5D vs D700

Phil Flash said:

GiovanniB said:

Phil Flash said:

If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to
ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.

Click to expand...

If you can't you should take some photography classes.

The D700 won't be of any help in this case.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take some manners classes?

Click to expand...

Well, seriously, Phil: "If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture" ... that's not quite a pro's statement, is it? I remember how even pro photographers flocked to the 5D when it was introduced, praising it as a perfectly useful tool. Not because they had diffulties wrestling captures out of it, I guess.

People who declare proven equipment suddenly useless just because there's something new on the other side of the fence truly prove they are gear-centered instead of creative. Take it for whatever you like. Maybe it's just my opinion. But I have no difficulties "wrestling the 5D to get the capture". Have you? Recognize something?

Phil, what will you do when Canon trumps the D700 and you'll have to wrestle it for pictures too ? And then when Nikon trumps Canon again? and so on and so on. Seriously, the 5D is a mighty fine camera and a perfectly capable tool in right hands. And for the price it's a steal. Not to mention the price it will reach in a few weeks when the replacement comes out.

The D700 might be nice and shiny but hardly a reason to jump boats for any one with a lens investment. Not to mention Nikon still has some holes and deficiencies when it comes to primes and f/4 pro zooms. Some people prefer those to heavy, expensive f/2.8 zooms.
--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com

I just purchased a D700 after several trips to best buy and ritz locally to handle the 5D; The D700 I bought cost me $2745 (shipping and all), while the 5D has crept back up to a little over $2000. $745 is enough to get one good lens, but apart from shooting nikon and mamiya primarily anyway, the 5D represented a substantial loss in value over time, and I'm talking specifically resale value if bought new compared to the D700, which occurs in all second gen bodies over 2 years old when the replacement comes out. Besides that I think the D700 handling and feature set are more than worth the extra $745 you pay anyway.

I had the 5D for 3 years and just switched to the D700. So far only have one lens, the 24-70, and plan to add the 70-200 VR and 105 Micro VR.

What I can say is there is no regret. My first camera was a Canon AE-1 but then I moved to a Nikon F100 before getting a 5D, which I really enjoyed for its IQ despite having a mediocre body.

The D700 has much better build than the 5D and features that can be quite personalized to the photographer.

Most importantly, image quality is superb, with more natural colors than the 5D and cleaner images once you get to ISO 800 and above.

I really appreciate the 51 autofocus points which make it easier to get the right shot off when the specific focus point is essential for the shallow depth of field situations.

Overall lenses at least that I use are overall comparable although Nikon have been very productive the past year coming out with new lenses (Big teles, tilt and shift, 14-24, 24-70...).

I prefer the 24-70 to the Canon 24-70L, which itself is very good lens. Now just hoping they'll do the same with the 70-200VR as the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS is the best out there today, with an edge over the Nikon version. Macros from both brands are very good, although the Nikon 105VR has a bit better build and VR which is a plus.

In short I think Canon had the strong upper hand the past 4-5 years with the digital 1 series but Nikon is seriously back in the game now which is great for everyone as will stimulate competition.

Mark

--
http://www.pbase.com/mholdef/

.....offers way more features, functionality, AF, ruggedness, etc in a pro body.

You pick your poison.....I mean DSLR
--
'I'm back'

....or else you're an idiot.

That is, if you HAVE a choice, & how easy is that choice.

If one is tied to the Canon system (eg: €€€ ££ $$$ in lenses); the choice is more difficult.

Dual system users don't have that great a problem.

--
'I'm back'

Phil Flash said:

...reading everything you can about the bodies, then you don't know
enough and you should wait.

I wouldn't make this decision unless I've spent time with both bodies.

Had the 5D and loved its image quality. I'd still have it if the
D700 had not come out.

The D700 inspires much more confidence in handling, metering, and AF
and other features that are not just bells and whistles. Plus I can
use my compact manual focus Nikon primes from 20 years ago and they
work great.

If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to
ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.

Click to expand...

Overall, I think I agree with you and it seems people have difficulties spelling out the obvious: D700 is a better, more recent, more complete and more expensive camera than 5D.... to me the real advantage of the 5D is that it is the only access point to FF picture quality at this price point, especially when lenses are considered in the bundle (lack of f4 good quality semi-affordable zooms and USM fast primes was a no-go for me when I looked at Nikon).

Chances are the D700 won't have to be compared with the 5D only for long but let's not spoil the next 6 month of posts .... ;-)

The only part where I would disagree is the "wrestle" part: the 5D is a simple camera really and any average photographer can get good results out of it with normal practice, no need to "wrestle" it ...

Phil Flash said:

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.

Click to expand...

Kabe Luna said:

...if you're currently happy with results from ACR (have you updated
to the latest version yet, with the new camera profiles? You should,
if not–much better color), so long as you keep to low ISO, where
there's no luminance noise–which is the problem with Nikon cameras +
ACR/Lightroom–and are shooting landscapes (ACR/LR does a notably poor
job in rendering crisp red/orange edges jaggedly, so that a red round
circle that's relatively small in the frame will have stair-stepped
edges) you'll be happy with the results.

Click to expand...

I use DPP for conversions primarily because I feel the colors are better and I can resize the image to any dimension unlike the ACR version (3.7) that I currently have with CS2. If you mean by updating ACR, you mean updating to CS3 to get it, that was kind of what I was hoping to avoid in adding an additional overall expense to owning a D700 (because CS2 is working fine for me). Can I get the Camera profiles without buying CS3? I was under the impression I could not.

Kabe Luna said:

The thing about View is that, like NX,

Click to expand...

Oops, let me stop here. This seems to suggest that View and NX are separate programs. Which is the RAW converter? What I meant to talk about was the RAW converter. Can NR be turned off in the Nikon converter? I never intentionally actuate NR in any software.

Kabe Luna said:

it's tuned to favor noise
control at the expense of fine detail. So, you get clean, mostly
artifact-free images that are almost totally lacking in fine detail.
Download some of Nikon's own JPEG samples from the D700, which are
processed using CNX, which gives the same default results as NX, and
see if you like the level of detail therein. If so, you've arrived.
But be aware that it is VERY clumsy and allows very minimal RAW
adjustments.

If you don't mind a question of my own: if you also have a 5D, why
would you put the D700 on a tripod and handhold the 5D when the 5D is
the camera of the two that'd most benefit from the discipline of
shooting from a tripod with its greater pixel count and weaker AA
filter giving slightly higher resolution potential? Is it because the
better lenses fit the Nikon? I'd do exactly the opposite and put the
5D on a tripod where I can stop down the Canon wides, which is needed
for the best results at the edges of the frame, and handhold the
D700, which has reliable and accurate AE metering and other features
that make it arguably the better fast-use camera.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

I use very few Canon products on the wide end. Check out my profile.

I have been planning to go to a 2 cam system as previously described and would have already been there had C released a 5D mkII in Feb. If I owned the 5D mkII, I still would not be using the assumed improved AF to its fullest capabilities and none of the faster fps. So, there will be waste whatever I buy.

I like the Zeiss ZF products and plan to expand my ownership of those lenses. I assumed that an adapter free mount might would give me an edge.

I am sensing, in this message and in the next response regarding banding, that you feel the 5D produces more detail?

TIA for your time.

• Snipping content due to DPR limitation.

Rick Knepper said:

Kabe Luna said:

...if you're currently happy with results from ACR (have you updated
to the latest version yet, with the new camera profiles? You should,
if not–much better color), so long as you keep to low ISO, where
there's no luminance noise–which is the problem with Nikon cameras +
ACR/Lightroom–and are shooting landscapes (ACR/LR does a notably poor
job in rendering crisp red/orange edges jaggedly, so that a red round
circle that's relatively small in the frame will have stair-stepped
edges) you'll be happy with the results.

Click to expand...

I use DPP for conversions primarily because I feel the colors are
better and I can resize the image to any dimension unlike the ACR
version (3.7) that I currently have with CS2. If you mean by updating
ACR, you mean updating to CS3 to get it, that was kind of what I was
hoping to avoid in adding an additional overall expense to owning a
D700 (because CS2 is working fine for me). Can I get the Camera
profiles without buying CS3? I was under the impression I could not.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can get the profiles to work with your older version of ACR. I'm almost certain you'd have to upgrade, though I can't be certain since I'm current with PS, LR and ACR.

Rick Knepper said:

Rick Knepper said:

The thing about View is that, like NX,

Click to expand...

Oops, let me stop here. This seems to suggest that View and NX are
separate programs. Which is the RAW converter? What I meant to talk
about was the RAW converter. Can NR be turned off in the Nikon
converter? I never intentionally actuate NR in any software.

Click to expand...

View is something more of an organizational too (but even rudimentary at that) that can do a relatively straight conversion. You can compensate exposure and change the Picture Control (even can use a utility to create your own custom version, but he controls remain limited), but that's it, so you'd need to set the sharpness as you like it in-camera, cuz that's what you're stuck with for converting in View.

Capture NX is the full flown Nikon converter, and it's really extensively featured. But the interface is atrocious. NX2 is a little better, but still the organization of the tools remains befuddling. And honestly I just don't like the color rendition that much for skin tones. That said, I've seen some fantastic results from landscape shooters, so maybe that's its forte rather than flesh tones. In particular, I don't find its highlight recover very good, and that's something I use often to maximize DR in high contrast situations. Now, it's possible I just don't know how to use it, but when I can get better results from just about every other RAW converter I've used within about 15 minutes, how tolerant am I supposed to be of NX's quirks?

Can you tell I don't care much for Nikon's software?

Rick Knepper said:

Rick Knepper said:

it's tuned to favor noise
control at the expense of fine detail. So, you get clean, mostly
artifact-free images that are almost totally lacking in fine detail.
Download some of Nikon's own JPEG samples from the D700, which are
processed using CNX, which gives the same default results as NX, and
see if you like the level of detail therein. If so, you've arrived.
But be aware that it is VERY clumsy and allows very minimal RAW
adjustments.

If you don't mind a question of my own: if you also have a 5D, why
would you put the D700 on a tripod and handhold the 5D when the 5D is
the camera of the two that'd most benefit from the discipline of
shooting from a tripod with its greater pixel count and weaker AA
filter giving slightly higher resolution potential? Is it because the
better lenses fit the Nikon? I'd do exactly the opposite and put the
5D on a tripod where I can stop down the Canon wides, which is needed
for the best results at the edges of the frame, and handhold the
D700, which has reliable and accurate AE metering and other features
that make it arguably the better fast-use camera.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

I use very few Canon products on the wide end. Check out my profile.

I have been planning to go to a 2 cam system as previously described
and would have already been there had C released a 5D mkII in Feb. If
I owned the 5D mkII, I still would not be using the assumed improved
AF to its fullest capabilities and none of the faster fps. So, there
will be waste whatever I buy.

I like the Zeiss ZF products and plan to expand my ownership of those
lenses. I assumed that an adapter free mount might would give me an
edge.

I am sensing, in this message and in the next response regarding
banding, that you feel the 5D produces more detail?

Click to expand...

Okay, so that's where the trickiness is, and lets assume you print oversize rather than the opposite, since that's the only time when such fine sharpness differences might be perceived. If you want to do minimum work for great results under these conditions, properly exposed 5D files with default conversion in DPP cannot be beat. Sharp and colorful right out of the box. However, the D700 (and here I'm assuming the same results as my D3, which shares its sensor and image processor) actually can match the 5D on sharpness and detail, but you have to work a little more in RAW conversion to get to it: conversion in a particular converter and then capture sharpening in post. But there's a reward to the extra work on the D700, and that's less color aliasing (which is something that drove me crazy on the 5D) and moire–in other words, more accurate detail and fewer conversion artifacts.

The choice is easy if you know your priorities. And based on what you're revealed so far, sounds like the 5D is the right choice for you.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

CM_laptop said:

....or else you're an idiot.

That is, if you HAVE a choice, & how easy is that choice.

Click to expand...

Well, there's also the "price to performance ratio". The 5D is the clear winner here.

Also, I'd see NO reason to switch from one 12 MP FF DSLR to a different one that delivers the SAME IQ - even if lenses wouldn't keep me with Canon. There's simply no reason to choose the more expensive D700. Except maybe the higher frame rate (if you need it, I don't) or weather sealing (if you need it, would be nice for me, but not worth switching).

To follow your advice and REALLY choose a "better" tool in fact wouldn't mean switching to Nikon, but getting the 1Ds Mk III. Quite simply.

However, the 5D works very well for me as a photographic tool. The few and only complaints I have are about the interface - and the Nikon D700 is even worse in this respect. I don't want to go into details about the interface here since this wouldn't be of much interest for most dpreview.com forum members. Obviously most neither use nor know more than half of the functions of their cameras anyway. But to sum it up, the user interface might lead me to Sony later. Never to Nikon.

Regards
Giovanni

I still have Zeiss lenses sitting idle. I used them on my Canon's but nowadays for work I really rely on zooms. I don't need the highest resolution, but the fastest result

Just to say you can use Contax Zeiss lenses easily on Canon. The newer adapters even have AF confirmation working. works ok.

--
Equipment: camera and lenses

dominique dierick said:

I still have Zeiss lenses sitting idle. I used them on my Canon's but
nowadays for work I really rely on zooms. I don't need the highest
resolution, but the fastest result
Just to say you can use Contax Zeiss lenses easily on Canon. The
newer adapters even have AF confirmation working. works ok.

Click to expand...

But how about metering? Do you have full-time open-aperture metering with the adapters or do you have to stop them down?

Dominique Dierick said:

--
Equipment: camera and lenses

Click to expand...

--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/

All true some of Canons lenses have much more resolving power but if I was you I would go for the D700, or wait till something new from Canon is announced might be revolutionary prob at the end of this month. If nothing exciting just get the D700 and be happy.
--

http://photo.net/photos/Neciphoto

http://necipperver.googlepages.com

-nikon

Seriously, there are a lot, & I mean a LOT of issues that would lead many people, including pros, away from the 5D; especially now that finally Nikon has a FF DSLR alternative.

1st of all is....yep, UI. User interface is so intriguingly illogical on canon that the person who thinks up certain things should be shot.

2nd. is definitely the better body. Not just the 5D mirror falling off in hot & humid climates (I'm in the Mediterranean area), but also viewfinder dust (again, a problem in the Med. area, not so much in mountanous regions)

3rd is faster response & ease of use....what the 5D should have been in the first place! (Canon are you listening?!?!?)

4th is the flash system.....let's not go there; it isn't even close

5th is IQ at high ISOs; especially in shadow areas: it is to be expected consdering the 5D is a 3 year old camera.

Now that the 5D is cheaper, it is a much more of an option than when it had not competetion....& was overpriced, considering the crappy body (basically a 20D body that was even less durable than the 20D).

Interesting times we live in!

--
'I'm back'

thats said this guy
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28925310

RhysM said:

I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.

I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the
5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please
constructive posts not a flame war).

Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
are pretty much on par for image IQ.

Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail
than nikon's pro level glass.

So constructive discussion please!

Click to expand...

RhysM said:

I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.

I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the
5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please
constructive posts not a flame war).

Click to expand...

It depends on your budget and the kinds of lenses you need and the types of photography you do.

RhysM said:

Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
are pretty much on par for image IQ.

Click to expand...

That is pretty much correct. If you need 5 fps or more instead of 3 fps, then you are better off with the D700. However, if you need a lens like the 100-400mm L or the 400mm f/5.6 L, Nikon does not have anything similar. The cheapest 400mm Nikkor or the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor both cost a lot more. The 80-400mm VR Nikkor is soft at 400mm according to Thom Hogan.

RhysM said:

Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail
than nikon's pro level glass.

Click to expand...

Depends on the individual lens really. Canon does have an edge in having fluorite elements. Nikon does not have fluorite elements, only ED glass. Nikon will emphasize the fact that fluorite crystals are more fragile and their optical characteristics can change with changing temperature (one reason Canon L lenses are white is to reflect sunlight to make them cooler), but the fact remains that fluorite is better optically than ED glass.

I recently helped a friend decide which brand to go with for a standard full frame body. As everyone has indicated, in about a months time the game will change with the expected 5D replacement. There's a chance it could be another affordable FF as was the case for the original 5D verses what I and a lot of other people are hoping for, a compact professional FF body, which is what you get with the D700 (sealed body and complete pro feature set). People are speculating that the pro version would be named the 3D and the affordable version the 7D.

If Canon goes the 3D compact pro FF route and if they can avoid producing a fundamentally flawed camera then it will likely one up the D700 (please take this with a grain of salt as just about any high end camera will produce exceptional results with a competent photographer, any differences in IQ will be marginal) and probably cost as much or maybe more than the D700. While if Canon goes the 7D route then the cost will be below and possibly well below the D700. They could also introduce both FF bodies. No matter what, it is your best interest to wait a bit.

However if you can't wait then Nikon currently offers the best bet for a FF body unless money is a huge factor then Canon offers a better deal with the old 5D, although, the D700 is definitely worth the extra $700. Compared to the 5D (the camera I currently own and LOVE) Nikon's D700 is exceptional with sensor cleaning, weather seals, frame rate, AF, etc. If it was me and the new Canon wasn't around the corner I would be all over the D700, it appears to be an absolutely wonderful package. Hats off to Nikon for producing it on the tails of the D3.

As others have mentioned lenses are a big factor, in fact, the better the camera and the better you become as a photographer the more important lens become in producing the kind of image you want. I am not talking about IQ but atmosphere and artistry, which for me is the only reason to pick up a camera. Nikon has great lenses and people seem to indicate that they will be rapidly modernizing their line up. Their 14-24 wide angle is so good that it is almost worth buying the D700 for that lens alone, although, for the body and that lens alone will will spend $4.5K. However, with the exception of the 14-24 I find that Canon provides me with the best lenses for my needs.

NIKON (suggested FF kit):

Nikon D700 $2,999 (newer and better in virtually every aspect)*

Nikon 14-24 $1,529 (wider and sharper)*

Nikon 24-70 $1,699 (no VR, expensive and heavy)

Nikon 70-200 $1,624 (comparable to Canon)

Nikon 50 f/1.8 $109 (cheap but not outstanding)

Nikon 105 macro $759 (very nice but expensive)*

TOTAL $8,719 to provide me with my preferred kit.

CANON (my current FF kit):

Canon 5D $2,299 (old and not that much cheaper than D700, wait for MK2)

Canon 16-35 $1,450 (not bad but not as good as Nikon)

Canon 24-105 $1,059 (the best all around FF lens, period)*

Canon 70-200 $1,100 (f/4 is insanely sharp, f/2.8 is probably comparable to Nikon)*

Canon 50 f/1.4 $325 (better but both manufacturers seem to struggle with their 50s)*

Canon 100 macro $469 (very good but lacks IS, unlike Nikon's with VR)

TOTAL $6,702 (that's $2,000 difference for the complete kit)

+Canon 85 f/1.8 is an outstanding lens, especially considering the price*

+Canon L primes: 35, 85 and 135 are the best of the best, although, I do not own them at this point*

Best,
Chad

http://www.witnesstobeauty.com

Could you please tell me exactly what the ACR Camera Profiles do and how you set them. I take it, they're not the same as DxO which correct aberrations from camera-lens combinations? Please elaborate. (I'm aware that under preferences there's a place to check, and I have done so, "make defaults specific to camera and iso settings," I'm just not certain exactly what this does?

kdoc

ck_WTB said:

NIKON (suggested FF kit):

Nikon D700 $2,999 (newer and better in virtually every aspect)*

Nikon 14-24 $1,529 (wider and sharper)*

Nikon 24-70 $1,699 (no VR, expensive and heavy)

Nikon 70-200 $1,624 (comparable to Canon)

Nikon 50 f/1.8 $109 (cheap but not outstanding)

Nikon 105 macro $759 (very nice but expensive)*

TOTAL $8,719 to provide me with my preferred kit.

CANON (my current FF kit):

Canon 5D $2,299 (old and not that much cheaper than D700, wait for MK2)

Canon 16-35 $1,450 (not bad but not as good as Nikon)

Canon 24-105 $1,059 (the best all around FF lens, period)*

Canon 70-200 $1,100 (f/4 is insanely sharp, f/2.8 is probably
comparable to Nikon)*

Canon 50 f/1.4 $325 (better but both manufacturers seem to struggle
with their 50s)*

Canon 100 macro $469 (very good but lacks IS, unlike Nikon's with VR)

TOTAL $6,702 (that's $2,000 difference for the complete kit)

+Canon 85 f/1.8 is an outstanding lens, especially considering the
price*

+Canon L primes: 35, 85 and 135 are the best of the best, although, I
do not own them at this point*

Click to expand...

Hello, Chad

Your comparison seems a little skewed , the Nikon 14-24 is not just a little better than the 16-35 Canon , if you insist in comparing the Nikon 24-70 with the 24-105l the Nikon is faster better built and far superior in image quality , why not compare to the 24-70l lens ?{ although the Nikon is still slightly better } .

I agree that the Canon 70-200 f4 is a fantastic lens, but it is not an f2.8 lens so comparing equals the savings would be nowhere near $2000 , the 5d is at a clearance price now when new it was the same as the d700 with a fraction of the body features, when the new 5d comes out the price will be far more , I speak as a user of both systems and the 5d provides excellent image quality in a dated body, and I agree it’s the fast primes that will keep me using Canon { I have the 35l, 85l and 135l , I had the 50l but was unhappy with it}

Ironically I find that the 5d and D3 which I use for wedding work provide images that complement each other very well , I use the D3 mainly with the new zooms { 14-24 and 24-70} and the 5d with the 85L or my fav the 135L , whilst the Nikon does the bulk of the work {I personally prefer the Nikon interface } and all the flash work for obvious reasons the 5D with a fast prime delivers excellent results, I believe that both systems provide all the quality that a photographer professional or not could want , the real limits to photography are the person taking the image not the camera or lens
Jim

CM_laptop said:

1st of all is....yep, UI. User interface is so intriguingly illogical
on canon that the person who thinks up certain things should be shot.

Click to expand...

Obviously you never used the EOS 5D. Nor, for that matter, a Sony Alpha 700.

As mentioned already, I won't respond with details because details are a waste of time in dpreview.com's forums where stupid flame wars ("the person ... should be shot") find more interest than reason.