Reading mode: Light Dark

Detailed review: Canon 5d vs. Nikon D700

Go to last post
Lajos Hajdu said:
My Hungarian compatriots have published a detailed comparison of the
two cameras. Here's the link to the English version:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/nikon_d700_vs_canon_eos_5d/
Click to expand...
Interesting comparison. Just picking one detail. In the test images there is a particularly awful crop showing a seriously blown out and recovered poppy seedbox. However when you look at the sample images for the D700 this still life is featured and if you look at the seedbox on the full size version it looks just fine, like the Canon version. Odd. Maybe they had a problem using Lightroom for the RAW conversions. Some of the ghastly D700 moire was probably due to using Lightroom.

--
Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/
Pbase gallery Pictures from Isle of Skye
http://www.pbase.com/xrdbear
 
Like the comparison, but sounds to me that he's very biased.

He states that Nikon is a "little faster too". Now I had both cameras, Speed difference between two is night and day.....
 
Yeah, when he says that Canon wins for ergonomics over the D700, I think that says a lot..
 
The author states the test is purely subjective, which will lead to some bias tone. Personally, I did not read any bias in his review. I see it so many times that when someone produces a review and it's not a groveling, kiss your feet review, it becomes an anti-x/pro-y review. It goes both ways, Canon and Nikon alike. The author stated that each had its strong points and weak points. Just because he stated the 5D ekes out more detail in JPG, doesn't make him pro-Canon. He said the detail is nearly identical when shooting RAW. Just my 2cents anyway. I thought it was an interesting read.
--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
Without any surprise, I see in most case 5d appears to be sharper than d700. I can't help wondering whether it's always possible to bring out the details in d700 image by smart sharpen in photoshop. I understand 5d has a weaker AA filter but to be honest the image quality from 5d is quite impressive without any post processing.
 
Please. Did you even read the review? This guy isn't just a fanboy, he's an idiot.

Let's just start with image quality:

"The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW files, the details are basically the same."

And then he goes on to state that the D700 is ahead in the noise category. And now let's read the brilliant conclusion:

"The Canon EOS 5D is still the standard of its class. Despite the unfair comparison, there are some important areas where even the Nikon D700 has a hard time: image quality. The EOS 5D gets behind only in chromatic noise."

Say what? You mean the camera's JPG rendering engine doesn't have enough sharpening by default, and you're too incompetent to turn it up? RAW wise, their equal, according to him. So basically the Canon is "the standard of the class" for people who can't use a menu to adjust sharpening (and incidentally like more noise in their images). Really, this is just retarded.

But it gets better: While the detail level in a JPG may or may not be true, there's the simple fact that the 5D is a POS body, whereas the D700 is essentially pro-grade body. Say what you'd like about 1% or 5% detail, if you can't take picture (or it's not in focus, metered wrong, etc.), it doesn't matter what the level of detail is.

And how does the reviewer handle this?

"The smaller feature set and the resulting simplicity of the Canon camera can be an advantage in certain cases."

IOW, this guy isn't a canon fanboy, he's just an incompetent or lazy photographer. (Or more than likely, he's not even a photographer, he's a tester.) He's not willing to learn, and therefore take advantage of, the feature set that sets the Nikon apart. He'd rather have a less competent camera because it's easier for him to figure out. That's how we define "the standard of the class"?

This whole thing is a joke, I'm sorry. I'm not knocking the 5D--it's taken nikon 3 years to just barely beat it's image quality. But any seriously objective person could hardly call the 5D "standard of the class" at this point. This review is just a sorry, sorry example of why people shouldn't believe everything they read.
 
reviewer forgot to mention about the long exposure difference.

Buried menus on the Canon is better? One programmable button is better? Deleting is easier? Less options is better? Among others, the only thing I like on Canon is color rendition which to my eyes is very very slight bluish. Nikon's warm tone gets tiring.

Sounds like the OP drives a sports car with automatic tranny...a pretender.
 
They are right that ergos are subjective, but I much prefer the D700.

I also believe the 5D has more detail and sharpness because of a weaker AA filter.

Three years after the release, the IQ of the 5D is still stunning against the best Nikon can muster.

Of course, the 5D's feature set is troglodytic compared to the D700's.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

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

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Jim,

You hit the highpoints of that incompetent review. I would add these:

1. The default JPEG sharpening the reviewer prefers is vividly (and painfully) displayed in the flower close-ups. Ack! I can't believe any pro-level photomgrapher would choose the Canon image.

2. Has anyone else seen moire like that in a D700 image? I haven't. Any idea what's going on here?

3. The tester's conclusion that the 5D has better image quality is meaningless.

4. Finally, anyone who puts the 5D's ergonomics over any pro- or prosumer-Nikon isn't playing with a full deck. There may be other reasons to choose one over the other, but ergonomics aren't even close.

Michael
Jim Keye said:
Please. Did you even read the review? This guy isn't just a fanboy,
he's an idiot.

Let's just start with image quality:

"The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although
the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the
stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW
files, the details are basically the same."

And then he goes on to state that the D700 is ahead in the noise
category. And now let's read the brilliant conclusion:

"The Canon EOS 5D is still the standard of its class. Despite the
unfair comparison, there are some important areas where even the
Nikon D700 has a hard time: image quality. The EOS 5D gets behind
only in chromatic noise."

Say what? You mean the camera's JPG rendering engine doesn't have
enough sharpening by default, and you're too incompetent to turn it
up? RAW wise, their equal, according to him. So basically the Canon
is "the standard of the class" for people who can't use a menu to
adjust sharpening (and incidentally like more noise in their images).
Really, this is just retarded.

But it gets better: While the detail level in a JPG may or may not
be true, there's the simple fact that the 5D is a POS body, whereas
the D700 is essentially pro-grade body. Say what you'd like about 1%
or 5% detail, if you can't take picture (or it's not in focus,
metered wrong, etc.), it doesn't matter what the level of detail is.

And how does the reviewer handle this?

"The smaller feature set and the resulting simplicity of the Canon
camera can be an advantage in certain cases."

IOW, this guy isn't a canon fanboy, he's just an incompetent or lazy
photographer. (Or more than likely, he's not even a photographer,
he's a tester.) He's not willing to learn, and therefore take
advantage of, the feature set that sets the Nikon apart. He'd rather
have a less competent camera because it's easier for him to figure
out. That's how we define "the standard of the class"?

This whole thing is a joke, I'm sorry. I'm not knocking the 5D--it's
taken nikon 3 years to just barely beat it's image quality. But any
seriously objective person could hardly call the 5D "standard of the
class" at this point. This review is just a sorry, sorry example of
why people shouldn't believe everything they read.
Click to expand...
--
Michael

http://www.michael-newberry.com
 
Calling him a fanboy only makes you sound like one yourself though. Sure the 5D may have a sharper image out of camera, but that is due to the AA filter, in camera processing, etc. At least he stated with RAW, the images are equal. If he was a true Canon fanboy, he would have glowed that the antiquated 5D trounces the new D700 in every aspect. I have shot Nikon for 15 years, then jumped to Canon when the 1DMarkII was announced. I unloaded my F5, D100, and D1x; the D2h just didn't cut the mustard and the D2x was just blah compared to the 1DMarkII in my eyes (interms of image quality and High ISO performance). It took me a long time to get used to the setup of the Canon, and to this day, there are things I miss from the Nikons I owned. Then there are things that I like about the Canon over the Nikon as well though. To each his own I suppose, everyone has their preferences. I would run both systems if I could, and I can't justify jumping back to Nikon at this point. But I'm getting off subject here. :oP

--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
The reviewer was obviously more comfortable with Canon bodies. As I read the review I felt he was a little intimidated by the Nikon.

No doubt both are excellent cameras and Kudos go to Canon for making a camera that has held up so well for 3 years.

With that said I am glad I shoot Nikon. The ergonomics, flash system and reduced feature set (A Canon trademark) make the D700 a real winner.

In fact as much as I loved my D300 I don;t see myself using it except for tele work and as a second body. I might sell it if I don't start using it more. Thats how much I like the D700.
--
Regards,

Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
 
Lajos Hajdu said:
My Hungarian compatriots have published a detailed comparison of the
two cameras. Here's the link to the English version:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/nikon_d700_vs_canon_eos_5d/

--
http://www.pbase.com/laja30/inbox
Click to expand...
Hi folks,

Having some Hungarian blood in my veins I took the time and read the article back and forth a few times. Just to see what the folks on the banks of the Danube think about D700 versus 5D.

I've found the article interesting in general. I thought that the writer had some preference towards Canon but did not find his writing overly biased. However, I would not say that I agree with him on all accounts, not at all. As a matter of fact I did find a number of points which I see differently. That said I took the article as something interesting to read. Another person's detailed view, I thought.

Now, what I do find interesting is that the OP posted the same thing on the Canon forum as well. I suppose he did it to have feedback from each camp. That is quite a fair approach.

Reading the responses from both forums I have found that the article was equally bashed and booed by many from both camps. So, which camp is right if neither has found the article fair to their choice of brand? Is it the Canon camp or the Nikon camp? I believe that this boils down to the bias within us. Some of us just cannot read an article without getting into protecting the brass.

Anyhow, my choice has been the F mount for decades. I am happy that we got a few good DSLRs from Nikon in the close past. I find my D300 and D3 a very good pair. That said, as of image quality goes the 5D still has some magic to it on its own. I took one out for a few assignments and I was very satisfied with the images. I did not get used to the Canon body shape though.

I believe that one day, soon I suppose, we'll see a fine and improved 5D replacement that will be quite a camera. That camera will likely get an improved body with good weather seal, some 16-18 mp paired with fast processing and shooting speed. Then we'll be in the position where the 5D is today. But that is good. We have excellent tools now and a healthy competition between the two big guys.

Well, that is it. Let's be decent to all who take the effort to write a long article. Read it, then agree or disagree in a decent manner.

Cheers to all on both forums, AIK
 
Jim Keye said:
Please. Did you even read the review? This guy isn't just a fanboy,
he's an idiot.

Let's just start with image quality:

"The two cameras provide about the same amount of details, although
the EOS 5D images seem to be more detailed. This comes from the
stronger in-camera sharpening. When the images are converted from RAW
files, the details are basically the same."

And then he goes on to state that the D700 is ahead in the noise
category. And now let's read the brilliant conclusion:

"The Canon EOS 5D is still the standard of its class. Despite the
unfair comparison, there are some important areas where even the
Nikon D700 has a hard time: image quality. The EOS 5D gets behind
only in chromatic noise."

Say what? You mean the camera's JPG rendering engine doesn't have
enough sharpening by default, and you're too incompetent to turn it
up? RAW wise, their equal, according to him. So basically the Canon
is "the standard of the class" for people who can't use a menu to
adjust sharpening (and incidentally like more noise in their images).
Really, this is just retarded.

But it gets better: While the detail level in a JPG may or may not
be true, there's the simple fact that the 5D is a POS body, whereas
the D700 is essentially pro-grade body. Say what you'd like about 1%
or 5% detail, if you can't take picture (or it's not in focus,
metered wrong, etc.), it doesn't matter what the level of detail is.

And how does the reviewer handle this?

"The smaller feature set and the resulting simplicity of the Canon
camera can be an advantage in certain cases."

IOW, this guy isn't a canon fanboy, he's just an incompetent or lazy
photographer. (Or more than likely, he's not even a photographer,
he's a tester.) He's not willing to learn, and therefore take
advantage of, the feature set that sets the Nikon apart. He'd rather
have a less competent camera because it's easier for him to figure
out. That's how we define "the standard of the class"?

This whole thing is a joke, I'm sorry. I'm not knocking the 5D--it's
taken nikon 3 years to just barely beat it's image quality. But any
seriously objective person could hardly call the 5D "standard of the
class" at this point. This review is just a sorry, sorry example of
why people shouldn't believe everything they read.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, and you saved me a lot of typing!
 
Here's a thorough and generally fair, objective review. The conclusion even prefers your brand / model. But you have the face to call the reviewer an idiot. You are totally offended by the reviewer's "audacity" to state that the 5D is still a great camera that - gasp - may even have a few advantages for certain users. Your post is an example of pathetic fanboyism - slamming the "enemy brand" no matter what.

--
http://www.pbase.com/laja30/inbox
 
Jim Keye said:
Say what you'd like about 1%
or 5% detail, if you can't take picture (or it's not in focus,
metered wrong, etc.), it doesn't matter what the level of detail is.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the 5D cannot focus and/or meter correctly ? You are a bit naive with this statement and Nikon has a lot of catching up to do in order to get reach the same sales the 5D did and still does, selling like cake, but then again how can cake sell when the icing is terrible ? (in your words; it cannot meter or focus)

Just as much people will state here "fanboy" you are all fanboys, as long as a review will support your well-spend money you are ok with it (cognitive dissonance we call that, a term that can be used a lot in these forums)

For the record - in Europe, the D700 costs around 2200 euros and the 5D 1500.

A difference of 700 euros for which I surely expect a major difference. There is a lot of nittygritty chitchat in these forums but never do I hear anyone talk about the price differences, like it comes for free.

Now in the end, all that matters is your end product: the photo and its image quality.

After 3 years, Nikon finally catched up for a price, with a good feature set and its faster, ofcourse it is faster - or do you want to be set back in time ?

What I wonder is; how many of those features do you really need, and know how to apply them in daily shooting ?

Did the D700 bring you the world-changing shots that cannot be shot with any other camera ?

Wake up: Don't be so fanatic, a camera is just a tool - and yes it better be a good tool, makes it easier.

However, a good photo is not based upon technique, but on light, compositions, emotions, content, statements.

Really, no-one ever questioned what camera/lens was used to shoot the "Tiananmen Square" or the "Execution of a Viet Cong Guerrilla" shots, it is so not relevant.

I am sure you have all your answers ready...don't waste your time, you just need an eye opener.

--
http://www.richardbakker.com
 
Overall speed and built quality aren't "a bit" different, it's just another world...

Difference in sharpness and default sharpening is very well explained, indeed, while comparing RAW files, there is no difference...
Ergonomics is subjective indeed...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/
 
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