I know, this is going to turn into a Nikon vs. Canon thread but I could not find this answer anywhere else. The Canon 5d Mk II and the 1Ds Mk III are widely regarded as the best landscape bodies on the market. Nikon's lineup of cameras are widely regarded as having the best noise handling capabilities. Since the image quality of top of the line Canon's is not going to be THAT much different from the image quality of top of the line Nikon's (and vice versa), why not opt for the camera with better noise handling capabilities? Ok, the 5d mk II blows the D700 out of the water in terms of resolution, but that doesn't exactly matter unless you're cropping the hell out of your photos or making gallery-sized prints. So what's the difference? Why is the 5d mk ii regarded as one of the best landscape bodies around if the D700 will produce basically the same image while handling noise much better? What am I missing? Am I too concerned with noise? (I hate noise. Any amount of noise pisses me off and I strive to get rid of all of it.) Someone please explain why the 5d mk ii and the 1ds mk iii are the best landscape bodies around. I know it's meaningless at this point but my intentions are NOT to create a Nikon vs. Canon thread. I just want to know WHY a certain standard is attached to two specific camera bodies.