D700 vs 5DII vs A900

Started Nov 4, 2008 | Discussions
Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,432
Re: Sony out-resolves all SLRs at < 800ISO, loses when higher ISO

iTanas wrote:

From almost all the samples I've seen Sony's 24.6mp outresolves 1Ds3
(and beta 5D2 with same sensor) by a very tiny amount, that however
changes when ISO over 800 comes into play... Kind of embarrassing
for Canon and its $8,000 cam along with new 5D2, though atleast it
hasn't put something like 16mp in 5D2, which would have increased the
gap between sony. These are my observations.

It's no more embarrasing than the 20D had the same resolution as the 1D mk2 years back at a fraction of the price. The 1Ds mk3 is probably still over priced at the current price which has dropped significantly since introduction, however the camera is not only about resolution but about the robustness of a professional camera. But lets see, the price of the high-end professional cameras will come down. The 1Ds mk3 is still a formidable camera.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Photo Gallery -- http://www.hanskruse.com
Workshops -- http://hanskrusephotography.blogspot.com

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900 -- Don't underestimate the power of downsizing/cropping

Hans Kruse wrote:

headofdestiny wrote:

I agree. Most RAW converters don't cause drastic, but rather subtle
differences with RAW for Canon. With Sony, it's relatively drastic,
as I'm sure Adobe isn't spending quite the resources to optimize
Lightroom for Sony. In fact, in order to even shoot my A700 with
lightroom, I have to drastically change the import exposure and black
point settings from the beginning. That being said, all of this is
an advantage of Canon and it's broader user base.

That sounds rather odd. Exposure should not be a thing that you need
to adjust systematically unless your exposure on the camera is
incorrect. Adjusting black point is not unusual. I have chosen to set
import black point to zero but often the default of 5 is ok and
sometimes considerably higher is what is pleasing. It depends e.g. on
how much you expose to the right and how the light is distributed in
the scene you capture. I often adjust both exposure and black point
in images from the 1Ds mk3.

I know. It's pretty wild. Ask most seasoned A700 users, and you'll find the same thing. I have to set a black point of around 0-2, and an exposure compensation of around -.67 EV for the A700 images to be imported into Lightroom and match the exposure of the camera. This is well known in the Sony forum, and it only happens with ACR/Lightroom. It seems as though Sony users only get generic profiles from Adobe, and it's not good at all. The Adobe forums are full of Sony users pleas to fix this, but I haven't seen a big change yet. All of this being said, I haven't received the A900 yet, so I'm not sure how the problems translate to that camera. You should check out this thread that shows how different RAW processors handle the A900. We have more than a few D700 owners on the Sony forum that have been using the A900, and while they'd agree the D700 is tops for lowlight, the overall opinion is that the A900 is quite usable when sized down to D700 size. Interestingly, one of the most vocal new A900/D700 users, Jono Slack, has been using Aperture:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29917203

moire Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Re: ummm

And when printing you do resizing but yes printing would be the best way! no question there.

healer wrote:

no need to down or upsize anything

the fair test would be to print the same photo from each camera, say
something like 16x20 and compare the detail between them, noise etc

most of the test that are done is at 100% so its like printing a 8x10
on one camera and comparing it to a 16x20 on another

-- hide signature --

A700 owner - Using the Cream machine - Minolta STF !

Teosax Senior Member • Posts: 1,466
Re: Video?

i am answering few of your post here...
i dont understand...
were you born in the middle age?

what is the problem of having an advanced technological device? like a phone with a lot of useful functions like the iphone? you can do many things... having gps in your pocket, listening to music...and so on...you do not need those functions? well do not buy it but do not bash on people who like to have it!

otherwise you should not use your computer and still write letters instead, or still using film cameras instead of digital!
why complaining on gadgets that opens up more possibilities for the users?

it does not make sense! Maybe some functions are not useful for you, but guess what?
you are not alone in the planet!

i do agree with you that some people should be ashamed of how they use a phone !
sometimes is so embarassing!

i sincerely will buy the 5d2 because they introduced the video function.

it was a while i really wanted a ff (the 5d), but money was an issue plus i preferred to buy better lenses instead of better cameras.

but i was not using my videocamera because generally was impossible to bring both camera and video, so camera always won.

now i will be able to shoot some video when i want to. So i sold my 40d, i am selling my videocamera and preordered the 5d2.

for you everything is overkilled (MP, nice cell phones, videos capability probably many other things), but fortunately there are people forward thinking, otherwise we would still shooting with a 4Mp camera or even worst with film...
That said would i have preferred a better af instead of video? of course!
but you know why canon did not put a different af?

cause both the af system of 1d or 50d are too big and the body of 5d2 would have been bigger (and personally i do not wanna have bulky bodies) and they did not want to do that

you know why nikon settled at 12mp? because they did not have the technology to go more! since nikon is not producing like canon its own sensors, they are just buying them from sony! you will see now that sony has high mp sensors, nikon will introduce a high MP model too!
so what other options did they have before? just get better at what they had.

canon instead to focus their effort on less aspects has to improve and put money on research on so many aspects (sensors, iq, af, lenses, not counting other different products they make, so i guess they need to introduce feature that would catch as many customers as they can!

i think d700 is a killing camera, and in some way i envy that camera, but i would never switch for 2 reasons, i have too much money on canon lenses and plus i do not like the color of nikon, to me nikon color looks more fake and not real, compared to canon. but i have a great respect for nikon

aBout sony i hate it too, i will never buy anything else sony makes, but a900 for studio working is just an unbelievable camera!!!!! look at the comparison with medium format, i think sony blow em away!
hopefully 5d2 will be the same!

David Pastern wrote:

I personally think Video on a DSLR is well...not needed. It's again,
overkill. It's the typical marketing team throwing in ideas to the
poor R&D team to make them look innovative.

I still use a 8 year old Nokia phone. No mp3s. No fancy ringtones.
No Internet capability. No photos. A phone is just that, a phone.
Mobile phones were meant for usage when the lack of a public
telephone meant you were non contactable, especially a problem when
emergencies arise. These days, you hear people talking about
anything and everything, like one young lady recently on one of my
trains - talking about her sexual prowess and how many guys she's
had, and not using protection and falling pregnant and getting
abortions. On a busy public train! I mean, if there's any reasons
why mobiles should be 'people' tested prior to them being allowed to
own one, then that's it!

But, in answer to your question, no, I haven't used a Sony A900.
Nor, do I intend to. imho, my Mark IIn, a 3, nearly 4 year old
camera now, beats it in nearly every single area. High ISO noise
(1600 and above) leads a lot to be desired. It might be OK for
landscape shots, but it's hardly going to lead to versatility. I
tend to shoot mostly macro, but I do shoot other genres as well, and
it just doesn't cut the mustard.

Sony has long proven to be a despicable company, with despicable
practices. I make a habit of not financially supporting such
companies, and discouraging others from using products from said
company.

Dave

Teosax Senior Member • Posts: 1,466
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900 -- Don't underestimate the power of downsizing/cropping
-- hide signature --

--

i hope adobe still continues not fixing the sony problem! so sony might lose some customers!
sony has been horrible about compatibility of his videocam with mac!
they have to die of the same death!

David Pastern Contributing Member • Posts: 726
Re: Video?

Each to their own.

And, there's nothing wrong with film. It's still a very viable medium.

Dave

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,310
Re: my thoughts

harold1968 wrote:

but all the FF lenses work on 1.3x cameras ?
Nikon gives you the option to use a DX lens on a FF camera with the
centre crop and 5mp. What a waste of time, you can't seriously tell
me anyone who has just splashed out on the D700 will use DX lenses.

more pixels and similar noise levels is advantageous.

I do agree that 12mp is probably ok and the nikon low light is
fantastic.

However if the Nikon and Canon get to the same price, its a no
brainer for Canon IMHO.

I do think the D700 will come down to compete with the 5DII however.
The A900 will be the hardest hit with average noise, no live view and
no video (I don't care about video but it will get on everyones tick
list soon). Which is why the A900 might be a bargain in the new year.

I wait until the beginning of next year to buy my A900

David bo

David Pastern wrote:

Why is 12mp not enough? People have happily lived with either that
many mp, or less, for a good number of digital years now, without
issue. There's an old UNIX saying:

less is more

and that, imho, about sums it up. Canon and others get into big
"I've got more MPs than you" fights, at the ultimate expense of image
quality. So far, imho, Nikon has to be applauded for its courage to
create a "low" mp camera, focusing on quality pixels.

Science does NOT change just because Canon says so. Noise will
always be higher for smaller pixels, it's a fact of nature.
Smaller pixels also create problems with the COC (circle of
confusion), and also cause diffraction issues at higher f stops.

You don't need more than 12mp. It's overkill. And for those that
want to bash this post, I was saying this 2 or 3 years ago, when
Canon introduced the 1Ds Mark II. I just didn't "jump on the
bandwagon" post D3 release.

One thing ires me about Canon - they make ef-s lenses for the aps-c
cameras, normal ef lenses work on full frame, but the 1.3x crop 1D
Mark * series cameras have no bonuses. Canon doesn't make wider
lenses that are non ef-s for these cameras. And normal ef lenses
lose out vs full frame. I find it annoying that the consumers get a
better choice than the pros in terms of lens capability, it's
idiotic. Basically, Canon has said a bit STFU to those 1.3x crop
users who might want to do landscapes and cityscapes.

Dave

-- hide signature --

Wild Tiger Regular Member • Posts: 437
Cognitive Dissonance

fudgebrown wrote:

What are you doing that warrants more than 12MP? Really ask yourself
that question. 21MP files will only take up more space and hard
drives. 12MP was plenty - and now suddenly it's too small? If you are
doing insane cropping then perhaps that warrants 21MP...

I am amazed. Why do people think that 21 MP is no good and 12 MP is the solution for everybody's needs?

Please print a shot at 24"x36" and you will know the difference between a 12 MP and a 21MP file.

I have even sold 20"x30" prints from a 10D. However, from the facial reactions, I know that the people like high resolution shots. Ask them and they wont tell you why. As photographers you should know the reason.

I do agree that 21MP is not for everybody. Lot of people will be happy with their 12MP as their needs are met. However in Marketing they call it Cognitive Dissonance. They need to be reassured that what ever they have purchased is a good one. So they look for advertisements or favourable comments from other people. And extreme form of this is seen in people, who refuse to acknowledge a better product.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi

 Wild Tiger's gear list:Wild Tiger's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +3 more
font9a Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900 -- Don't underestimate the power of downsizing/cropping

I believe the Nikon & Canon are better choices than Sony because of their longstanding commitment to building systems.

Sony hasn't proven a system-based approach, yet.

I think the competition between Nikon and Canon will continue to produce leaps whereby one manufacturer outdelivers the other for a while, then the other catches up and surpasses, then dominates, then stagnates, then regains ground, etc. and ad nauseum.

I bought my first Nikon (N2020) in 1986 and have only dabbled with Canon point & shoots (I own a very reliable and handy and extremely cute and affordable Canon Digital Elph SD200. This has recently been supplanted by my Leica C-LUX 2, which is absolutely sublime and I get tingly every time I use her.)

My Nikons and accessories take up WAY TOO MUCH room in my home studio... I tend to keep everything I've ever acquired.

If I had first purchased a Canon in 1986 the same sentence would be true for Canon gear.

Sony: not so much. I personally think they make crappy consumer electronics like computers, consumer handycams, audio equipment, etc. Maybe they'll excel at Pro camera systems (like the A900), but they are so far untested at systems longevity and durability. Except in the case of Pro digital video, we just have no data to judge them by.

In the final analysis Nikon is due for a major refresh of its entire line of FX compatible lenses and this is a good thing to look forward to since it needs to support the D3, D3X, D3H, D3Hs and D700 and DnXX models. I think we'll see some exquisite new Pro FX Nikon glass in the next 12-24 months. Nikon's existing Pro FX glass is pretty darned good, and we're only going to get better products in the months ahead.

Oh yeah, and the Nikon CLS is the best in the business.

-- hide signature --

font9a

Rick La Rocca Forum Member • Posts: 98
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

I think it is impossible to truly answer you until the 5DII is out and in people's hands.

But I will say this. From personal experience it is a blessing to have a full frame and crop body from the same brand. My biggest mistake in all my gear shopping was selling my 20D to but the 5D.

For a long time I used a combo of a D200 and 5D, and that was a headache, always bringing two sets of lenses etc.

Now I've sold my 5D and all my canon lenses, ( maybe my second biggest mistake ), and I'm going all in with Nikon, and getting a D700.

Why? Because I really don't need more than 12mp, I really need excellent ISO, and I never quite bonded with the Canon interface.

But if I were in your shoes, I'd think twice before running two systems. A 5DMII and your APS-C canon would be a nice team.

My 2 cents.
--
http://www.ricklarocca.com

Vladyslav Kosulin Senior Member • Posts: 2,099
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

I know 1 thing: SONY design is terrible. A900 feels like a brick. Rear row of buttons on top is very hard to use, they are so far from the shutter button I just can't reach them without repositioning my arm. And my fingers are not short (the index one is 3.75").
The rear wheel is also located very inconveniently.

May be, to properly handle it, you should put your arm more vertical? Then it does not work for me.

This is all subjective, of course, and may be, this design is really great for others...
--
Vlad

 Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list:Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +1 more
headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

Vladyslav Kosulin wrote:

I know 1 thing: SONY design is terrible. A900 feels like a brick.
Rear row of buttons on top is very hard to use, they are so far from
the shutter button I just can't reach them without repositioning my
arm. And my fingers are not short (the index one is 3.75").
The rear wheel is also located very inconveniently.
May be, to properly handle it, you should put your arm more vertical?
Then it does not work for me.
This is all subjective, of course, and may be, this design is really
great for others...
--
Vlad

-- hide signature --

Yes, you are by far in the minority, as most think Sony A700/900 has the best ergonomics around. One problem is that you don't seem to be using your thumbs. The top buttons on the A900 were meant to be used with your thumbs, not fingers, and they're big and spaced well in order to facilitate use with gloves on. This was all mentioned when the A700 was released last year.

font9a Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

What do you think of Sony as a future DSLR platform for the future?

Will they bring Creative Lighting innovations to the table?

Will they incorporate Minolta braintrust into the DSLR business unit?

My bet is they will wither on the vine with a few technically fine products (A900) but will fail to produce systems that pros can rely on for years and years ad years.

This is only a guess, but if the Sony Walkman was still around and hadn't had it's ass handed to it by the deluge of awesome MP3 players (especially the Apple iPod) we might trust Sony as a consumer-oriented company.

They are totally Q1-Q4 focused on delivering new products at whatever the the compromise to quality/confidence/performance. I am willing to bet they sell the DSLR division within 5 years. Maybe to Hewlett-Packard.

-- hide signature --

f9a

Happy_Tom Regular Member • Posts: 199
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

font9a wrote:

What do you think of Sony as a future DSLR platform for the future?

Will they bring Creative Lighting innovations to the table?

Will they incorporate Minolta braintrust into the DSLR business unit?

My bet is they will wither on the vine with a few technically fine
products (A900) but will fail to produce systems that pros can rely
on for years and years ad years.

This is only a guess, but if the Sony Walkman was still around and
hadn't had it's ass handed to it by the deluge of awesome MP3 players
(especially the Apple iPod) we might trust Sony as a
consumer-oriented company.

They are totally Q1-Q4 focused on delivering new products at whatever
the the compromise to quality/confidence/performance. I am willing to
bet they sell the DSLR division within 5 years. Maybe to
Hewlett-Packard.

I have to disagree with your rationale. I'm not going debate the 5 year business plan of sony. The point is they will most likely be around seeing as how their DSLR line is certainly gaining momentum and a fan base, the a900 cannot be ignored untill the next wave comes. They have zeiss auto focus lenses and a large line of minolta lenses to choose from so no problems in the near future.

But lets for arguments sake say in 5 years they ditch their DSLR program. How does this effect which camera to buy now? So sell your lenses and get a new system. It's not the end of the world. I think some people have some kind of an emotional attachment to their camera gear? I know it looks so nice an shiney and technical but you can replace it with new goodies from a different brand (your girlfriend will never know the difference)

I'm also at the hard decision point of choosing between the 5Dmk2 or A900. I currently have a 5D and 8 canon lenses. For the lenses, I'll sell them all no problem (at the exact same price I bought them for used, if not making about a 10 gain or possibly loss on them.)

I'm just saying what is the point of speculating that far to the future when now is the time. Who knows maybe by that time Sigma will catch up resolution wise and be blasting everyone away with their great colours.

T

Asherd New Member • Posts: 3
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

harold1968,

I am in a similar situation as you: I'd plan to purchase either the D700 or the 5D II, I have limited resources, and haven't made a decision. My current camera is ... nothing. My house was burglarized and they got the camera. I am borrowing an XTi and am wary of purchasing a new camera until the 5D Mark II is rigorously tested. I am both a photography student, so I am forced to photograph an eclectic mix of imagery (I.e., everything.), and a lover of photography. Here is how I am weighing the situation:

(1) I like both the D3 and the D700, but Nikon glass is more expensive, though supposedly sharper, than Canon lenses.

(2) Canon has faster prime lenses in their L-series: many are f/1.2; this is about 1 1/3 stops faster than the equivalent Nikon Primes (f/2.8), save the 50mm f/1.2. If the 5D Mark II offers excellent image quality at ISO 3200, and usable images at 6400, you can gain the potential for, at least, an extra 1 stop with the faster Canon lenses--that's like ISO 12800. Again, this is little more than speculation.

(3) My XTi is usable, but I find the autofocus rather inept in low light--this makes me worry about the 5Ds autofocus--and it has little extra functionality.

(4) I have used a D90, and prefer its ergonomics and variety of options to the XTi; these options come at a cost: the D90s menus are somewhat 'stuffed' with options and this made navigation rather slow. I did not use the D90 enough to truly measure its learning curve.

(5) I like the D3s professional body. If I bought a D700, I could eventually buy a D3 at a much lower price than one of Canon's professional bodies.
As for accessories,

(6) the 5D Mark IIs vertical grip is currently $279.95 and increases the battery life; the D700s vertical grip is $229.95 and provides increased battery life, D300 compatibility--second body--, and, potentially, higher FPS.

(7) The 5D makes an excellent backup body but none of the 5D Mark IIs accessories are compatible with it.

(8) The D700--and D3--have both been on the market long enough to be heavily scrutinized; the 5D Mark II is, for all practical purposes, untried: many of Nikon's cards are on the table, while Canon's cards are, well, uncertain.

(9) The 5Ds 21MP offers wonderful options for cropping--I don't care too much about the improved image quality over the D700 or 5D.

(10) Video is a nonissue for me: I simply don't care. At most, it is a wild card: it does not add utility, but I might enjoy it.
(Conclusion)

On paper, the D700 qualities seem to offer greater utility, for me, than those offered by Canon, but, I believe, that such a judgement is somewhat myopic: both Canon's and Nikon's future is relatively uncertain--save the development of better and more competitive DSLRs. At this moment, I like what Nikon has to offer, but, I believe, that, in the long run, everything will even out; in this light, I will likely choose the 5D or the 5D Mark II because it is more affordable and, I am certain, Canon will continue to stay competitive with Nikon. I will most likely invest some of the 'saved' money in lighting equipment. When money is less scarce, I will certainly invest in both Nikon and Canon photography equipment. I will not buy anything until the 5D Mark II has been thoroughly test.
(Aftword)

I just thought that this would be an excellent forum to examine my one of my current existential crises, Canon or Nikon, and, maybe, someone will find fault with my logic and help me reach a decision.
Happy Thanksgiving!

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,860
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

The faulty logic is, wait and miss photo opps. Get the camera you can and enjoy it now. Life is much more uncertain than a camera's performance.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Caribbeanshooter New Member • Posts: 16
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900
-- hide signature --

Just wanna add something to help you decide.

Leave the 24-105 out of your choices for low light shooting. F4 is not sharp on that lens so you would need to use f5.6 or even f8 to get good pictures. only 30mm-90mm works well too.

if you can do without built in flash go for the 5DII, but wait a at least a month.
fabrizio

A Owens Veteran Member • Posts: 3,397
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

Caribbeanshooter wrote:

Mate, F4 is amazingly sharp on that lens. So is 105mm. Perhaps you had a faulty copy?

Bjarke Strom Regular Member • Posts: 262
Re: D700 vs 5DII vs A900

I would take a 5D2 with a 135L or a 100 f/2, and then add a 35 f/2 or 1,4 later....

A monopod makes wonders in low light, if 1600 isn´t enough....

BS

harold1968 wrote:

Guys/Gals give me your comments on this often thought and much
debated topic.

I want to buy a FF camera, lets not debate that for the moment
I am not rich and will probably get one quality lens.
I currently have Canon APS-C stock. I have no beef with Canon but
upgrading to FF will require new lenses which means I might as well
consider all the options.

I will be taking hand-held indoor pictures in low-light, as well as
landscapes. Don't really care about sports/birding type pictures.

All these cameras seem to be excellent (reviews on 5DII still to
come, however as it is based on 1DsIII sensor I am not worried about
IQ).

I would like to have IS/VR as it will give me more flexibility with
exposure options in low light.

I would probably get these combinations:
1. Nikon D700 with 105mmVR
2. Canon 5DII with 24-105mm (I have 50mm Canon already)
3. Sony A900 with 28-70mm Tamron or Sony 135mm

D700 is king of low noise but not sure that this makes a mass of
difference with 5DII even if 1 stop difference.
I would prefer more mega-pixels but don't think that 12mp will
restrict me too much.

I really can't make a decision. my budget is £2,000.
I am tempted to go with Nikon as the quality (camera and IQ) is
proven. But feel the Canon will be a better overall package for me,
but at least £300 more (although bizarrely cheaper in the USA).
I like the fact that the sony has in-built IS, but I think it is
over-priced. I could wait until it comes down to £1,500, which i am
sure it will after new year.

What do you guys think ?

-- hide signature --

God´s People is not the Jew´s , the Christian´s or the Muslim´s, God´s People is the Quiet, Kind and Sweet of all kind, you know it´s true....

-Please pass it on whenever and wherever You can....

sandy b
sandy b Veteran Member • Posts: 9,334
Re: downsizing is totally wrong

everyone who has ever used a scanner knows that you always scan higher than you need then reduce , certainly not scan low then push high. Same principle. You cannot possible imagine that upresing a low mp shot is superior to the opposite.

 sandy b's gear list:sandy b's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads