Value of Canon 5D MkII vs Nikon D700 with Lens

[compuwar]

Portraits will mostly be secondary for me, so for now I'm considering going with just the camera + kit lens + 100/105mm macro (doubling it as an emergency portrait lens), and hold off on the 16-40/17-35 WA zoom lens, to stay more within budget. Or does that defeat the purpose of a FF camera not having a wide zoom, and just increase my budget to handle it? This is coming from the focal range I'm currently using, I know I have a tendency to shoot wide, and shoot macro.

If you want high-ISO, then the D700/D3 are currently the top of the roost- so if that's your main factor, then I wouldn't worry about wide- however, if you want wide, then you should get wide. The 105mm does really well as a macro, but you may also want to look at the Tamron 90mm SP, that's going to save enough over a new 105mm that you may have budget for the WA. That particular Tamron is world-class and IMO, a 90mm is a better portrait lens than a 105.

 

[Over Achiever]

The 105mm does really well as a macro, but you may also want to look at the Tamron 90mm SP, that's going to save enough over a new 105mm that you may have budget for the WA. That particular Tamron is world-class and IMO, a 90mm is a better portrait lens than a 105.

The only thing I'm worried about is the extension when the 90mm focuses, it's not an internal focus design right?

 

[localghost]

If you want high-ISO, then the D700/D3 are currently the top of the roost- (...)

that's a pretty bold statement, asking for a brand war.
the op question was about deciding between a d700 and a 5d II - there's no valid comparison out there that i know of. if you do, please post a link.

 

[Over Achiever]

Please everyone, lets not go there.

 

[compuwar]

that's a pretty bold statement, asking for a brand war.
the op question was about deciding between a d700 and a 5d II - there's no valid comparison out there that i know of. if you do, please post a link.

If you read back, you'll see I said

The shots so far that are a direct comparison show the D700 with an obvious and very visible difference at ISO 6400. They're JPEG vs NEF, shot in a store, which means they're not an even apples-to-apples comparison- however IMO they're be ultimately born out.

So, I don't consider the currently posted comparisons "valid" but the physics are pretty obvious, and by going high-res, Canon has ceded the ISO banner with the 5DmkII. That's not to say the 5DII will necessarily suck, just that the D700 will perform better.

Though they're not "valid," here are the links:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2868125472/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867292819/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867293515/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867443395/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867443985/sizes/l/

Despite the obvious white balance and focus issues the main thing to me is the difference in exposure values- and I think when we see a DPR side-by-side comparison the Nikon will end up with a stop or so's advantage (somewhere between .6 and 1.3 is where I think it'll end up,) that is inside of a third of a stop comparing ISO6400 vs ISO3200. I think that's the cost of high-resolution- and it's not a bad price if you want high-res, but head-to-head you're going to lose to the larger photosites. So if high-ISO is your main criterion, and that's what my reading of the OP's requirements gets me to- then the D700 wins.

 

[compuwar]

The only thing I'm worried about is the extension when the 90mm focuses, it's not an internal focus design right?

Right, up to half its length- so if you're not careful, then that could be a problem.

 

[localghost]

That's not to say the 5DII will necessarily suck, just that the D700 will perform better

you might very well be right, i just don't feel very comfortable with comparisons like this - to much money for either brand to lose, to much (unpaid) fanboys out there and mistakes to be made even if the intention was good. it just bugged me that you kept repeating it, but no hard feelings, i'll leave it alone now.

sorry to the op.

 

[MacNoobie]

A couple of samples that I've found floating around the dpreview.com actually put 25,600 iso samples between the MK II and the D3, the MK II being 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop over the D3.

I think Canon wants to show off the power of the DIGIC IV processor.

I would expect the much higher pixel density on the 5DmkII to give it a serious disadvantage in low light, but until we see a controlled test between production units that's mostly conjecture.

 

[troyhark]

Portraits will mostly be secondary for me, so for now I'm considering going with just the camera + kit lens + 100/105mm macro (doubling it as an emergency portrait lens), and hold off on the 16-40/17-35 WA zoom lens, to stay more within budget. Or does that defeat the purpose of a FF camera not having a wide zoom, and just increase my budget to handle it?

Not at all. FF gives your images a different look and you can always add WA lens later. You cannot add a bigger sensor. Also a 24-70mm lens is a lovely range on a FF camera and a bit nothing on a crop sensor.

 

[troyhark]

Though they're not "valid," here are the links:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2868125472/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867292819/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867293515/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867443395/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2867443985/sizes/l/

To see how valid or not they are. How do you account for the diffence in pixel dimensions? For to realistically compare cameras, they both need to be 1:1 enlargement with same focal length from the same vantage point. Those pictures are obviously not taken like that. So they don't give us the right info.

So, I don't consider the currently posted comparisons "valid" but the physics are pretty obvious, and by going high-res, Canon has ceded the ISO banner with the 5DmkII. That's not to say the 5DII will necessarily suck, just that the D700 will perform better.

The results I've seen from 1600 + 3200 are way better than the 5D and that was very good anyway. So I hardly think Canon have exactly 'ceded the ISO banner' as you put it.
But as Nikon were so way behind before the D3, even with similar sized sensors, nothing is 'obvious'.
When we see some good testing with no interpolation nonsense, then we can judge properly.

 

[Fortimir]

On a full frame camera a 14mm lens is a fish eye. I don't think there is a rectilinear lens in 14mm for full frame.

The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is rectilinear.

It's also the sharpest ultra-wide zoom that Nikon has ever made (and is sharper at 14mm in the corners than most primes, even wide open).

To me, it's THE lens that makes the D700 special. Having the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 would be one hell of a duo. They are definitely worth the $1600 each.

 

[compuwar]

The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is rectilinear.

It's also the sharpest ultra-wide zoom that Nikon has ever made (and is sharper at 14mm in the corners than most primes, even wide open).

To me, it's THE lens that makes the D700 special. Having the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 would be one hell of a duo. They are definitely worth the $1600 each.

The Nikkor 14mm prime (released in 1999) is also rectilinear.