a few months ago, even D3 or D700 still can’t beat 3 years old canon 5d in sharpness /landscaping shooter , focus canon hv 45 focuspoint long time ago only at D1 series, just look back 2 years ago, nikon just hv 11 focus i think, nikon superb 51 focus point not suprising,
It’s too much hype in media said many to switched to Nikon because Nikon better, no way there some canon switch to Nikon and other way, but the truth it’s because there were canon user actually Nikon shooter/ loyalist, because Nikon wasn’t able to produce for their demand in full frame especially also for fast sport/journalist in digital till last year the make D3 so they had no choice to use canon gear, so they switch to nikon again when Nikon released D3 or D700.
there is many more advantage from canon , and later followed by nikon
Nikon make camera body better look just for attract buyer,many beginner shooter doesn’t really know hw gd is the camera , when they buy camera they intend looking camera looks better , in this area Nikon win,
November 28th, 2008 at 1:47 am
@ Papa Carlo the site is called http://www.nikond700.com what else do you expect.
Also a lot of the posts by Nikon shooters are just pointing out where the features section has omitted items the D700 has like the virtual horizon feature.
Something else i’ve just spotted
ISO is flagged as green for Canon because it’s native ISO starts at 100 & the D700 loses a small amount of dynamic range in the highlights but the D700 has more flexability adding 1/2-stop increments it allso has a better implemtation of auto ISO & untill proven otherwise the better noise reduction.
How about mirror lockup on the D700 takes about a second on the Canon?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I havent mention , Nikon become good camera in digital because sony help them , thanks to sony who make their sensor, as u know sensor is heart of digital camera, thanks Sony u make Nikon beautiful camera that not many people know your magic, be honest Nikon would be hard become as good as they r now without Sony help,
December 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Personally, i would opt for the 5D2 as its higher mp count would enable me to produce larger prints at greater resolutions as opposed to my D700.
I don’t think that medium format is an alternative as the lens range is severely limited - i own a Mamiya 7II. I’d prefer to go MF all the way because of its obviously superior quality to 35mm, but the lens range forces me to complement it with both a DSLR(D700) and a film camera(Nikon F6).
December 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I have a blog on Nikon D700 vs Canon 5D mark II at http://www.prakashphotography.blogspot.com
December 14th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
@tony,
Sony help……….to produce only????
Sony had to fulfill Nikon requirement during the fabrication.
The sensor is fully designed by Nikon Engineer not Sony.
Fully own by Nikon.
This session you need to make clear.
Fabricated by Sony, Designed by Nikon.
Nikon become excellent Camera maker cause of their on effort. Not Sony….
Without Sony help……….Nikon can use Kodak sensor………
Sony offer the help …….Why??? Want to get profit.
Nikon Forever and ever………….Love Nikon
December 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
the sony sensors look pathetic. if they did make sensors for nikon then i’m glad nikon taught them how to build it. check out image comparisons here: http://masterchong.com/v3/sony-alpha/nikon-d3x-vs-sony-alpha-900-iso50-iso6400-100-cropped-comparison.html
December 17th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I agree with “karma traveler” except DX crop. We have D700 and old D80, with legacy old FX and DX lenses. It is actually really good that you can swap the lenses between these cameras in case if something wrong with your hardware and you have to do your job.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Inresponce to the build of the Canon: The body is made of plastic, just like the 450D. Screwed onto it are magnesium top and bottom covers. The metal lens mount is also screwed onto a ‘composite’ miror box. This makes for a lighter build and it will probably be a tough if droped (plastics these days can be very tough), but the miror box will flex if a heavy lens is attached making the focal plane change. The magnesium alloy frame of the D700 is stiffer, but if dropped with a heavy lens attached may deform permanently.
Bracketting is better when it is +-5 for doing HDR, but I wish one of these companies made them do it in steps of 2-3 stops! So easy to do, yet I end up taking twice as many shots as needed!
P.S. Sony make the sensors to Nikon’s specs using Nikon’s steppers. The production facility is Sony’s (maybe Renesas for the D3/D700 sensor) but the technology is modified to meet Nikon’s specs. Lets hope they continue to work together to produce the best sensors for us to play with!
December 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ok, I had the Chance to check both Cameras. They’re just behind me.
Both look like they are sister if you just unpack them.
The Nikon has several advantages in usability.
More buttons, easier to make the settings. More clear in usage.
Better protection of the screen, batterie goes in and out more smooth.
The whole design looks a bit more professional.
Just after pluging in the 5D MArk 2 the first time into USB the screen showed an error-message “please swich on and off the cam” something.
Never had this with the Nikon for 3 weeks. Seems that the Canon software is a little bit hot - still.
While the nikon is one year approved.
The white-balance in the Nikon is better as well, I had a yellow tone in most pics using AWB on the 5D Mark 2.
Also the Nikon has more features about “Belichtugnsreihen” (don’t know the englisch word.
You can say “please make me 7 or 9 pics with increasing lumination”.
On the 5D you can always only make 3 Pictures, much less options on this.
I did not find any important Option the 5D has, missing in the D700.
So just from the software and usability, Nikon is clearly ahead.
Also the Nikon has additional feature, i dont know the name … the light measurement on the frontside.
You can take the D700 into a dark room, where you can see nothing yourself.
Then you make a 30 Shoot, give it some seconds … and you can read the backside of the books-covers in the pics.
It also works with the 5D Mark 2, but when it got too dark, i had a strong red stitch in the pic.
Now to the pic’s. I don’t know why - but Nikon-View readss the 11 MP Pics from the 5D Mark 2 faster into the PC then it did with the D700. This is just how it looked to me. Anyway interesting that Nikonview supports the 5D Mark 2 (the JPG’s).
Taking pics until now, i can only give my impression, as I have no real scientific measurement here.
I’d say that the Picture quality from the 21 MP Pictures is as good as the pics from the D700 at 12 MP,
there are no problems with noise on both sides.
I think the 5D Mark 2 Sensor is the Highlight in the CAM. It makes really good pics if you can control it.
You have to manually correct the white balance anyway, as it tends to make yellow pics in my test until now. But they are sharp and noise is very low below ISO 3200 (where you get visible noise).
The video - Feature of the 5D Mark 2:
First impression: good quality, especially the microphone was surprisingly good.
What I think … about both right now:
If you do not need the Video feature, maybe because you use your pics for WEB mostly,
then the D700 is clearly the better choice. The quality and usability is better.
Youcan do what you want with this cam, there are no significant limitations.
If you need the video feature or 21 MP, then you have no choice,
you have to take the 5D and its also a solifd Camera which make excellent pics.
PS: I used the D700 a week longer then the Canon, if I get new impressions, I’ll report them here.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
for @marvin
Even nikon designed their own sensor or fully owned by nikon, but It doesn’t change anything, still sony produce their sensor, can use kodak sensor??? means kodak make their sensor, they were used to be 1 firm , because nikon believe at sony’s quality and reliability.why don’t used chinese camera firm to make their sensor, can they make as good as sony’s?? or having advance facilty , no way.
sony want a profit yes and yes, thanks for nikon money , nikon want sony’s quality, reliability, or using their advanced/high tech facility, nikon thanks for this.
if suddenly sony without order from nikon wouldn’t be a problem , but Nikon if suddenly sony stop making for them , it would be a big problem,
sony released camera with 24 MP sensor lately on A900 and nikon just followed it with 24 MP on D3x, if sony haven’t had made 24MP first, I doubt it nikon started first.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:59 am
the focus system on that canon is sad sad. they should bring it up to 1D standards at the very least. nikon’s 700 focus system is what you get on the D3 and highly superior ot anything canon has.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Well it proved till now that 5dmarkII is much much better and sharper than d700. I saw last reviews with 100% magn.. and d700 is blurry, but the AF system in d700 is superb in low light. I shot macro so canon is the way to go. But I am honest.. if i was about to choose 1 of this 2 cameras.. I choose none.. keep the money and get d3 or 1ds.
This cheap ff cameras have lots of bugs and burned pixels, cheaper built (for 2000euros.. Its more like a car).. and thats why not interested about this models. Video for me is an extra pain for a dslr and maybe reduces the 5d’s life time. (time just give it some time..).
January 19th, 2009 at 1:05 am
D700 & 5dmarkII are both great bodies. But they are JUST bodies, and camera bodies get updated and replaced every few years. Your glass (i.e. lenses) on the other hand can last a lifetime. Canon lenses are good, but Nikon’s line of lenses are phenomenal… and, the online COMMUNITY for Nikon (such as Nikonians.org) is remarkable.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Charly (#9): seeing that more than 50% of cameras sold are Canon the chances are much higher that that collegue who you ask to borroa lens from shoots with canon - so if that is your thinking change systems immediatly. I shoot with both canon and nikon - do underwater and makro work with nikon and most of the rest with canon. each of these cameras have unique advantages and that is the end of it. Anybody who argues that the one is ‘better’ than the other does not have the insight to understand the functionality of their unique attributes. I.e. the 21 mp issue - if you do product studio shoots, always shooting at 100ISO, it will be futile to argue the D700 is just as good as the canon - even if there is a noise difference - at 100ISO its not gonna be noticible.
I think the D700 is an amazing camera, but will definitly not read this forum again - bias and blind allegiance to a brand is juvinile at best.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Hey Mark, I have to disagree with you on the lens thing just a bit. I’ve shot extensively with both brands, and I strongly believe BOTH are phenomenal, yet neither is perfect. The greatest super-tele zoom on the planet is the dark side’s 200-400. The greatest portrait glass on the planet is the Canon 85 1.2L. Nikon’s 14-24 is unmatched. But where is it’s 24 1.4? It’s 35 1.4? Canon has the edge there. And although it’s a closer race than ever before, I think Canon still has an edge on the super tele primes.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I just bought a second hand EOS 5d, mi first camera was a Nikon D80 then i upgrade to a D300 with premium nikon glasses like 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200 vr. Now I compare images from both cameras (d300 and 5d) tooked with 50mm f1.4 respectively and just find difficult to decide and stay just with one brand. I mean, sharpness is very good with Nikon , but color and shadow/highlights details with canon are just great. So i´m just like in the beginning, i WANT BOTH, but which one in his way to get pro can afford buying good lenses for both brands. I love nikon as my first brand, the ergonomics are better, old and new lens compatibility with new camera bodies is better, and image quality is getting better, flash commander option is a really nice to have on nikons, so i guess i have to spend more time with my new canon camera and buy one 24-70 from canon and compare results in a real job situation.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I have just bought my D700 and i like it. For taking pictures its better then the 5D M2 anyway.
Ok, we’re talking from Sensors - are we?
Modern sensors are made from black silicon. Such sensors are roughly 100 times more sensitiv then whats in my actual D700 or 5DM2.
The reason why is the amazingly increased surface of the silicon. See here:
http://www.sionyx.com/technology.asp
In short time, we’ll see better cameras which have sensitivity in UV an IR, 3D capabilities (even more then the D700) and where Light is no more a problem, even in the night.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:56 am
my friends,
this site is a pro Nikon, hence the URL, thats why they dont like Canon which is the best!
May 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
@jassem: the best camera is always the one you have in your hands
June 19th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Chris — Or perhaps the best camera is the one you’ve got you’re eye on but can’t yet afford or justify…
June 29th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Im about to buy a D700 in 2 weeks. I’ve been using Nikon for a long long time. And I was never disappointed!
But come on, both Canon and Nikon are the best brands in “crops” and 35mm cameras. It is time to understand that each one has the goods and the bads over each other. The better camera is the one that feels better in hand. Thats what I have been telling my friends… First feel both and only then decide which is the best for you.
I’ve used lineups of both brands many times, have seen the results and…. I’m staying with NIKON!!!!! Best choice for me!!!! Therefore in my opinion NIKONs are better!!
July 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I agree that both Canon and Nikon systems are excellent. I use the 1DS mark II and 5D in the Canon range and am buying a Canon 1DS mark III. I have two Nikon D 700 bodies. Honestly speaking, there is a negligible difference in shooting between Canon and Nikon.For Landscapes, I found that Canon provided me with better reproduction of blues and greens while Nikon blew Canon away when it came to shooting action photograph and wildlife,especially when the subject was moving, (with still wildlife subject, there were no issues between the two). Digital photography is also a lot about understanding the software and you need to have a good software that would read the data correctly especially when shooting RAW. Canon software, lightroom as well as CS4 are able to read RAW data from Canon as well as Nikon quite well. My only gripe is that Nikon provides only with the trial version of their software, be it NX 1 or NX 2 and you have to pay for an updated version. Canon provides the software with the camera at no cost as is the case with updates. These are minor gripes but all in all, I enjoy taking photographs with both the systems
July 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I use Canon system, but seems Nikon just on demand?
July 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Peter Burian has also recently published a comparison review of full frame digital SLRs, including the D700, the 5D Mk II, and the A900. His view is that it comes down to which system you’ve already invested in. He ultimately went with the 5D Mk II.
Nikon D700 Review / Comparison of Full Frame Digital SLRs
August 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I’m a Nikon fanboy. Yet i make my “important pictures” with mamiya 7.
This being told, i’ve seen and tryed a lot of canon cameras over the digital years.
My opinion:
Canon’s consumer cameras (300d, 350d etc) were worst than the nikons (d70, d60 etc..) for their view finders were awful (the nikons sucked too, but not as much). And they came with a lame 18-55mm witch is the worst user lens in the industry (again, the nikon one sucks too, but at least it has VR and a little more sharpness wide open).
Canon was better with semi-pro cameras : they had Cmos sensors in affordable cameras years before nikon did and of course, the first affordable Full Frame camera (5d)
Yet nowadays, nikon finaly catched up and has the finest crop camera ever made : d300. it has 14bit conversion, crazy Af coverage all over the frame, a 100% viewfinder, fast fps, awesome iso up to 1600, and the new upgrade even has dual memory card slot (CF and SDHC). Canon has nothing like that so far, but i’m sure they will catch up for this market is quite attractive.
The pro cameras have been a more complex battlefield ; Nikon got the first efficient / liable / quality pro Dslr, it was called the D1x and it was 5Mp (!!)
and was released in 2001.
But in 2002 canon made history by releasing the first full frame pro dslr : the Eos 1Ds.
Nikon then focused on producing pro dslrs with high fps, insane Af, relyable white balance and metering, wireless flash system and better ergonomics, and maintening compatibility with all of their older lenses and strobes and whatever, to try to compensate for their lack of a full frame camera… for five long years!!
Today, nikon has finaly catched up with canon on the full frame sensor, but in my opinion, they now win the deal because of all those things they’ve worked on for all those years waiting for a sensor : METERING, AF, WHITE BALANCE, FLASH CONTROL.
That’s where i think canon still has to improve… (please note that i’m not mentioning built quality or ergonomics to be in favor of any brand) But it seems like canon R&Ds have another plan : they came up with a killer HD video mode for the 5d markII that basicaly wipes everything off the floor, besides a real broadcast/cinema camera… That’s not something i’m expecting from a Dslr but it’s quite impressive still!
As for lenses : i love the canon f/4 zooms (17-40 for exemple is astonishing) I think they’re a realy good option with our dslrs. Nikon lacks these and it’s a shame.
I think nikon’s teles are the best, at least the 200mm f/2 , 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 witch IMO are unmatched. Maybe canon does best in ultra long like 400 500 or 600 but i wouldn’t know, i’ve never used such a lens.
For 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2… seriously! do you know how huge these lenses are? how much they weight? and who needs f/1,4 when your dslr image is flawless at 800, even 1600 iso?? Nikon has a few f/1.4 lenses available (28, 50, 85) and i don’t own ANY of those. I use f/1.8 and f/2 primes and i’m fine cause they’re lighter, cheaper, and have better image quality (don’t believe me, try for yourself of check an online test like http://www.photozone.de : 50 f/1.8 is sharper than a 50f/1.2 on the corners at EVERY APERTURE)
Final word : if you have great glass, don’t switch brands. it’s most likely not worth it.
If you can’t afford or don’t need a full frame camera, go for Nikon, they have the best Dx camera available : the d300.
If you’re a news pro, you don’t buy your own gear and you probably don’t get to decide anyway
If you’re a wedding pro, you’ll want the D700’s high iso and (marginaly) greater dynamic range.
If you’re a studio pro, you’ll want the insane resolution of the 5d2.
If you’re an artist, stay where your glass is. (and don’t worry about the prints ; i work at a lab and i’ve made crazy sharp images up to 120cm wide with the d700 files…)
wow, i never though i had that much to say
sorry to make you read!
Now go out and take pictures!
August 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
You are trying to compare a 21 MPIX vs a 12 Mpix
of course it will take a bit longer to process the data (5 fps vs 3 fps) because it has twice as much
anyway you are trying to compare a Holden with a Ford, A BMW with a mercedes……..
Appel mac vs PC
why get a small size senzor if you can get a real full frame one?
Why get a 12 Mpix if you can get 21 mpix?
Why get no filming, if you can get HD filming
Easy choice for me!
I stick to my sexy Canon 5D MKII
October 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Perfectly biased comments in the table.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:42 am
try to keep in mind something:
there insn’t bad tools, there are only bad
artisans…
canon blahblah, nikon gnagnagna,
get off your computer screen and do something
creative…
analogical is the best, and charming way
to take pretty shoots.
i don t know how a 5d2 could be sexy!
those cameras are huge, heavy, high tech,more like automatic weapons
than an artistic tool.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Why get a plastic looking camera when you can get a perfect rubber feel finish.
Why get a camera with bad ergonomics when you can get one with perfect build quality.
Why buy a camera with HD filming when you hate video.
Why pay for 21 Mpix when resolution dosnt matter.
Why buy an ugly unsexy camera with old fashioned bulky design and small invisible buttons when you can a Ferrari design camera
Why shoot with 3.9 FPS when you can get double speed
Easy choice, I tried a friend´s 5D MK2 last week, I can assure you: I´ll never ever be a Canon owner.
But I heard they make fantastic photo copiers though……..
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
This is the most bias comparison i have ever seen. Firstly, with the built in flash, im pretty sure that anyone looking to spend upwards of AU$3000 on a camera body is going to have bigger plans flash wise than to use the built-in one. Chances are that the majority of lenses people will be using on this camera (5d2) will be too wide for a built in flash to cover anyway. And to the remark “but also as to control remote Speedlights in Commander mode.” - All you need to do this is a hotshoe - not a built in flash.
And on the topic of remarks - there are several completely superfluous remarks in the review. Ie: “New for the 5Dmk2″ in the sensor cleaning section. - Obviously its new - so is the camera - the original 5d was one of the earliest digital models. Every EOS model between then and the 5d2 have had sensor cleaning - and a far more advanced system than Nikon.
Also the remark “The 5d2 does not support Canon’s EF-S lenses” is a joke. EF-S lenses are marketed towards photographic beginners. Nobody who is going to spend 3 grand on a camera body would be intending to use EF-S lenses. If anything, the full frame sensor and lack of crop allows the user to start collecting lenses that require full frame (like the 17-40 f4L or the 16-35 f2.8L) both of which will give you much better results than any EF-S lens and which depreciate in value much less.
In terms of build quality i think you will find the 5d2 will outlast the d700 any day.
The review goes on to include many other ridiculous remarks like “The 5D only had 12-bit capture.” - Whats your point? Plus many others like: “Not a feature on any DSLR of the 5D’s age.” that have no real meaning and mostly refer to the 5d. Which one are you reviewing mate? The 5d or the 5d2? The reviewer to me sounds like he/she is really clutching at straws here and (probably intentionally) skipped alot of categories where the 5d2 kills the D700. Especially in terms of auto focus and ergonomics.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
For me it was the AF
D700 nailed 10 out of 10 fast moving objects and does fantastic job in face recognition and tracking.5D MII nailed only 2 images so what is the extra 9MP for if they end up in trash can.
Even the 1D MIII which is sport camera nailed 6 and two of them were iffy
If you shoot landscapes and are a tripod huger or shoot studio production go for the 5DMii
Otherwise buy Nikon (much-much better option not to mention FLASH systems)Canon’s flash suck so bad evryone can tell you that even true hardcore Canon fans will admit that their flash is 20 years behind monkeys
To each its own.
Canon users have huge ego’s just like their line of white L series lenses but are very insecure allways trashing other photographers and their gear
Where others concentrate - shoot - and get the images.
I am a true boliever that if camera maker uses the same mount system for 40+ years that they are trully thinking of including everyone for a ride - the old the young the artist and the jurnalist.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Automatic weapons ARE sexy
I have to agree, however, canon’s feel like toys to me, while the nikon’s (I am leaving the D80 for the D700) feel far more substantial and more like professional tools.
I could care less about shooting video with a DSLR; for some reason I can’t imagine that the DSLR form factor is the ideal one for shooting video. I will stick with my Sony HD camcorder (smaller, MUCH lighter, etc)
December 30th, 2009 at 6:46 am
I just moved into a new office and I have a studio that is about 16 feet deep. My primary business is as a youth sports and school photographer, but we just got the studio and are doing a lot more studio work. I’m thinking I should get a full frame camera, like the D700, but what is the best lens(s)? Do I get a prime lens? Right now I have 5 Fuji S5’s, 2 S3’s, 2 D200’s and a couple of Canons. Do I need the D700 for just studio work? I love the video on the 5d but the Nikon seems to have a slight edge on some of the other features. I am thinking of renting the D700 and maybe the 5D for a weekend with a couple of lenses to see what they feel like in the studio. Any pointers?
December 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’m planning to pull the trigger on a new camera body within the next few months. I’m struggling between the D700(or D700 replacement for 2010) and the 5d mII. My primary concern is sharpness. I purchased a D90 (with kit lens) last year and put it back to back with a 40d (with kit lens). I found the 40d had sharper images. I also found some comparison images online that showed the same disparity between image sharpness … the 40d was sharper. My wife and I are new to photography, but we both feel we can clearly see these differences in sharpness behavior. We scratch our heads as we haven’t seen these complaints when looking at online reviews of these cameras.
I returned the D90 and purchased the 40d. I’ve been loving the camera but I’m finding I need more light for some shots. This brings me to needing to do one of the following: get a faster camera body (improved ISO performance) or a faster set of lenses. I like the idea of going with a faster camera body, that way I’m not forced to have a shallow depth of field (with the fast lenses) if I don’t want to. (I do realize that for the sake of sharpness I’ll probably upgrade to the fast L lenses eventually, though) I also am looking to go with a full frame body so I can get less lens distortion for closer up / indoor shots, since, for example, I’ll be able to use a 50mm+full frame instead of a 35mm+crop frame.
Does anyone know of comparison tests that have been made between the D700 and 5dmII where I can see full-sized images and determine sharpness performance?
thanks a bunch!
Jack
January 4th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Can the d700 produce good quality prints up to A1 size, or would the 5d2 be a better option?
January 5th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I have both. Canon 5D2 and D700.
The 5D2 blows the D700 out of the water @200 ISO.
At even 3200 ISO the 5D2 has severe colour noise, where the D700 images are still ok.
Thats why I bought both.
Different jobs, different cameras……….
February 11th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Just sold the 5d2 !
Erratic autofocus , blurred images, and bad colour noise above 800 ISO. Cant live with that.
Will keep the D700 until the upgrade arrives.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Canon better i like 1080p video and 21mpx
March 12th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I have shot with both cameras as a pro and Canon has a little higher image quality(same pro lense used and so on)
Nikon has a lot better autofocus system. More sharp images. I thought the lcd on the D700 was clearer, sharper something.
The D700 is more userfriendly. Better viewfinder.
But if af is not so important like lanscape photos or when you dont need fast af pic the Canon.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Well, I was just travelling here, and i just read some comments that inspire me …especially from Reu and flash system…
: the 40D is cheap and fast but not so high quality nor big build, the 1DM4 is out of my budget and the 5D2 should be push by my grand mumy to run….the D700 has 12MP not fabulous but enough, good buid, not so expensive, fast AF… in my opinion there is no contest if you do not have lens..
Let me introduce myself, i m 38,french, I shoot since 12, I belong to CPS programm and use Canon since 25 years…
Duuring last decades, I used a 100, a 5, a 3, a 1V, a 20D a 40D and a 1D2N.
First of all, testers apart (who are paid by nikon since centuries), I can’t belive that a photograph trust in the nikon’s flash system (Reu ??)..they got automatic HS many years after Canon….etc etc a nikonist was still calculating when a cononist had already done 20 !
BUT, this is not th question here…5D2 vs D700 ? I think Canon did the error ! who needs 21Mp ? nobody exept studio pros that can invest in a DS3. Since 5 years, Canon make me choose between quality or reactivity or price..not acceptable at all for me
I stay canon because of my lens but 10 years ago, when you wanted a cheap, hardly built, fast af reflex : you had the 3 or the 1V….now what do you have …nikon
March 27th, 2010 at 12:13 am
Both D700 & 5D2 have auto ISO which i like to use during event shooting, but D700 have another setting which 5D2 don’t have, maximum ISO control.
And 5D2 can’t focus in the dark without 580EX2 mounted on it, my friend who uses 5D2 have to hold a torchlight while shooting in the dark….
April 5th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I do a lot of studio fashion/on location work with a Nikon D90. I’m thinking of giving up my Nikon D90 cropped censored with kit lens and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4dAF lens for a full framed censored DlSR-Because these are the only accessories i have, it wouldn’t be hard to move to Canon-”Nikon or Canon” I’m a bit confused on getting to the D700 or the Canon 5d. I don’t want to invest in the wrong choice. They both seem to have great features but would like some good clear advice on witch one and why?
April 13th, 2010 at 11:39 am
i’m going to buy a fullframe DSLR, i know the advantage from each brand (NIKON / CANON).
i’m very interested about canon’s picture control, so u can shoot photos without a lot of post processing.
they can looklike lomo , IR photos or anything.
u should see this kevin’s wang using only canon’s picture control, no post processing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevin32832/
is there any chance d700 can do this (picture control)? because i prefer to buy d700 for the better AF.
thanks
April 30th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I have been a Canon fanboy for over 12 years, having almost every mid level DSLR they produced (Rebel, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 5DmkII). Owned only L lenses. Last year 5DmkII was a last straw in my battle with Canon’s retarded focusing system. Exposure calculations were good only under good lit conditions and would tremendously suffer under anything a bit more challenging. I don’t even want to go into the white balance of ALL Canon cameras. Tried Nikon D700……. Oh my god why didn’t I do it soner. Sharp ALL infocus contrasty shots, ergonomics, customizations, settings that Canonites only can dream of. A focusing sytem alone blows 5DmkII away. High ISO prformance nothing to compare. I mean what do you expectfrom the sensor packed with 21mpx where fotosites are twice as small then on the D700 sensor. It’s simple physics, smaller = more noise prone, less dynamic range. And waht’s the use of 21mpx if the focusing system cannot deliver, just a waste of space with the same resolution as 12mpx sensor can produce.
Sold ALL my Canon’s on the eBay with no hesitation, and switched to Nikon.
Sorry if I offended anyone from Canon camp with my emotional post, but looking back at thousnads of images taken before I really egret for not doing it sooner. So much time wasted on post processing those soft focus-bad white balance-under/over exposed shots.
By the way here is some reading to back my point.
http://www.crickie.com/archives/2604
http://www.crickie.com/archives/2649
April 30th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
….wanted to point out couple of huge missing points in that comparison grid:
1. As someone mentioned before a huge D700 advantage in focusing system.
2. Viewfinder D700 95% coverage 0.72x magnification, 5DmkII 98% coverage 0.71x magnification.
That 3% of coverage comes at the tremendous price of the pop up flash that 5dmkII lacks.
3. HD Video? with no autofocus? Is this a joke…? Do I have to constantly adjust the focus if filming moving objects?
If I am apro that needs a good camera why do I have to pay for that video feature that is not going to be used?
July 8th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I would love to see a comparison/review that addresses not the megapixel size, but the micron size of the individual pixels. From what I’ve been able to find, the D700 pixels are 8.45 microns; the 5DII’s, 6.36. My sense is that the D700 is so good in low light because each pixel ‘bucket’ is a bit larger than the Canon’s. And this probably also accounts for the high color noise levels in the higher ISO range with the Canon. What I would like to see is a review of whether the 21 mp count of the Canon compensates for the smaller pixels. I’m going to buy one or the other soon, but so far I’m leaning toward the Nikon. 12.1 with fuller color density in low light seems better than a flood of smaller, noisier pixels. Can anyone shed any “light” on this one?
July 14th, 2010 at 11:18 am
I own a D700 and all my kit is Nikon.
However, I used my friend’s 5D (not mark II) the other day and found it had one considerable advantage. The shutter noise is MUCH quieter! Apparently this is the same on the mark II.
If you’re interested in taking candid portraits this is really important. People really react to hearing themselves being photographed, so after the first shot you loose the natural look you were aiming for. What’s more, the first shot is usually not very good anyway since it takes time for people to relax around you when you walk over with a hulking great camera.
An example - last weekend I had a BBQ/party and my friend with the 5D took some amazing photos without even looking through the view finder. He was pretending to fiddle with the settings and sneakily taking photos. You just couldn’t have gotten away with this on the D700.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I have sent my Canon EOS 5D Mark II with its ‘L’ series 24-105mm lens back to the manufacturers through Jessops, the camera shop I bought it from. The image quality was dreadful - appallingly soft focus JPEG images no matter what setting you used. Even with in-camera sharpening turned up, it was poor. I wasn’t blown away by its colours either - looked washed on default setting, but over-saturated when I used the “landscape” mode. The camera could not take a sharp picture - the guy in Jessops agreed and so did a professional newspaper photographer who had a go with it. I have got the Nikon D700 on order with a 24-70mm lens and touch wood, hope I’ll be happy with that. When my 5D2 comes back both camera and lens will be for sale and good riddance.
August 11th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
To be fair its all silly arguing over what is better? Last time i checked with anyone what makes a photo is the composition and the mood i have taken pictures n my iPhone 3gs that friends have preferd over ones with my d700
everyone seems to botherd about the tech and what is better, if you think about it they both have there good points and there bad points but its you who makes the picture the camera is just a tool, it takes skill to take amazing photos anyone can take ‘good’ pictures with the best lens/body
same as you can have the best football(soccer) boots and still play shit cause you dont have the skills to play amazing
August 25th, 2010 at 11:28 am
yeah, i would buy nikon (if i can afford it). nikon is so damn good, but only with a higher price. lens? well, for canon, use L lens. non L lens zoom lens are not that good, except primes. i keep hearing everybody said that nikon lens are superb and so on so forth, but did you know that nikon has pre-process their lens’ flaw in the sensor, such as defringing etc? well, IT is an advantage for nikon, which canon can adapt it to their eos system (but WHEN is the question).
what this forum debate about is the technical quality of the camera, which is not really related to the final result. camera is only a tool to capture your vision and what you intended to. and think again, why some natgeo’s photo which taken decades ago still a great piece of art despite the photographer still using film camera which dont have the functions and facilities what you have in even the cheapest dslr today.
yeah, i knew film and digital is different medium, but still, technically perfect or better camera, doesnt automatically make someone make photograph better (it will make photograph that is technically better, but not always in the sense of aesthetic).
buy what suits you, so you dont feel that you are blocked (by your limited gear) and make excuses about your (limited) gear. use whatever your gear to its fullest potential.
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:54 am
I hate to admit this, but I just finished reading all 62 comments. Good grief. A few are unintelligible, some educational and others downright boring. So, here goes; I may as well join the frey, albeit a bit late:
1) Of course the review is biased-it’s a Nikon enthusiasts’ site, duh. Adjust accordingly.
2) As to the Canon versus Nikon nitpicking, I believe #42 huge’s remarks sum it up nicely: “canon blahblah, nikon gnagnagna, get off your computer screen [as in, butt] and do something creative…”
Of course there are pros and cons on both sides. But both companies make fine products. In the end, it’s your skills as a photographer that count. Where you find a weakness, rely on your knowledge and skills to compensate when shooting and later in the lab. If you are unwilling to do that, then perhaps you are a bit too tightly focused (please forgive) on boxed technology rather than the art of photography. (Of course, there are exceptions to this line of thinking-medical photography, military applications, etc.)
3) As to the D700, I chose it because of my huge existing investment in Nikon lenses; I just didn’t want to start over, though I confess I had doubts about Nikon’s digital talents prior to the introduction of the D700. It is a tremendous camera. My favorite feature set: it’s incredible low-light capabilities. If you don’t like flash and want excellent images at high ISO settings, this camera is a great choice.
4) Regarding resolution, sure, it seems that higher is better. After all, if you plan to produce wall-size murals, this is important. Otherwise, remember that size isn’t everything.