Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Canon D5 MKII or Nikon D700 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/canon-d5-mkii-nikon-d700-150766/)

ongaku Jan 4, 2009 5:16 PM

Looking for users of each camera for pros and cons. Looking to get a full framed digital camera and would like others thoughts.

AndyfromVA Jan 4, 2009 7:45 PM

There's also the Sony A900. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-5dmkii.shtml

Mark1616 Jan 4, 2009 8:31 PM

Hi and welcome to Steve's.

A few questions that are likely to help you get some more accurate answers (although most here will only be going by reviews of others etc as we won't have played with them).

What do you want to shoot that is making you think FF (portrait, weddings etc)?

What do you shoot with currently, do you have any investment in lenses/flash etc?

What is it in non FF that is making you look this way, especially as getting good glass is the only way to make the most out of these bodies?

What is your budget for your purchase?

That will do for now ;)

Mark

Edit: if it is FF that you want then still consider the Canon 5D in your list.

ongaku Jan 4, 2009 9:53 PM

First I'm just an avid amateur that likes to shoot a variety of things, mostly wildlife scenes some stills and lots of impromptufamily shots. I've been an avid photographer since way back in Junior High when I had my own dark-room in the basement of my parents home (back in the late 60's so that tells you about how young I am!) I currently use a Canon 10D and my most notable lens is my 100mm f2.8 macro. I am looking to get some great glass with whatever camera I choose and I'm lucky to be in a position that the $$ aren't as important as buying the right camera. As to why a FF camera, to be honest because I can.

Hope this help.







mtclimber Jan 4, 2009 10:21 PM

In all fairness, I sincerely believe that we have to give Andy a big tip of the hat (big congratulations!)for his great link to luminous landscape. It certainly was interesting and once again points out that there might be more that one answer to this question.

Thanks, Andy!

Sarah Joyce

AndyfromVA Jan 4, 2009 10:28 PM

Thanks, Sarah. I enjoy reading about excellent cameras, even though there's no way I'd be able to afford them. If anyone has a spare D5MkII, D700 or A900 they don't want, I'll be glad to take it off your hands!

ongaku Jan 4, 2009 10:31 PM

Yes it was a great link and has made me think about a 3rd choice.

Thanks Andy

Mark1616 Jan 4, 2009 10:39 PM

That certainly does help. I had a play with the mkII on Saturday and I was very impressed with it. I currently own a 1D mkIII a 5D and a 30D so I have all of Canons sensor sizes covered. If you want wildlife then I would go Canon 1D mkIII as you have the better AF, faster shooting and with the slightly smaller sensor you get more reach. For everything else you mention then the 5D mkII will be a beutiful camera. I won't talk about the D700 as my experience of it is about 5mins at a corporate event back in Aug, but it seemed very nice to handle and reports look good.

I know money is not an issue from what you say but for wildlife and to do justice to a 21 mp camera you really will not want to be considering consumer grade glass. Even with the 12 mp of the Nikon you will want to get great glass to optimize the FF sensor. Wildlife, birds etc, you will really want to be in the 400 mm+ range depending what you want to get. I shoot 600 mm on the mkIII and still want more and with the smaller sensor that is a 35 mm equiv of 780mm.

So what am I saying? Basically I love the mkII and hope there will be one keeping my other cameras company later this year, just be aware where there are limitations for certain things. Oh we've not mentioned it yet but the video from it is amazing!!!!

ongaku Jan 5, 2009 5:30 AM

Much thanks Mark. Have you had any experience with the Sony? From the link Andy gave seems like the lenes might be limited but what Sony offers might be a better glass than Canon. Thoughts?

Mark1616 Jan 5, 2009 5:58 AM

In a word 'no'. I've not even seen the Sony in the flesh so can't comment. I used to use Konica Minolta pre Sony buying them out and back then the dSLR system was limited by lens and body options for what I wanted to shoot (sports). There are many more options now with some good looking bodies and also more lenses from 3rd parties as well as Sony (some of the Zeiss lenses are fantastically sharp according to reviews). The choices for Nikon both new and 2nd hand with the top end glass is still a lot better but there you can use a lot of old Minolta gear on the Sonys which is good. One of the major concerns raised from the LL comparison link posted is the evaluative metering issue, I hope that this is something resolved in a firmware update.

Each personsreal world use is different, for me low noise at high ISO is important for weddings and low light work, for others it is not. Also being able to shoot full HD video is a great bonus as in recent times I've been getting into both mediums (the video is only for fun) so having a FF video camera with fast glass would rock. Again for others this is a non issue.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:48 PM.