5DII V's D700 Comparison available yet?

Started Sep 25, 2008 | Discussions thread
Leos Senior Member • Posts: 2,072
Re: Utter nonsense!

TheVoIP wrote:

Keep in mind that Nikon always looks more solid. But experince tell
the looks/feel has nothing to do with actual performance.

You will find people claiming the same thing about their plastic XTi's. Or their cheap Korean vehicles.

The gap for built-in flash will allow water to flow in. And all flash
gun including built-in unit has high voltage capacitors, which is
highly dangerous to wetness.

Well I wouldnt use the popup flash in the rain for quite obvious reasons. When its not in use it should be perfectly safe And no, water will not "flow in" lol.

Anyway, I guess Nikon 'think' consumer need the built-in flash more
than weather resistance. Personally I hardly use the built-in flash.
I think I never use it on my 40D for a year.

Its not much use for flash , but remote flash commander is very very usable. Of course not available on the Canon 40D though.

Can use 200 f2 IS vs cannot (Nikon version is never as sharp)

Nonsense. The Nikkor is just as superb as the Canon.

I only mean at wide open.

IMO, that's the only reason getting such lense.

More nonsence. There are plenty of reasons for a fast aperture lens other than wide open shooting.

Canon 24-70 L perform much better than Nikon equivalents

Nonsense. The Nikkor 24-70 is actually slightly better in contrast,
sharpness, CA resistance, and it's a bit smaller and lighter.

Again, I am talking about wide open performance. And try that at 70mm
and tell me if the Nikon is not soft.

The Nikon is sharper than the Canon at f2.8 , dont know how you got to the opposite conclusion.

All canon 70-200 L perform much better than Nikon at FF of course.

Nonsense. The 70-200 2.8 VR is just as good as the 70-200 2.8 IS
(assuming you get a good copy of the 70-200 2.8 IS, which isn't
always the case)

I admit Nikon 70-200 VR is great on D300. Try that on D3 and you see
what I mean.

From examples I have seen , I tend to agree with you here.

100-400L IS L is much better than 80-400 VR

Better in autofocus only. The Nikkor has a better range, IQ and
stabilization is about the same on both.

I am not certain on this part. As I only see my 100-400 has much
better pictures and success rate that my Nikon friends, which non of
his pictures are sharp (@100% view) in some events.

As said already , the success rate is most likely due to poor AF performance , not that it really matters in the end ...

So far I can only see one thing that the Nikon beat Canon, thier
excellent 14-24 super wide angle...

True that. Also the awesome 200-400 F4. The 70-300 VR is also much
better than the Canon equivalent. The 105mm VR Macro doesn't have a
Canon counterpart.

I am not sure if 200-400 f4 is of any usefull. Personally given that
range. I will prefer 2 bodies with 2 lenses. Example, one on huge
prime, and another on either 70-200 / 100-400

Now, you conveniently left out a few things:

  • 3.9fps vs 5fps (or 8fps with a grip).

  • 9-point prosumer AF vs. 51-point pro AF.

  • No built-in wireless flash vs. built-in flash commander.

  • No built-in popup flash vs. build-in popup flash.

  • crippled Auto ISO mode vs. full Auto ISO mode

  • direct Print button vs. several fully customizable buttons

  • faster shutter response & shorter blackout time on the Nikon.

  • tons of other things that are slightly better or more customizeable

on the Nikon, like exposure, bracketing, metering, AF modes, flash
operation and so on...

IMO, those 5D/D700 are not meant for sport. And more to
landscape/potrait those shots... For sport, I would suggest 1D/D3.

The D700 with grip is 8 fps. Plus the shutter lag and mirror blackout is the same as the D3, autofocus the same. You cannot even begin to compare it to a 5D.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow