Canon 5d mark 2 or Nikon D700 (Page 2): Keep in mind the market was different in 2008 than today. The 5D line was the first full-frame option outside the 1D-series. The 5DII retained...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

autofocus wrote:

all I remember about the Canon MKII was that it had some focus issues, but I don't remember the specifics

Keep in mind the market was different in 2008 than today. The 5D line was the first full-frame option outside the 1D-series. The 5DII retained the limited 9-point AF array akin to the Rebel line at that time. The D700 had 45-points. Canon chose to distinguish the 5D as a clear step lower than the 1D-series. They've since added the 6D series as the entry-level full frame and have moved the technology profile of the 5D line up and more closer to the 1D-series.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I shoot both the d700 and the d810. Except for the difference in mps, the quality of their shots are similar. Both are great in low light. I can afford to replace the d700 with a d750 or d610 but to me it wouldn't be worth it. Canon produces good equipment, but I am a Nikon guy and would always stay with Nikon.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi Stevegates,
I'm not a Canon shooter but have recently "gone back" to shooting a D700 after getting caught up in the megapixel hype (D7100, D7200, D750). All of the mentioned cameras are incredible but the old D700 is my go-to, grab & run camera. It just seems to work for about everything except video. Take care & ...

Haydon

The 5DII was weak in the focusing system but that camera was monumental for video in 2008 and changed the course of history because of it. You will need to expose properly to ensure a lack of banding. I'm not disrespecting the Canon whatsoever. There have been times for the low money for a FF, I've thought about buying one as a backup for event work for my EF lenses.

All I can tell you about the Nikon was the IQ was superb and has a very loyal following even today.

User ID

`

khorinek wrote:

I have owned the Canon 5D Mark II, I haven't used
the Nikon. Knowing what I know now, with Canon's
newer technology and better cameras, I would not
recommend the Mark II. It doesn't handle low light
very well.

I've got M43s several years old that do better low
light high ISO than my 5D2. I agree 150% about
the 5D2 not being a low light camera. 6D isn't all
that much better either. But the 5D2 is worse than
the 6D in a verrrrry unfortunate way. The problem
with the 5D2 is not HOW MUCH noise ... nor HOW
SOON [ISO-wise] it intrudes. The problem is that
the 5D2 has the worst looking noise I've seen. No
amount of noise from that camera is tolerable and
I'm quite tolerant of noise when it's not uhgleeee.

Over 90% of hogsters are connaisseurs of low-ISO
high-DR super-resolution ultra-anal imaging. But I
am a connaisseur of IQ-challenged low-light high-
ISO, somewhat noisy, imaging. I know good noise
from bad noise. I don't use the 5D2 anymore. It's
OK for sunny days, but on sunny days I can get at
least equal results from smaller, newer cameras !
I only use it for video cuz I have its battery grip.

.

Stevegates

Thank you

Stevegates

Thank you

Stevegates

Thank you

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Looking at the stats for both cameras, the D700 has the 5D beat in almost every way. Higher res. screen, better in low light, higher burst. The only category the 5D beats the D700 is in age, the 5D is 14 years old, the D700 is 11 yesrs old. Both were great cameras in their day.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ched49 wrote:

Looking at the stats for both cameras, the D700 has the 5D beat in almost every way. Higher res. screen, better in low light, higher burst. The only category the 5D beats the D700 is in age, the 5D is 14 years old, the D700 is 11 yesrs old. Both were great cameras in their day.

Higher res?

Here are a couple of comparison reviews:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D700___483_441

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/vs-5d-mark-ii.htm

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ched49 wrote:

Looking at the stats for both cameras, the D700 has the 5D beat in almost every way. Higher res. screen, better in low light, higher burst. The only category the 5D beats the D700 is in age, the 5D is 14 years old, the D700 is 11 yesrs old. Both were great cameras in their day.

LOL

Haydon

Ched, the 5D2 was the game changer in DSLR film-making back on 2008. Surely there were inadequacies as in every model and brand but Nikon wasn't on par for the video back then. Nikon didn't excel in every area with the D700. Both cameras had their strengths & weaknesses. Canon sold a bucket load of 5D2's.

Here's just one example of Hollywood film making with the 5DII.

http://talesfromtheargo.com/6-famous-examples-of-the-dslr-canon-5d-mark-ii-in-hollywood/

FTR- I probably would have gone a different direction in camera brands knowing what I prefer to do now but, I'm still very happy with my aged gear.

User ID

`

Ched49 wrote:

Looking at the stats for both cameras, the D700
has the 5D beat in almost every way. .........
.........

The thread title. It's not an original 5D,
it's a 5D Mark II. Different camera.

Just check the first post as to the MP
count for the two cameras. The Canon
is 20MP and Nikon is 12MP. That also
confirms it's a Mark-II.

.

Stevegates

Thank you

Stevegates

Thank you