Reading mode: Light Dark

D700 + 24-70 or 5DII + 24-105

Go to last post
harold1968

harold1968

Veteran Member
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
434
Location
London, UK
In UK, both £2,500 now

enough talking about black dots, back to spending money to help the economy :)

D700+24-70m

1. Better lens
2. More useful buttons on body / slightly better handling
3. In-built flash for those fill emergency moments
4. Better focus system
5. VR prime (105mm)

5DII + 24-105mm IS

1. IS
2. Much lighter (body 200g lighter, lens 300g lighter)
3. Nicer tones (D700 very clinical)
4. Better IS & prime lens range
5. HD Video

what do you guys think ? (I know its a Canon forum, but I have Canon stuff - although mostly EF-S todate so i need new lenses anyway)
 
whoops, forgot to put this in the original post

I want to do landscapes, architectural/building shots and portraits indoors (mostly hand held).

The D700 focus system is probably wasted on me, although it would be useful to track kids as they run about.
Folly Farm said:
Depends what you intend to shoot, if it does not move go with the
Canon 5d2. If its people / children / sports go Nikon....
Click to expand...
 
What kind of BS logic is this ? People have shot sports, events, Weddings, children with much less than even the original 5d.

It's strange how anything that came before the newest cameras on the block are now no good for the exact jobs they have been is use for.

Do the newer perform better, sure. Some cameras have definite advantages depending on the subject matter & enviroment they are used in. To say if it does not move go with the 5d2 in just ,.....

Why do I waste my time responding?
Folly Farm said:
Depends what you intend to shoot, if it does not move go with the
Canon 5d2. If its people / children / sports go Nikon....
Click to expand...
 
I find the 5d2 more versatile.

It does what the d700 does and more(mpix and iso). Although I find the build quality "a bit less" but ok.

Regards

Michael
 
It's like kicking in an open door, but here goes:

D700 wins on frame rate, more versatile autofocus (don't know if it's actually more accurate), much better flash system (onboard is a big plus to me, and it can double as a wireless commander), maybe slightly better high iso (should be, pixels are twice as big, but again, it's not that clear from all the early tests).

5DII should have a more detail at low iso's, is lighter to use for travel, doesn't offer topclass wide angle lenses but counters with brilliant 24-105 f4 IS and 70-200 f4 IS plus fast primes and it does video the way I like it: lock focus and light and make a shot, and it does so with great quality and low light.

So, take your pick
 
I am also thinking hard which of these two cameras to take.

I've got a 5d1 and quite a few Canon lenses, so the logical choice would be the 5d2, but the d700, apart from better AF and ergonomics:

a) produces very pleasing phototographs at high ISOs, with no chroma noise

b) I tried to postprocess it's RAW files; they let themselves postprocess miraculously well, I went up as high as +3 in exposure compensation, and there still appeared no noise in shadows! They would be superb for making pseudoHDR from a raw file in Photomatix.

On the other hand 5d2 produces much more detailed pics, and, what is important, the downsized pics still remain more detailed then those from the d700. A perfect lens like 14-24 will give to d700 a lot of detail but half of it is lost due to a lower resolution sensor.

Unfortunately 5d2 produces a lot of chroma noise, this noise is visible in shadows even at low ISOs (100 - 400) and the overall quality of the pic suffers much because of this.
harold1968 said:
In UK, both £2,500 now

enough talking about black dots, back to spending money to help the
economy :)

D700+24-70m

1. Better lens
2. More useful buttons on body / slightly better handling
3. In-built flash for those fill emergency moments
4. Better focus system
5. VR prime (105mm)

5DII + 24-105mm IS

1. IS
2. Much lighter (body 200g lighter, lens 300g lighter)
3. Nicer tones (D700 very clinical)
4. Better IS & prime lens range
5. HD Video

what do you guys think ? (I know its a Canon forum, but I have Canon
stuff - although mostly EF-S todate so i need new lenses anyway)
Click to expand...
--
Canon EOS 5D, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 135/2
http://www.photoforum.ru/15148/
 
I think the noise on the D700 is unassailable.

I just find the portrait pictures I have seen lack a certain something. Quite flat.
Not really fair I know, as it could all be post-processing.

It reminds me of the old argument of fuji vs Kodak. I would say that Canon has the kodak type pop and nikon the fuji clinicalness. Although fuji redeemed themselves a bit with velvia.

Perhaps you just feel like a change ? perfectly understandable ....
zebra328 said:
I've got a 5d1 and quite a few Canon lenses, so the logical choice
would be the 5d2, but the d700, apart from better AF and ergonomics:

a) produces very pleasing phototographs at high ISOs, with no chroma
noise

b) I tried to postprocess it's RAW files; they let themselves
postprocess miraculously well, I went up as high as +3 in exposure
compensation, and there still appeared no noise in shadows! They
would be superb for making pseudoHDR from a raw file in Photomatix.

On the other hand 5d2 produces much more detailed pics, and, what is
important, the downsized pics still remain more detailed then those
from the d700. A perfect lens like 14-24 will give to d700 a lot of
detail but half of it is lost due to a lower resolution sensor.

Unfortunately 5d2 produces a lot of chroma noise, this noise is
visible in shadows even at low ISOs (100 - 400) and the overall
quality of the pic suffers much because of this.
harold1968 said:
In UK, both £2,500 now

enough talking about black dots, back to spending money to help the
economy :)

D700+24-70m

1. Better lens
2. More useful buttons on body / slightly better handling
3. In-built flash for those fill emergency moments
4. Better focus system
5. VR prime (105mm)

5DII + 24-105mm IS

1. IS
2. Much lighter (body 200g lighter, lens 300g lighter)
3. Nicer tones (D700 very clinical)
4. Better IS & prime lens range
5. HD Video

what do you guys think ? (I know its a Canon forum, but I have Canon
stuff - although mostly EF-S todate so i need new lenses anyway)
Click to expand...
--
Canon EOS 5D, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 135/2
http://www.photoforum.ru/15148/
Click to expand...
 
But strangely you forgot a "small" addition, a little plus offered by the 5D2. Quite the double of pixels. Should you need in architecture print large or in the need of detail, the 5D2 is the way to go, but beware of the distorsion of the 24-105.

All in all I would say that the Nikon choice is more professional, the Canon is more enthousiast. But both will serve you well, very well.

--
Ludo from Paris
Tankers of tools, thimbles of talent
BestOf http://ludo.smugmug.com/gallery/1158249
 
If I were looking at a whole new system and I shot a significant amount of sports, I'd go D700 for the AF. I have a 1D IIn, and the AF is awesome. Would be nice to have that AF in a more portable body.

But if money were no object or I was getting paid enough, the ultimate would be to have a 5D2 and a 1D3.

However the OP has stated his interests, and I'd say they're more in line with the 5D2. You can shoot sports with it... I got plenty of great action shots with my 30D, which didn't have as good an AF system as the 5D2 does. It's just that the 1D (and I assume D700) AF is so unflappable.
 
good point
I can only afford one lens initially, which is why I want to go versatile.
eventually with Nikon i would get the 12-24.
With Canon I would probably get the new 14mm prime.
Ludovic Monchat said:
But strangely you forgot a "small" addition, a little plus offered by
the 5D2. Quite the double of pixels. Should you need in architecture
print large or in the need of detail, the 5D2 is the way to go, but
beware of the distorsion of the 24-105.

All in all I would say that the Nikon choice is more professional,
the Canon is more enthousiast. But both will serve you well, very
well.

--
Ludo from Paris
Tankers of tools, thimbles of talent
BestOf http://ludo.smugmug.com/gallery/1158249
Click to expand...
 
But once again, you would be ready to roll but...rather short. 24 is still very wide. You would add a 50mm for some bucks and well, this could be an excellent solution.

The solution of the 5D2 and the 16-35L II could also be valid, at 21 mpix and with the possibility of shooting something else but architecture. 35mm is an excellent "all purpose" focal, short but very good on a FF for everyday shooting. 24mm is really only suitable for wide applications.

Once again, add a "plastic fantastic" 50 f1,8 and you're done.

Honestly with both brands you can't go wrong

--
Ludo from Paris
Tankers of tools, thimbles of talent
BestOf http://ludo.smugmug.com/gallery/1158249
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top