To those who have used both how do they compare with each other?

How do they do in the picture department?

Thanks

One aspect strikes me immediately, the D700 is slightly ahead in the noise department. Not that the 5D is a slouch in that aspect, but it is a 3-year old technology.

I was on the point of switching, there were several reasons that I haven't, not least that my business cannot afford to at this juncture. However I went out and did some shooting with a D700 and 24-70. What I found was that the chip was less sharp (people attribute this to the very weak AA filter on the 5D) but the lens was enough to make up compared to the canon (I've owned 3 of them) making it little to talk about at the pixel peeping level. I was shooting at iso 400 and there was no noise. Nada, zilch. Certainly better than the 5D.

Listen, I'm sure that there will be those who will argue on the above but that is the point really, you have to do your own tests using the focal lengths, zoom vs prime, etc and at the iso's you use to come to your own conclusion, no one comparing an L lens to a kit lens or a zoom to a prime is going to help you at your decision, neither does telling you how clean iso 6400 is when you shoot landscapes.

Although I really like the Auto ISO, switches for everything, incredible screen, weather proofing and pro AF in comparison to the 5D, I prefer the canon back wheel, I hated the opposite turn of the zoom (I would get used to it but..), I hate the fact that you can't apply FEC without pressing a button and then twiddling the dial on the sb-900 (you can do it with the wheel alone in under a second on the 580ex), on the other hand you need to apply FEC less with the Nikon and I really really miss having histogram and blinkies on the same screen. I was shooting in histogram mode and overexposing without realising it. I knew that there was considerable backlighting that was showing as blown on the histogram but didn't realise the faces were overexposed as well! That couldn't have happened to me on a Canon.

BTW, the Nikon facial tones were a lot better but there is a little secret to getting those colours for your 5D. Using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor you can map the D700's colour profile to the 5D and then use it as default in ACR or LR. I did it last night and am very happy with the results.

Beni wrote:

BTW, the Nikon facial tones were a lot better but there is a little secret to getting those colours for your 5D. Using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor you can map the D700's colour profile to the 5D and then use it as default in ACR or LR. I did it last night and am very happy with the results.

Not to thread hijack but I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to do this for my 40D with the D300 color profiles?

thanks
Kurt

Have a look here - http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b6a509/5

I think you have to take a picture of a colour chart with the D300, then calibrate your 40D to match? (although I'm not sure why you would want to do it... I hate nikon colors).

The new Adobe Camera Raw Beta Profile produces amazing skin tones now anyway (no more crappy yellow skin tones from previous ACR profiles).
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

Also, look at improvement in the reds! (fire is no longer pink)

That's a nice improvement

I have used both the 5D and the D700 and still favor the overall imaqe quality and ergonimics of the 5D (although the Nikon has does have a rougly 1.5 stop advantage in noise).

I also found that while Nikon has some impressive zooms, they currently do not offer prime lenses (outside of the macro and super telephoto categories) that have in-lens motors and full-time manual focusing, which substantially changes how I shoot.

The D700 is an impressively solid camera, with a gorgeous rear LCD and several shooting features that trump the 5D (it's nearly 3 years newer). But in the end, these features were not enough for me to justify a switch, especially given what Canon has coming.

If you need to shoot sports, however, the D700 is considerably faster (up to 8fps with the grip and specific batteries). I suggest you try to rent a D700 body and one or more lenses to form your own opinion.

Thanks to all.

How is the AF (in low light) on the Nikon compared to the 5D?

5D center focus in low light is quite good, but don't even try using any of the other focus points. I cannot comment on the D700 but if the focus system is the same as the D3, then I believe it will be fabulous.

yes, i too would like to know how the D700's low light focusing is.

I've owned both and have recently gone over to the other side buying my first D700 and a 24-70/2.8. I have another D700 coming in next week and am on the list for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR's replacement, whenever that is.

Image quality wise they're quite close. The 5D is a tad bit sharper at the pixel level, but not really anything you'd notice in a print. The D700 has better noise-handling, but not to the degree that a lot of rabid Nikonians would want you to believe.

Low-light focusing on the D700 is great, and better than the 5D's. The focusing system in general is much more mature and has a level of customizability on par with the Mark III system, and better in some regards. However, the Multicam 3500 system's cross-type sensors are grouped in the center, so you'll hit the same problem you see with the 5D with the AF points on the outside edges. So, you have really excellent performance around the center and the top-center and bottom-center points, so if you do a lot of AI Servo AF there (which I do), then it's significantly better AF-wise.

Other things... feels tougher, but hard to know. Has AF-point linked Spot Metering, the built in flash Commander Mode is really excellent - beyond being able to control ratios as you can with the ST-E2 or a master flash, you can even adjust the power manually for each group from the camera, which is fantastic and seems to work well. The camera generally is much more responsive in terms of shutter lag and mirror blackout - it feels like shooting with a 1 Series. The CF subsystem screams - you never have to wait for the camera to stop doing anything.

In my mind, there's no contest - the D700 is flat-out a better camera. The 5D Mark II should be very nice, especially if you need resolution, but Nikon really has a great "system" going on here so if you can deal with their rather limited lens line-up, it definitely bears consideration.

Probably agree with all of that Sam.

musclepics wrote:
I think you have to take a picture of a colour chart with the D300, then calibrate your 40D to match? (although I'm not sure why you would want to do it... I hate nikon colors).

You don't, if you read the thread above from the Adobe boards you don't need anything more than the Adobe DNG Profile Editor and one of your canon files converted to a DNG.


The new Adobe Camera Raw Beta Profile produces amazing skin tones now anyway (no more crappy yellow skin tones from previous ACR profiles).
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

Also, look at improvement in the reds! (fire is no longer pink)


I had a good look at the Adobe Standard RAW Beta Profiles. Although they do better with the reds they also substantially reduce the saturation, contrast and brightness in the reds so facial tones are less contrasty and darker than they should be. I didn't like it. There is also a substantial red tint that didn't exist before and is certainly not accurate, I need to apply at least a -10 of tint more with the beta profile just to get to neutral on the faces and everything else is thrown out. It looks good when you work with it but it takes quite a bit more work. I found that applying the D700's regular ACR profile to the 5D files gives a very subtle but more natural skin tone.

The 5D is a tad bit sharper at the pixel level...

Tad means means bit bit so so tad tad bit bit means means bit bit bit bit.

I agree with everything you said.

Tag for camera profiles (sorry)

IQ wise, they will be very similar at low ISO, and the D700 will have an advantage in the high ISO. As far as the camera itself, the D700 is by far a more well rounded camera --- Pro AF, pro build quality, full weather sealing, pro control set, etc. The D700 can do action, landscape, you name it.

Ben Horne wrote: As far as the camera itself, the D700 is by far a more well rounded camera --- Pro AF, pro build quality, full weather sealing, pro control set, etc. The D700 can do action, landscape, you name it.

Yep. And this is what it came down to for me. I wanted to be able to shoot at 6400 without any worries, just as I could shoot at 3200 on the Mark III with no worries - this allows me to shoot with zooms in situations were I previously had to shoot with primes. I can do that with the D700, and there's virtually no compromise in terms of build, AF, functionality, etc. Nikon totally hit it out of the ballpark with this camera. I used to always scoff at people who switched systems, but after looking at the release of Canon's last few cameras they seem to really not get it and are hanging on to a bogus, needless delineation of their "prosumer" vs. "pro" line. It's a shame since I absolutely adored my Mark III.

ISO1600 wrote:
yes, i too would like to know how the D700's low light focusing is.
I got to use the D700 for part of the day,and found the "low light" AF substantially slower than on the 1D MKIII (indoor lighting with some large daylight coming thru the windows). There were times the D700 had a hard time locking, when the MKIII locked right away. However, once the D700 was able to acquire focus, it did a decent job.
The D700 build is definitely better than the 5D, but not nearly as good as the MKIII. I didn't like the ergonomics or button clutter on the Nikon, but that's a personal preference.
ISO3200 was really nice on the D700, but ISO6400 really seems to have an over processed, plasticky appearance that would take some getting used to.

Beni wrote:
I had a good look at the Adobe Standard RAW Beta Profiles. Although they do better with the reds they also substantially reduce the saturation, contrast and brightness in the reds so facial tones are less contrasty and darker than they should be. I didn't like it. There is also a substantial red tint that didn't exist before and is certainly not accurate, I need to apply at least a -10 of tint more with the beta profile just to get to neutral on the faces and everything else is thrown out. It looks good when you work with it but it takes quite a bit more work. I found that applying the D700's regular ACR profile to the 5D files gives a very subtle but more natural skin tone.

Hmm, I've never seen this... only magnificent color and skin tone! I will have to give your method a try to compare! However, I use a 1D MKIII not a 5D, and so far, I'm BLOWN away by the tones on the new adobe beta profile.