Yes you are correct I meant to say more of DoF effect. Also the lens comment was more towards corners as you stated.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Moving to full frame soon, MP & Lens question
- Thread starter Tom Sawyer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes you are correct I meant to say more of DoF effect. Also the lens comment was more towards corners as you stated.
Honestly, you'll be wasting your money if you buy such an expensive body and use a kit lens on it. You'll be much better off investing in glass than an expensive body.
The D700 and the 5D Mark II are very different cameras geared towards different people. The D700 is optimized for low-noise high-ISO photography. It's fast (up to 8 fps with battery grip, that's almost as fast as a D3 or a 1D Mark II or Mark III). The D700 has the D3's AF module.
Contrasted to that, the 5D Mark II has higher resolution, but it's a slower camera. The AF module is old: it's the same that is found in the 5D and even then, it wasn't really fast. Even worse, it seems to be taken from a camera with crop sensor, because the AF points don't line up with the rule of 1/3rds:
It seems to me Canon has intentionally crippled the 5D to ensure it will still sell more 1D/1Ds bodies. Before anyone hits reply and starts typing: I'm not bashing the 5D (Mark I or Mark II), they're great cameras, but it's more geared towards people who don't need a blazingly fast camera (and to be honest, how many of us really need more than 5 frames per second?). Landscapes, people photography, etc.
Regarding lenses: there is a consistent rumor that Canon makes better lenses. None of the reviews seem to indicate such a thing. If you're talking about individual lenses, then, yes, there are lenses that are `better' that what the other company produces. But overall, it's quite even. And even if there are differences, they are typically tiny and practically irrelevant, unless you make a habit of photographing bathroom tiles or looking at the corners of your images at 100 % magnification.
Yup, I agree with OreoCookie except for the low noise high-ISO photography, cause both 5D MK II and D700 has the same max ISO and even though more megapixel = more noise at higher ISO, Canon managed to balance it out, so basically its high ISO performance is on par with D700.
I still cannot believe that Canon is aiming 5D MK II as a studio photographer camera and leaving sports photographer (or at least amateur sports photographer) to end up with 40/50D or 1D. And of course no one understood why Canon didn't update the 5D Mark II AF point and system, its as if they forgot to update it..., oh and If I'm not mistaken, Canon reason for keeping the AF points closer then the one found in 40D/50D cause of precision or something which make sense for studio photography but not for sports.
It's not saying the 5D Mark II is not a capable camera, just it will take more effort to get certain shots.
I still cannot believe that Canon is aiming 5D MK II as a studio photographer camera and leaving sports photographer (or at least amateur sports photographer) to end up with 40/50D or 1D. And of course no one understood why Canon didn't update the 5D Mark II AF point and system, its as if they forgot to update it..., oh and If I'm not mistaken, Canon reason for keeping the AF points closer then the one found in 40D/50D cause of precision or something which make sense for studio photography but not for sports.
It's not saying the 5D Mark II is not a capable camera, just it will take more effort to get certain shots.
I have a 5dMrkII and my friend a D3. We did a walk about the other day and tried to shoot the same thing. At the same camera setting, my picture was MUCH darker than his.
For anyone who knows camera and physics this does not make sense but we couldnt explain why.
Take a look at my blog post about it here
http://www.canon5dtips.com/2009/04/5dmrkii-vs-d3-exposure-differences/
If I cant explain this in a reasonable way, I might switch to Nikon unless I get some video gigs!
For anyone who knows camera and physics this does not make sense but we couldnt explain why.
Take a look at my blog post about it here
http://www.canon5dtips.com/2009/04/5dmrkii-vs-d3-exposure-differences/
If I cant explain this in a reasonable way, I might switch to Nikon unless I get some video gigs!
hmm, interesting, but I think it could metering or even filter? But its silly that you are going to change to Nikon because of this problem (and not to mention you got a lot of luxury equipments too), I don't think every 5D Mark II owner got this problem, could be something wrong with ur body though. I could be wrong though and did you took this shot the same time or later?
Click on the ISO sensitivity setting tab on this link: DXOMark link. The Nikon's actual sensitivity is a bit higher than the Canon's at each indicated setting, likely accounting for much or all of the difference.
I would retry the experiment and let each camera take a photo using each camera's recommended exposure as advised by its meter, then another photo from each camera in full manual using the other camera's recommended exposure settings. That should tell you a bit more about what is going on.
By the way, unless you're producing large prints (not indicated by the printers listed in your gear), you're not gaining much from having that 'real man resolution' camera outside of forum bragging rights.
The D700 is better at high ISO. Although I do think noise is overrated, up ISO 1600 or so, all full frame slrs are rather close. And if you have to shoot above ISO 1600 all the time, you have a special application in mind. Pixel size matters (as you can also see from the fact that the 40D has better high-noise behavior than the 50D).
Since Canon has had another group in mind when designing the 5D Mark II, I don't think it is an issue at all.
I have no explanation other than marchitecture. They're doing similar things with some lenses, e. g. the 17-55 which is optically excellent, but they don't want to put an L badge on it (with a mechanical construction that goes with it), because `all good lenses and cameras must be full frame.' Otherwise, some people may get the idea that they could take a nice crop body of the x0D series and take pictures that are just as good
Especially since the cheaper camera has a more modern AF system and is faster. Canon can do better, but for reasons it keeps to itself did not want to.
Well, technically you are correct from dpreview, but I checked from other site comparing full size photo to photo and there is a cropped version of the two photos and it shows that eventhough D700 produces cleaner output, the details are lost while 5D produce noticeably more noise, there is still some detail in the photos. But frankly speaking, I prefer Nikon strategy though, but like you said, all FF are rather close.
But I wonder though, if lower megapixel yield better high-noise behavior, then why Canon is pushing 15mp on APS-C? I prefer usable images then non-usable but detailed.
Canon has always sold it's crop sensor cameras (Rebels to 50D) on megapixels. Canon's bread and butter moneymaking base is still the novice "more MP=better picture" crowd.
Canon's been known for years as the resolution kings. And I think they're afraid their sales of the Rebel SLR's will drop off if they don't stay at the forefront of the resolution game. It's also why I think they rushed the 15MP 50D in so fast after the 40D came out at a lower resolution than the competition.
SLC
Marketing. The average customer figures that more pixels means a better product/greater value.
As I stated in previous posts, I'm getting ready to acquire a FF outfit. I have no particular bias or any nikon or canon gear right now. I do an assortment of types of photography - mostly available light, but I don't get many chances to travel.
There are many things I like about both brands. Canon seems to have a greater variety of top quality lenses, and this is a real plus.
Considering the rapid advancement/obsolesence of D-SLR bodies, I'm wondering if I might be better off buying a used (but in excellent cond) 1Ds MkII or D3 body for roughly the same $ that I'd spend on a new 5DII or D700.
I like the feel of the pro-bodies, they have plenty of pixels, weight shouldn't be a problem most of the time, both have good AF and speed.
At first, I thought it might be a good strategy in that used pro bodies are already depreciated. But probably in a couple of years from now, any of these bodies might depreciate about the same amount.
any thoughts ?
There are many things I like about both brands. Canon seems to have a greater variety of top quality lenses, and this is a real plus.
Considering the rapid advancement/obsolesence of D-SLR bodies, I'm wondering if I might be better off buying a used (but in excellent cond) 1Ds MkII or D3 body for roughly the same $ that I'd spend on a new 5DII or D700.
I like the feel of the pro-bodies, they have plenty of pixels, weight shouldn't be a problem most of the time, both have good AF and speed.
At first, I thought it might be a good strategy in that used pro bodies are already depreciated. But probably in a couple of years from now, any of these bodies might depreciate about the same amount.
any thoughts ?
Used is a terrific option, especially for lenses. I just bought a minty previous generation 300 f2.8 for $2000 less than what the current version would have cost. You have to have some patience and a bit of discipline buying used though.
You won't get a used D3 for less than a new D700. Used D3's are going to start around $3000, and a new D700 can be had for $2400. You might be able to find a used D700 though.
Hi Cliff,
you're right about the used D3. The used 1DsMkII, however are pretty close to $2400. I'm still very much on the fence regarding lenses, which will tip me towards one brand or the other in FF bodies.
I'm not sure if used pro bodies would be a better "value" at this time, than D700 or 5DII. Probably doesn't matter that much in the long run since they all depreciate quickly. If I end up going with Canon, then a used 5D might be the best from a "value" point of view.
Trying to think of total cost of ownership over time. Maybe no obvious way to do this based on all the choices, and rapidly technology evolution.
you're right about the used D3. The used 1DsMkII, however are pretty close to $2400. I'm still very much on the fence regarding lenses, which will tip me towards one brand or the other in FF bodies.
I'm not sure if used pro bodies would be a better "value" at this time, than D700 or 5DII. Probably doesn't matter that much in the long run since they all depreciate quickly. If I end up going with Canon, then a used 5D might be the best from a "value" point of view.
Trying to think of total cost of ownership over time. Maybe no obvious way to do this based on all the choices, and rapidly technology evolution.
If you want to save substantial sums of money, then buying used copies of previous generation items is going to be the way to go. For example, I sold my exceptionally clean D2X for $1275. I paid considerably more than that when I bought it new early in 2005. Current generation used gear isn't likely to be discounted as much unless it has been heavily used or abused.
FWIW, the D700 and 5DMkII are considered professional bodies. Not all professionals need or want a portrait grip and/or high frame rate.
The original 5D is (and will remain) an incredible camera. It will always take beautiful images that set it apart from most other bodies.
It won't ever do video or have the ability to shoot at ISO 12800.
For most photographers, its strengths are exceptional and its drawbacks few.
It won't ever do video or have the ability to shoot at ISO 12800.
For most photographers, its strengths are exceptional and its drawbacks few.
Just a small correction about the problem I outlined this morning... The exposure difference was caused by my own stupidity: there was a polarizing filter on my 24-70... So it must have stopped between 1-2 stops of light...
Shame on me.
Shame on me.
Your link there is to a dpreview review of JPEG processing. If you want actual sensor ratings, you have to go to DxO labs, where they use RAW data exclusively.
And HERE is their chart showing the signal-to-noise ratio of each camera.
Yes, the sensor in the D700 is better. But a review of JPEG processing is not where you'll get the evidence that proves it!
Thanks to everyone for their input, experiences and observations. This thread has been very helpful to me and your willingness to share thoughts and advice on this is greatly appreciated.
That said, I've made the plunge and ordered my Nikon D700 with the obligatory 50mm f/1.8 to start with. That will shortly be followed up with an 85mm (probably f/1.8) and I'll go from there.
Again, thanks to all, this has turned into a very interesting thread indeed!
That said, I've made the plunge and ordered my Nikon D700 with the obligatory 50mm f/1.8 to start with. That will shortly be followed up with an 85mm (probably f/1.8) and I'll go from there.
Again, thanks to all, this has turned into a very interesting thread indeed!
Quick followup for anyone interested, I've had my D700 for a couple days now and I'm absolutely amazed. Besides the slight learning curve as far as settings, buttons, different ways of achieving functions from the Canon pro level dials/menus, the D700 is a dream to use. It is definitely a different approach to function access, being used to the canon wheel for selecting different modes and the 'back wheel' for menu items etc, it takes some getting used to. However, I'm REALLY loving the quick and intuitive access to major features such as ISO, WB and QUALITY functions. I pretty much run in Aperture priority 99% of the time anyway, but changing modes is pretty easy with the mode button/rear wheel combo. Setting a custom white balance reference photo is a bit more involved than the Canon way, but not too big of a deal.
Now performance wise which is where it really matters it's simply amazing. I'm shooting at ISO 1000+ and getting gorgeous low noise shots. I've posted a couple here just as examples, quick shots at ISO 1000, f/2.8 with the 50mm, no big deal but gives a good sample of what higher ISO looks like out of the D700. These are straight out of the camera, no post processing. I shot them straight to JPG highest quality, shots look quite a bit better shooting RAW of course.
Warning: Full size large image files, 4mb each
Shot 1
Shot 2
Now performance wise which is where it really matters it's simply amazing. I'm shooting at ISO 1000+ and getting gorgeous low noise shots. I've posted a couple here just as examples, quick shots at ISO 1000, f/2.8 with the 50mm, no big deal but gives a good sample of what higher ISO looks like out of the D700. These are straight out of the camera, no post processing. I shot them straight to JPG highest quality, shots look quite a bit better shooting RAW of course.
Warning: Full size large image files, 4mb each
Shot 1
Shot 2
Those look better than ISO 100 on my current rig. Can't wait to get my hands on the D700 come fall!
SLC
SLC
Enjoy your camera - the experience will improve once you've expanded your lens collection. High ISO performance is incredible with the camera. I went shooting in a fairly dark museum the first week I had my copy and came away with clean shots at ISO 3200. That's not something my old D2X could do.
FWIW, those 12mpx images are slow loaders and viewing this thread has become rather painful, and I am on a fast 30+ Mb connection. I would recommend avoiding posting full size images, or simply link to them with a size warning
FWIW, those 12mpx images are slow loaders and viewing this thread has become rather painful, and I am on a fast 30+ Mb connection. I would recommend avoiding posting full size images, or simply link to them with a size warning