Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=28891950&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
5D vs D700 [Page 1]: Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D Forum: Digital Photography Review
I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.
I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the 5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please constructive posts not a flame war).
Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they are pretty much on par for image IQ.
Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail than nikon's pro level glass.
So constructive discussion please!
|
|
The 5D will most likely be replaced soon (mmm, not sure what makes me say that...) and though I'm really happy with mine, which I've had a year, I would wait and see what comes out;
The likelihood is it will only be a month or so to the announcements.
The other consideration is your glass - is it full frame capable?
If not then you have to reinvest whichever system you pick.
Even it isn't you should wait before choosing.
If you go 5D now and the Canon new models aren't good then you won't have a good upgrade path, whereas you will at present with Nikon.
If you are used to Nikons and your glass is good then maybe you should stick with them - common batteries between models, good flash system, popup flash etc.
All add to the appeal.
The one thing about the 5D right now is the value - you do get full frame and leave room for good lenses.
|
|
Quote: :
> I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.
DX glass means you've got to re-build the whole system anyway when you upgrade to full frame.
At least at lower ISO values, indeed the IQ is roughly equal between the D700 and the EOS 5D.
When you can live with its lower frame rate, lack of weather sealing, and lower resolution LC display compared to the D700, the EOS 5D is currently the best deal, at least here in Germany where it's sold for less than 1700 Euros incl.
19% VAT, with very attractive kits including various lenses also being available.
However, it seems that Canon is about to introduce a successor in the very near future.
Therefore it may be a wise idea to wait a little.
Perhaps the current 5D's price will be reduced even more after its successor will be announced.
Another reason to wait is the imminent introduction of Sony's flagship Alpha DSLR, which will be 24 MP, perhaps at a quite competitive price.
Also, concluding from the Alpha 700 and what is known so far, its user interface will probably be magnificent.
Regards
Johannes
|
|
|
How long have you been on Dpreview....Do you really think you will get unbiased opinion here...eitherway wait until September, 5D mark-II is coming and then ofcourse, also something else is coming and then you can see how things stack then
|
|
|
What is coming out?
|
|
|
I used the 5D plus lots of L glass for a couple of years, it's a great camera, I now have the D700 which I find is a much better camera over all than the 5D but as far as IQ goes there isn't much in it at ISO 800 and below, above this and the D700 is much better.
The D700 wins for me because it handles better and feels better in my hands, it also has much better features, now I only take photo's for fun, it's hobby although I do now have a good set of Pro Nikon glass which cost a lot more than the Canon equivalent for no real extra IQ although the Nikon build feels miles better.
My advise would be to get a 5D + 24-105, it's a great combo and costs less than the D700 on it's own
|
|
They are in totally different price range.
Is that $1300 matter to you?
If not, D700 is a, overall, better body, 3+ year newer technoglogy.
Nikon FF will accept DX lens, so you can still use your DX lens, it will NOT show the true potential of D700.
If you are on budget, then 5D is the best band for the buck FF now.
IQ is very compatible to D700, it mainly just lacks in other things such as speed, AF, ..
It makes a lot more sense if you go with your budget.
|
|
Quote: :
> I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.
>
>
>
I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the
>
5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please
>
Constructive posts not a flame war).
>
>
Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
>
Terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
>
Are pretty much on par for image IQ.
I used a 5D for 2.5 years and now have a D3, which bequeathed its sensor and image processor to the D700, and a D300 which more-or-less shares build quality with the D700.
Yes, what you're written above, along with the D700 feeling more durable and being weather-resistant, is a fair and accurate summation of the differences between the two cameras.
>
Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail
>
Than nikon's pro level glass.
This, in my experience isn't universally true.
Generally, for every Canon lens you find that's superior to its Nikon counterpart, you'll also find a Nikon that's better than the Canon equivalent.
The excepts lie mostly in the wide-to-normal FOV range, where Nikon has a definite edge there with two zooms and a handful of primes that, on an FX sensor, out-perform several Canon primes at the same focal lengths.
My advice would be to make your choice based on the specific qualities of the lenses you're most interested in, as well as the cost and quality of accessories you'll want to use.
Also consider, if relevant, your existing workflow and whether or not optimum results can be achieved with your existing toolset.
For example, fabulous results can be had using the 5D with Lightroom 2, but because of Adobe's approach to noise reduction (you can't turn it off completely) and the fact that it works strongly on luminance information (which is the primary component of Nikon high ISO noise), you are unlikely to get as good a result.
On the other hand, if you're using converters that take a hands-off approach to noise, such as Apple Aperture or C14 (or Raw Photo Processor, if you're in an extreme minority), neither camera has an IQ advantage over the other.
And if you'll be using the manufacturer-provided RAW converters, Canon's free DPP is vastly superior in functionality and IQ potential compared to Nikon's clunky, very limited View NX.
Hope that helps.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
|
|
There are enough differences between the D700 and the 5D in build quality and overall handling to warrant the price gap so if these difference matters and you can afford the price, the D700 is the better choice.
I faced similar questions and chose the 5D because:
1/ IQ is what I am looking for in the first place and the slight differences in IQ in the conditions I shoot (travel, landscape and portraits) didn't tip the scale, especially at my amateur level;
2/ I just couldn't build a comparable Nikon system (24-105f4 IS + 70-200f4IS are just great for travel) especially at such an "affordable"** price (taking full advantages of the rebates).
So there you have it: limited budget, some unique lens choice that suit my needs and the sad reality that my level in photography probably doesn't warrant $5000+ got the best of me and I went for the "reasonable" choice.
And guess what?
I am a happy camper and enjoy the results I am getting probably just as much!
Cheers!
;-)
**: by some pretty screwed up standards I admit: I could probably feed a whole family during a year in most countries with what I just spent on camera equipment...
|
|
Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...
.../Canon_0296B002_EOS_5D_Digital_Camera.html
--
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
...reading everything you can about the bodies, then you don't know enough and you should wait.
I wouldn't make this decision unless I've spent time with both bodies.
Had the 5D and loved its image quality.
I'd still have it if the D700 had not come out.
The D700 inspires much more confidence in handling, metering, and AF and other features that are not just bells and whistles.
Plus I can use my compact manual focus Nikon primes from 20 years ago and they work great.
If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
It's not the camera.
It's you.
Stuff I own in my profile.
|
|
I would have purchased the D700 for the photo trip I am on now had it not been for the reports of banding at high ISO.
I rarely shoot anything other than ISO 100 (I suppose that will be ISO 200 for Nikon), but I decided to wait in order to get a better idea about the nature of the banding and whether this is fixable or not and to make certain someone does not report this banding occuring at ISO 200.
Ever since the D3 release, my intentions have been to go to a two cam system for my landscape interests, the D3 being the perfect platform for my Zeiss ZF lenses.
Plus I want to get the 14-24 zoom.
The 5D could then be used as a handheld shooter while the D700 stays mounted on the tripod.
Well, the only thing about the D3 that was less than perfect in my world was the price tag.
:) Then along comes the D700 for less than the price of the original 5D.
Having said all of that, I'd hate to have to augmnet my $2999 expenditure by having to upgrade my CS2 to CS3 or have to buy another RAW converter to get decent conversions.
I use DPP only to change WB and maybe set a different picture style occasionally and set a minimal sharpening level to defeat the effects of the AA filter.
Plus I like to resize my images out of DPP.
I wouldn't prefer to, but I could deal with clunky.
Even if none of this functionality were present in View NX, could I get a conversion to TIF from View NX that at least doesn't degrade the image?
Kabe Quote: :
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.
>
>
> >
>
> I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the
>
> 5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please
>
> constructive posts not a flame war).
>
>
> > Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
>
> terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
>
> are pretty much on par for image IQ.
>
>
I used a 5D for 2.5 years and now have a D3, which bequeathed its
>
Sensor and image processor to the D700, and a D300 which more-or-less
>
Shares build quality with the D700.
Yes, what you're written above,
>
Along with the D700 feeling more durable and being weather-resistant,
>
Is a fair and accurate summation of the differences between the two
>
Cameras.
>
>
> Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail
>
> than nikon's pro level glass.
>
>
This, in my experience isn't universally true.
Generally, for every
>
Canon lens you find that's superior to its Nikon counterpart, you'll
>
Also find a Nikon that's better than the Canon equivalent.
The
> excepts lie mostly in the wide-to-normal FOV range, where Nikon has a
>
Definite edge there with two zooms and a handful of primes that, on
>
An FX sensor, out-perform several Canon primes at the same focal
>
Lengths.
>
>
My advice would be to make your choice based on the specific
>
Qualities of the lenses you're most interested in, as well as the
>
Cost and quality of accessories you'll want to use.
Also consider, if
>
Relevant, your existing workflow and whether or not optimum results
>
Can be achieved with your existing toolset.
For example, fabulous
>
Results can be had using the 5D with Lightroom 2, but because of
>
Adobe's approach to noise reduction (you can't turn it off
>
Completely) and the fact that it works strongly on luminance
>
Information (which is the primary component of Nikon high ISO noise),
>
You are unlikely to get as good a result.
On the other hand, if
>
You're using converters that take a hands-off approach to noise, such
>
As Apple Aperture or C14 (or Raw Photo Processor, if you're in an
>
Extreme minority), neither camera has an IQ advantage over the other.
>
And if you'll be using the manufacturer-provided RAW converters,
>
Canon's free DPP is vastly superior in functionality and IQ potential
>
Compared to Nikon's clunky, very limited View NX.
>
>
Hope that helps.
>
>
--
> - -
> Kabe Luna
>
>
Http://www.garlandcary.com
|
|
Hi,
Can you check out my comments under Kaba Luna?
I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the banding issue plus any insight on the View NX software.
Phil Quote: :
>
...reading everything you can about the bodies, then you don't know
>
Enough and you should wait.
>
>
I wouldn't make this decision unless I've spent time with both bodies.
>
>
Had the 5D and loved its image quality.
I'd still have it if the
>
D700 had not come out.
>
>
The D700 inspires much more confidence in handling, metering, and AF
>
And other features that are not just bells and whistles.
Plus I can
> use my compact manual focus Nikon primes from 20 years ago and they
>
Work great.
>
>
If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to
>
ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.
>
>
>
--
> Phil Flash
>
SF, CA USA
>
>
It's not the camera.
It's you.
>
>
Stuff I own in my profile.
|
|
Phil Quote: :
>
If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to
>
ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.
If you can't you should take some photography classes.
The D700 won't be of any help in this case.
|
|
My local dealer had just an offer for the 5D: only 1650 EUR including taxes.
My simple calculation was: do I get excellent pictures with average glases?
No.
So put the "24-70 L 2.8" in and you get a combo for most of the fullframers needs - for the price of a Nikon body.
--
http://www.interaktivbild.de
|
|
...if you're currently happy with results from ACR (have you updated to the latest version yet, with the new camera profiles?
You should, if notmuch better color), so long as you keep to low ISO, where there's no luminance noisewhich is the problem with Nikon cameras + ACR/Lightroomand are shooting landscapes (ACR/LR does a notably poor job in rendering crisp red/orange edges jaggedly, so that a red round circle that's relatively small in the frame will have stair-stepped edges) you'll be happy with the results.
The thing about View is that, like NX, it's tuned to favor noise control at the expense of fine detail.
So, you get clean, mostly artifact-free images that are almost totally lacking in fine detail.
Download some of Nikon's own JPEG samples from the D700, which are processed using CNX, which gives the same default results as NX, and see if you like the level of detail therein.
If so, you've arrived.
But be aware that it *is* VERY clumsy and allows very minimal RAW adjustments.
If you don't mind a question of my own: if you also have a 5D, why would you put the D700 on a tripod and handhold the 5D when the 5D is the camera of the two that'd most benefit from the discipline of shooting from a tripod with its greater pixel count and weaker AA filter giving slightly higher resolution potential?
Is it because the better lenses fit the Nikon?
I'd do exactly the opposite and put the 5D on a tripod where I can stop down the Canon wides, which is needed for the best results at the edges of the frame, and handhold the D700, which has reliable and accurate AE metering and other features that make it arguably the better fast-use camera.
Rick Quote: :
>
I would have purchased the D700 for the photo trip I am on now had it
>
Not been for the reports of banding at high ISO.
I rarely shoot
>
Anything other than ISO 100 (I suppose that will be ISO 200 for
>
Nikon), but I decided to wait in order to get a better idea about the
>
Nature of the banding and whether this is fixable or not and to make
>
Certain someone does not report this banding occuring at ISO 200.
>
>
Ever since the D3 release, my intentions have been to go to a two
>
Cam system for my landscape interests, the D3 being the perfect
>
Platform for my Zeiss ZF lenses.
Plus I want to get the 14-24 zoom.
>
The 5D could then be used as a handheld shooter while the D700 stays
>
Mounted on the tripod.
Well, the only thing about the D3 that was
>
Less than perfect in my world was the price tag.
:) Then along comes
>
The D700 for less than the price of the original 5D.
>
>
Having said all of that, I'd hate to have to augmnet my $2999
>
Expenditure by having to upgrade my CS2 to CS3 or have to buy another
>
RAW converter to get decent conversions.
I use DPP only to change WB
>
And maybe set a different picture style occasionally and set a
>
Minimal sharpening level to defeat the effects of the AA filter.
Plus
> I like to resize my images out of DPP.
I wouldn't prefer to, but I
>
Could deal with clunky.
Even if none of this functionality were
>
Present in View NX, could I get a conversion to TIF from View NX that
>
At least doesn't degrade the image?
>
>
Kabe Quote: :
>
>
> > Quote: :
>
> > I currently have a D80 with some DX glass.
>
> >
> >
>
> > >
I want to go FF and so have the opportunity to jump ship and get the
>
> > 5D, so basically i'm interested in the pros and cons (please
>
> > constructive posts not a flame war).
>
> >
> >
> Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
>
> > terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
>
> > are pretty much on par for image IQ.
>
>
> > I used a 5D for 2.5 years and now have a D3, which bequeathed its
>
> sensor and image processor to the D700, and a D300 which more-or-less
>
> shares build quality with the D700.
Yes, what you're written above,
>
> along with the D700 feeling more durable and being weather-resistant,
>
> is a fair and accurate summation of the differences between the two
>
> cameras.
>
>
> > >
Also i've heard it said that L-Glass resolves slightly more detail
>
> > than nikon's pro level glass.
>
>
> > This, in my experience isn't universally true.
Generally, for every
>
> Canon lens you find that's superior to its Nikon counterpart, you'll
>
> also find a Nikon that's better than the Canon equivalent.
The
> > excepts lie mostly in the wide-to-normal FOV range, where Nikon has a
>
> definite edge there with two zooms and a handful of primes that, on
>
> an FX sensor, out-perform several Canon primes at the same focal
>
> lengths.
>
>
> > My advice would be to make your choice based on the specific
>
> qualities of the lenses you're most interested in, as well as the
>
> cost and quality of accessories you'll want to use.
Also consider, if
>
> relevant, your existing workflow and whether or not optimum results
>
> can be achieved with your existing toolset.
For example, fabulous
>
> results can be had using the 5D with Lightroom 2, but because of
>
> Adobe's approach to noise reduction (you can't turn it off
>
> completely) and the fact that it works strongly on luminance
>
> information (which is the primary component of Nikon high ISO noise),
>
> you are unlikely to get as good a result.
On the other hand, if
>
> you're using converters that take a hands-off approach to noise, such
>
> as Apple Aperture or C14 (or Raw Photo Processor, if you're in an
>
> extreme minority), neither camera has an IQ advantage over the other.
>
> And if you'll be using the manufacturer-provided RAW converters,
>
> Canon's free DPP is vastly superior in functionality and IQ potential
>
> compared to Nikon's clunky, very limited View NX.
>
>
> > Hope that helps.
>
>
> > --
>
> - -
> >
Kabe Luna
> >
>
> http://www.garlandcary.com
>
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
|
|
Rick, you apparently need to be at ISO 3200 or higher with a light source in the frame and underexposing by at least two stop and recovering by at least the same amount in conversion to experience the phenomena.
And if you are in this situation, you'll have much greater IQ to deal with (such as extreme loss of dynamic range and color contamination from the raging hot pixels and chroma noise).
Personally, in nearly 20,000 images, nearly 1/3 at ISO 1600 and higher, I've yet to have banding show up in a single image.
Then again, I'm not underexposing either, which is tragic at high sensitivities to begin with.
At ISO 200, as you've stated you shoot virtually all the time, you won't ever have to deal with it.
Shadow at that ISO, and even up to 800, are the cleanest I've ever seen.
I know this because ugly shadows at low ISO (even at native 100) was one of the things I hated most about my 5D, so when I got the D3, I immediately did some ISO 200 high contrast landscapes and raised the shadows in conversion to see what I'd findwhich is absolutely nothing but clean, noise-free detail.
Beautiful.
If you can accept a very small loss of fine detail compared to the 5D, you won't be disappointed at ISO 200, I guarantee it.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
|
|
|
--
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Basically my understanding is that the D700 as a body is better in
>
Terms of bells and whistles (it would be it's 3 years newer) but they
>
Are pretty much on par for image IQ.
>
The fact that the 5D is 3 years old has nothing to do with body, bells and whilsts.
The D200 is also 3 years old and still has better body with weather sealing, AF and the bells and whilsts than the 5D.
Now there is no doupt the 5D has a great sensor but if your planning to switch, you should look at the trend both companies are taken and have taken.
Lately Nikon has been on a roll with the introduction of three great camera's.
Nikon does not hold back features and specs down its model line as Canon has.
In fact with the introduction of the 30D and 40D there were many already complaining about withholding of features.
|
|
Quote: :
> Phil Quote: :
>
> If you can wrestle the 5D to get the capture, then I believe up to
>
> ISO 800, you're looking at virtually the same IQ.
>
>
If you can't you should take some photography classes.
>
>
The D700 won't be of any help in this case.
Perhaps you should take some manners classes?
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
It's not the camera.
It's you.
Stuff I own in my profile.
|
|
|
|