32067dlm wrote:
It wasn't designed to compete with the D700.
Why do you say that? It seems like the Nikon D700 would be the natural competition for the Canon 5d. Nikon chose to include the more advanced AF system from their pro-line whereas Canon did not. Don Clary was probably right when he said Canon probably didn't want to cannobolize their pro-line sales.
With the exception of resolution, the D700 appears to compare favorably with the Canon 5d Mark 2. This is likely because Nikon was looking to break into this category of camera whereas Canon was the incumbent leader. Canon likely was careful to limit functionality (such as the AF system and full weather sealing and fps) to leave differentiation from their 1d line. I wish Canon was using the same strategy as Nikon. It would be better for the consumer.
The 5d Mark 2 has probably been in development a long time. Canon probably didn't rush getting it to market (3 years was a rediculously long life for the 5d) because there really wasn't any direct competition. Nikons D700 likely surprised Canon. Canon would not have had time to respond with better weather sealing and a better AF system. The 5d Mark 2 may very well have a lower price than it would have had the Nikon D700 not existed.
I would not be surprised if the 5d Mark 3 comes much faster than the Mark 2 did because Canon now has competition in the D700. I would expect a more normal product life cycle now. I also would be very surprised if the next version of the 5d doesn't have full weather sealing and a higher end AF system.
I still think the 5d Mark 2 is an excellent camera. If the Nikon D700 didn't exist, I think the overall opinion of it would be higher. Nikon raised the bar on some of the major features of this category of camera, and Canon didn't make it to the bar (likely because they didn't have time once they realized the bar was raised).
I don't see how people can think the D700 is not competition for the 5d Mark 2. So many forums act like if the 5d Mark 2 isn't good enough, people should just buy the 1d line. If you have a ton invested in lenses, that may be the logical choice. If not, the D700 is a very viable choice. I kind of hope the D700 does do extremely well. Canon having competition in this space will do nothing except drive up functionality and drive down prices. Not great for Canon, but great for the consumer.
kdepew wrote:
Why do you say that? It seems like the Nikon D700 would be the natural competition for the Canon 5d. Nikon chose to include the more advanced AF system from their pro-line whereas Canon did not. Don Clary was probably right when he said Canon probably didn't want to cannobolize their pro-line sales.
With the exception of resolution, the D700 appears to compare favorably with the Canon 5d Mark 2. This is likely because Nikon was looking to break into this category of camera whereas Canon was the incumbent leader. Canon likely was careful to limit functionality (such as the AF system and full weather sealing and fps) to leave differentiation from their 1d line. I wish Canon was using the same strategy as Nikon. It would be better for the consumer. ...Show more →
I think neither of them complete products and in this sense, they are competition but a bit in different segment.
In my eyes, Nikkor 14-24 provides the best landscape image quality, in terms of sharpness and resolution, while the MP numbers of D700 and D3 are far behind 5D Mk-II and 1Ds. The advantages of Nikkor's excellent optical design for 14-24 and 24-70 cannot be fully shown.
Vice versa, some nice Canon lenses can hardly meet the resolution of 5D Mk-II's sensor. AF is not good enough even if Canon offers excellent portrait and telephoto lenses.
As a result, the choice between the two brands probably won't be as simple as if you do landscape, go for Nikon, or if you do portrait go for Canon.
I don't know and don't really care if the 5D II is being compared to the D700. The 5D II promises to deliver the best IQ of any DSLR, including the 1Ds Mk III .... and that is all that matters to me. Stick a Zeiss ZE 21 Distagon to the 5D II and you cannot possibly have a better setup for landscape photography IMO, not counting larger formats. The D700 + 14-24 lens won't even come close to it.
bobbytan wrote:
I don't know and don't really care if the 5D II is being compared to the D700. The 5D II promises to deliver the best IQ of any DSLR, including the 1Ds Mk III .... and that is all that matters to me. Stick a Zeiss ZE 21 Distagon to the 5D II and you cannot possibly have a better setup for landscape photography IMO, not counting larger formats. The D700 + 14-24 lens won't even come close to it.
Other than the fact that the 14-24 is just as sharp (or close to it) at 14mm too? :P
Mel Gross wrote:
Just don't use the 18/3.5 Zeiss for color, or anywhere near wide open. It's a dog.
I have to disagree here. From everything I have seen and heard, it has excellent color, and it has very good performance wide open. The only complaint about the lens is that compared to the excellent-performing, and similarly-priced, Nikon 14-24G, there is little reason to buy the similarly performing ZF (or ZE) 18mm prime (except, IMHO, compactness, micro-contrast, and yes, color).
i've seen the speculating go both ways. some say that the 5d II will have crappy AF. some say that the 5d II will have vastly superior IQ. some have even said that the 5d II will cure cancer. at the end of the day, it's all just a supposition based on some sample images and specs.
factual, hard evidence and proof was always sparse on this forum. the canon forum should be labeled with a disclaimer that says, "for entertainment purposes only". it really is, just for fun as we banter back and forth.
At least with respect to the 1D3, according to Canon's Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations, Masaya Maeda:
"The 5D Mark II we're positioning as the very highest product in our high-end enthusiast range. The EOS 1Ds Mark III, by comparison, offers robust durability and long shutter life as the most important features for use in harsh studio conditions, we believe. However when it comes to image quality itself; because of the constant digital technology developments in this industry, it's always the latest camera that is best. So things like ISO expansion range and dynamic range are in a sense better in the 5D Mark II."
"harsh studio conditions"What’s so funny?… Some times I don’t turn on the air conditioning in the house… It’s reassuring to know that it will stand that kind of abuse.
Yes .... according to Canon Inc's "most high ranking executive" .... so there is some credibility here. But is anyone really surprised by this development? The 5D II's IQ dominance will be short-lived, as we all know for sure that the 1Ds Mk IV will raise the bar yet again next year.
akclimber wrote:
At least with respect to the 1D3, according to Canon's Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations, Masaya Maeda:
"The 5D Mark II we're positioning as the very highest product in our high-end enthusiast range. The EOS 1Ds Mark III, by comparison, offers robust durability and long shutter life as the most important features for use in harsh studio conditions, we believe. However when it comes to image quality itself; because of the constant digital technology developments in this industry, it's always the latest camera that is best. So things like ISO expansion range and dynamic range are in a sense better in the 5D Mark II."
The 5D's AF was NEVER crappy .... so how can the 5D II's AF be described as crappy? It is a tried-and-proven system .... and in some ways, it is more reliable than the 1D Mk III.
Talk about factual, hard evidence, how can Canon's most successful and biggest selling DSLR have a crappy AF system? Who in their right minds would buy the 5D if it had crappy AF, and were there discussions about the 5D's crappy AF system .... like there were dozens of threads about the 1D3's AF.
simonella_viru wrote:
i've seen the speculating go both ways. some say that the 5d II will have crappy AF. some say that the 5d II will have vastly superior IQ. some have even said that the 5d II will cure cancer. at the end of the day, it's all just a supposition based on some sample images and specs.
factual, hard evidence and proof was always sparse on this forum. the canon forum should be labeled with a disclaimer that says, "for entertainment purposes only". it really is, just for fun as we banter back and forth.
bobbytan wrote:
The 5D's AF was NEVER crappy (the 5D was and still is, without a doubt, Canon's most successful DSLR) .... so how can the 5D II's AF be described as crappy? It is a tried-and-proven system .... and in some ways, it is more reliable than the 1D Mk III.
Did the 5D honestly outsell the Rebel's and XXD series camera's?
There were several reincarnations of the Rebel series. Wait a few more years and maybe you can add the 5D Mk II, Mk III and Mk IV sales up. And besides, no semi-pro $3,000 DSLR will outsell a sub-$1,000 body. If the 5D wasn't successful, then the 1D3 and 1Ds3 are mega failures.
Hey.Underpants wrote:
Did the 5D honestly outsell the Rebel's and XXD series camera's?
bobbytan wrote:
The 5D's AF was NEVER crappy .... so how can the 5D II's AF be described as crappy? It is a tried-and-proven system .... and in some ways, it is more reliable than the 1D Mk III.
Talk about factual, hard evidence, how can Canon's most successful and biggest selling DSLR have a crappy AF system? Who in their right minds would buy the 5D if it had crappy AF, and were there discussions about the 5D's crappy AF system .... like there were dozens of threads about the 1D3's AF.
i also mentioned that the 5d II can cure cancer, but you didn't seem to latch onto that minor detail
crappy is a very ambiguous descriptor that should be taken in the context by which it is used. i don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that each person has his/ her own expectations of what you *should* get for how much $$$.
in essence, everyone has their own value system and that's ok by me. personally, i think that dSLR prices are extremely over-inflated for what you're really getting. i'm eagerly waiting for the days when the market is completely saturated and the technology is fully matured, so that prices can be more on par with what i see as their actual inherent value (opinion of course).
