I switched from the 5D to the D700, with a 1Ds Mark II and a D300 sandwiched in between.
The sensors are capable of generating roughly equal quality files, but the quality the D700 produces right out of the camera generally takes a lot of post-processing to accomplish with the 5D. Beyond that, there is no comparison... the D700 build and features, and the new Nikon glass, makes the Canon look old and tired.
molson wrote:
I switched from the 5D to the D700, with a 1Ds Mark II and a D300 sandwiched in between.
The sensors are capable of generating roughly equal quality files, but the quality the D700 produces right out of the camera generally takes a lot of post-processing to accomplish with the 5D. Beyond that, there is no comparison... the D700 build and features, and the new Nikon glass, makes the Canon look old and tired.
+1 to the above comment. I just switched my self and could not be happier.
Same here. I'm a 5d to D700 switcher with a 1d Mark III and D3 in between. Both cameras are capable of incredible images. So, with that said, here is what you gain with the D700:
1. built-in flash for quick fill and to control external speedlights.
2. weather sealing
3. 5 fps vs. 3 fps, and 8fps with the grip
4. native ISO 3200 and 6400, and they are clean
5. 3 inch, 920,000 pixel screen
6. Live view
7. much better build quality
8. virtual horizon tool
9. auto ISO
10. sensor cleaning
...and this is the list that came to my mind really quickly. But don't jump if you are thinking that all of a sudden your photography will improve dramatically. I switched because I had originally started with Nikon, and have always preferred its ergonomics, and I really appreciate the weather sealing and ultra high ISO capabilities.
Actually, it is a 920,000 dot screen, not a 920,000 pixel screen. Still, it is awesome and more useful than you might think.
I've never owned the 5D, but the AF is much better as well. Using a friend's 5D found its AF rather anemic. Actually, he mentioned the same thing when he used my camera.
Even still, adding that list of glass you have will make the switch rather expensive. I suspect the 5D replacement will in some ways kick the D700's butt, or at least Canon is hoping so. I do to, as I'd love to see the competition ratchet up the next round of improvements. (My wife would kill me if she saw what I'm writing!) You might want to wait and see how the 5DMkII compares to the D700 before moving.
eaglewolf wrote:
Actually, it is a 920,000 dot screen, not a 920,000 pixel screen.
All the other camera makers use the terms "dot" and "pixel" interchangeably when talking about LCD resolution - Nikon is just following the established norms. They still have nearly four times as many "dots" in their LCD as most of their competitors have.
Going from the crude little LCD on the 1Ds II to the giant screen HDTV on the D300 was quite a revelation.
eaglewolf wrote:
Actually, it is a 920,000 dot screen, not a 920,000 pixel screen. Still, it is awesome and more useful than you might think.
David, just out of curiosity, do you gain anything at all by correcting me? Nikon may have dots on their specs and web page, but look at who's using PIXELS. I hate being corrected when I'm NOT wrong!
FROM B&H PHOTO: LCD Display
LCD (920,000 pixels)
FROM DP review:
LCD Pixels 922,000
FROM Imaging-resource
The 3-inch LCD has 920,000 pixels
Actually, I didn't correct you to gain anything myself, but as I understand it a pixel made up of several of those dots for the different colors that make up a pixel. I was just trying to make the comparison the same as what most of us understand as a pixel. I think this was brought up by both reviewers in various magazines and on this website in the past. I apologize if I offended you, as that wasn't my intent. Since every camera manufacturer does the same thing, it is a moot point anyways.
Even so, as Cliff mentioned the LCD toasts every other non-Nikon DSLR LCD out there. I had been impressed with the screen on the D200, right up until I saw the D300. Then the D200's screen looked like a toy. Regardless of the terminology, it is one sharp display.
Which Nikon glass are you referring to? 'Not challenging you, really
curious about your opinions...
I didn't exactly give up my 5D...My wife's ancient Fuji S2Pro died, and
she announced that she was taking possession of all things Canon in
the house. Left me with a nice D200 to fall back on, but I'm trying to sell
enough old Leica lenses to afford a D300 or possibly the D700 this Fall.
Intangibles. .. that's why I like Nikon better...Nikon brought me to the dance
and I guess that's where I'll be staying.
molson wrote:
I switched from the 5D to the D700, with a 1Ds Mark II and a D300 sandwiched in between.
The sensors are capable of generating roughly equal quality files, but the quality the D700 produces right out of the camera generally takes a lot of post-processing to accomplish with the 5D. Beyond that, there is no comparison... the D700 build and features, and the new Nikon glass, makes the Canon look old and tired.
Someone over at Dpreview who just switched came back with this feedback. Any comments?
__________________________________
IQ: till ISO 800 the 5D outperforms D700. More sharp, more alive. (But of course D700 is very good as well.)
Landscape: 5D is much better
Portrait: each are good, this is question of taste. I prefere Nikon skin colour.
Stockphoto: Nikon is better
Above ISO800 D700 is getting better and better than 5D.
The buildquality of Nikon is much more perfect than 5D. Nikon is a tool, 5D is a toy.
The AF is much better than 5D
Features, ergonomy are nuch better than 5D
Actually, I didn't correct you to gain anything myself, but as I understand it a pixel made up of several of those dots for the different colors that make up a pixel. I was just trying to make the comparison the same as what most of us understand as a pixel. I think this was brought up by both reviewers in various magazines and on this website in the past. I apologize if I offended you, as that wasn't my intent. Since every camera manufacturer does the same thing, it is a moot point anyways.
Even so, as Cliff mentioned the LCD toasts every other non-Nikon DSLR LCD out there. I had been impressed with the screen on the D200, right up until I saw the D300. Then the D200's screen looked like a toy. Regardless of the terminology, it is one sharp display.
Thanks for the apology. It's definitely accepted. And just to elaborate on the technology conversation, I honestly don't have any idea what terminology is used for LCD screens as that technology doesn't interest me at all. However, when we are talking sensors, then each pixel is a single dot of a single color. The picture we see in he end of the digital process is actually an interpolation of different and separate red, green, and blue dots. In other words, each pixel is only capable of recording one color. But again, I'm only talking about sensors, not screens.
I find statements like '5D is a toy' to be childish. A lot of great photographers must be using toys, yet they still produce some awesome photos, and many of them are better than the people supposedly using the 'tool'.
So, toys or tools, who cares? Buy the one you like/can afford, use it as best you can, and see what comes out.
Aug 02, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
freddyrozen wrote:
David, just out of curiosity, do you gain anything at all by correcting me? Nikon may have dots on their specs and web page, but look at who's using PIXELS. I hate being corrected when I'm NOT wrong!
FROM B&H PHOTO: LCD Display
LCD (920,000 pixels)
FROM DP review:
LCD Pixels 922,000
FROM Imaging-resource
The 3-inch LCD has 920,000 pixels
Actually I was not aware of the distinction between DOT and PIXEL for LCD screens but it does make sense the way David explains it. I knew of the difference in prints, so why not the screen! And just because B&H and DP Review and etc. etc. list it incorrectly does not suddenly make you right. The same thing happens with "Full Frame". My DX camera is full frame DX format. Full Frame does NOT equal FX or 35mm format.
Sorry to belabor the point, but I find it appalling how people constantly misuse technical terms. It leads to huge amounts of confusion in all aspects of life. Governments around the world have a lot of stupid policies as a result.
(stepping off soap box ... )
As for David pointing out the difference between DOT and PIXEL, why not look at it as him providing information rather than correcting you? I found the information useful.
As much as I like a lively discussion, it really still hasn't gone anywhere. Frankly, I don't care about the distinction between pixels and dots, as that wasn't the reason for my original post. It was only to point out how good the LCD is on the D700. However, both you and David, while not meaning to, chimed in to point out that I was wrong. However, neither of you has provided any actual proof to my supposed misstatement. Also, the people you are saying use the term wrongly are from ENGLISH SPEAKING NATIONS, whereas Nikon is TRANSLATING FROM JAPANESE.
Can't speak directly about the 5d vs d700, but I can speak for the 5d and 1Dsmk3 vs d3 and d300. Given it's age and price, the 5d holds it's own against any of them in terms of IQ. In terms of pure build and ergos, I like the D3. In terms of IQ + build champ-- the Dsmk3 takes the cake IMHO.
Any of them will produce great images, I doubt the camera will be your limiting factor so think before you leap.
mark petri wrote:
Any of them will produce great images, I doubt the camera will be your limiting factor so think before you leap.
True... unless you are counting on the camera to focus for you... I noticed that Rob Galbraith has finally finished his review of the 1D/1Ds Mark III AF fiasco.
Is the focus issue with the new Canons still a problem? I thought it had been taken care of. Canon has too big of a reputation with the pros to let that go.
As for the comparing the D700 to the 5D, that is a bit unfair considering the age of the 5D, but it is the closest Canon currently has to it and therefore the likely camera for any comparison. I'm looking forward to improvements they come out with in the 5DMkII, even if I don't intend to buy one. In the end, I doubt it will make a difference if you are shooting the latest Canon or the latest Nikon. Both will provide the photographer the opportunity for excellent photographs.
I'm just happy there are similar choices in both brands. Since my lenses are Nikon, so will my cameras be. I can't afford to ditch my lineup for something similar in the Canon line, and I suspect many Canon shooters who might be wanting to try Nikon's latest cameras will have the same problem. Besides, I like my Nikons, and that ultimately is what it is about.
