5D Mark II vs D700

gsgary · Feb 16, 2011

Moe said:
I'm curious if on the dog shot (and the horse, too) your camera was tracking the dog the whole time, or if you had pre-focused on the railing he's jumping over. The horse shot wouldn't be that tricky of an autofocus, but a dog sprinting straight toward the camera is a difficult task for many cameras and/or lenses.

The horse was definately tracking not sure about the dog i usually use 1Dmk2's but had to shoot the dogs at ISO3200 so used the 5Dmk1 and was printing on site, but it does not mater what camera you have it's how you use it you have to work with it's strengths and weaknesses, i used to use a 10D for sports and have got some fantastic shots with it

Bitter Jeweler · Feb 16, 2011

gsgary said:
Bitter Jeweler said:

Clearly your images would be better if you shot them with a Nikon. :er:

Click to expand...

I won't be buying Nikon

Me neither. I have too much invested in overpriced, poor quality gear, that barely makes acceptable images, to make the change to the only brand that does it right.

Oh, well, I guess I'll never make a dime in this field.

Formatted · Feb 16, 2011

This is a Canon vs Nikon question in sheeps clothing.

Bitter Jeweler · Feb 16, 2011

But there is no question.
Nikon!

gsgary · Feb 16, 2011

Bitter Jeweler said:
gsgary said:

Bitter Jeweler said:

Clearly your images would be better if you shot them with a Nikon. :er:

Click to expand...

I won't be buying Nikon

Click to expand...

Me neither. I have too much invested in overpriced, poor quality gear, that barely makes acceptable images, to make the change to the only brand that does it right.

Oh, well, I guess I'll never make a dime in this field.

A good tradesman doesn't blame his tools, you should know that

gsgary · Feb 16, 2011

Bitter Jeweler said:
But there is no question.
Nikon!

Shooting sports i would put my 1Dmk2's against any Nikon up to iso1600

Formatted · Feb 16, 2011

Shooting sports i would put my 1Dmk2's against any Nikon up to iso1600

And above 1600 ISO?

gsgary · Feb 16, 2011

Formatted said:
Shooting sports i would put my 1Dmk2's against any Nikon up to iso1600

Click to expand...

And above 1600 ISO?

I shoot at ISO3200 and print them on site no problem with them
I think we should set up a contest between Nikon shooters and Canon shooters

bentcountershaft · Feb 16, 2011

gsgary said:
I think we should set up a contest between Nikon shooters and Canon shooters

For me there's no need for a contest. I can take equally bad photos with any Nikon as I can with my Rebel.

DirtyDFeckers · Feb 16, 2011

The bottom line is that both companies make incredible cameras. If that weren't the case, then these arguments wouldn't exist. As for me, I would go for the D700, just for the low light performance. It's common sense really... you have 2 full frame sensors, one of which you are putting 12mp of data onto, and the other, 21mp of data. For most images, you will never need a resolution greater that 12mp anyways. I also prefer the D700 because of its faster fps (up to 8fps with battery grip vs 3.9fps with the Canon). However, for portrait photography and other still shots, I think one would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other in the image quality department. In the end, it all really boils down to brand loyalty. Nikon people will say Canon sucks, and Canon people will say the same of Nikon. Both are industry leaders, both make fantastic products, period.

Village Idiot · Feb 17, 2011

DirtyDFeckers said:
The bottom line is that both companies make incredible cameras. If that weren't the case, then these arguments wouldn't exist. As for me, I would go for the D700, just for the low light performance. It's common sense really... you have 2 full frame sensors, one of which you are putting 12mp of data onto, and the other, 21mp of data. For most images, you will never need a resolution greater that 12mp anyways. I also prefer the D700 because of its faster fps (up to 8fps with battery grip vs 3.9fps with the Canon). However, for portrait photography and other still shots, I think one would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other in the image quality department. In the end, it all really boils down to brand loyalty. Nikon people will say Canon sucks, and Canon people will say the same of Nikon. Both are industry leaders, both make fantastic products, period.

Oh my, Hasselblad, Pentax, and any other digital medium format camera maker must not have been told. They must shut down immediately lest the go bankrupt. Nikon, please stop selling the D3s, I implore you! It shall be your downfall! It's just common sense!

My 5D MKII must be a rebranded D700. It takes excellent high ISO shots. I have usable concert photos at 6400 ISO. I guess the photos being in focus means it's not a 5D MKII either. And shooting at 4 fps has to be incredibly limiting since all the Nikon shooters say so, I must be shooting at 8fps since I'm able to get the shots I want. Oh, and I crop it down to 12mp for a teensy weensy file right off the bat so I don't have a large image to work with in post. That would be absolutely horrible to have a 21mp or larger image.

DirtyDFeckers · Feb 17, 2011

Village Idiot said:
DirtyDFeckers said:

The bottom line is that both companies make incredible cameras. If that weren't the case, then these arguments wouldn't exist. As for me, I would go for the D700, just for the low light performance. It's common sense really... you have 2 full frame sensors, one of which you are putting 12mp of data onto, and the other, 21mp of data. For most images, you will never need a resolution greater that 12mp anyways. I also prefer the D700 because of its faster fps (up to 8fps with battery grip vs 3.9fps with the Canon). However, for portrait photography and other still shots, I think one would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other in the image quality department. In the end, it all really boils down to brand loyalty. Nikon people will say Canon sucks, and Canon people will say the same of Nikon. Both are industry leaders, both make fantastic products, period.

Click to expand...

Oh my, Hasselblad, Pentax, and any other digital medium format camera maker must not have been told. They must shut down immediately lest the go bankrupt. Nikon, please stop selling the D3s, I implore you! It shall be your downfall! It's just common sense!

My 5D MKII must be a rebranded D700. It takes excellent high ISO shots. I have usable concert photos at 6400 ISO. I guess the photos being in focus means it's not a 5D MKII either. And shooting at 4 fps has to be incredibly limiting since all the Nikon shooters say so, I must be shooting at 8fps since I'm able to get the shots I want. Oh, and I crop it down to 12mp for a teensy weensy file right off the bat so I don't have a large image to work with in post. That would be absolutely horrible to have a 21mp or larger image.

Dude, relax. Don't get all offended and start whining like someone made a personal attack on you. I brought up the fps of the 2 cameras simply because I am a sports photographer for a local newspaper, and 3.9fps simply wouldn't cut it for me. I never said the 5d2 took bad photos. If you could read, you would actually see that I did nothing but give credit to both companies.

Village Idiot · Feb 17, 2011

DirtyDFeckers said:
Village Idiot said:

DirtyDFeckers said:

The bottom line is that both companies make incredible cameras. If that weren't the case, then these arguments wouldn't exist. As for me, I would go for the D700, just for the low light performance. It's common sense really... you have 2 full frame sensors, one of which you are putting 12mp of data onto, and the other, 21mp of data. For most images, you will never need a resolution greater that 12mp anyways. I also prefer the D700 because of its faster fps (up to 8fps with battery grip vs 3.9fps with the Canon). However, for portrait photography and other still shots, I think one would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other in the image quality department. In the end, it all really boils down to brand loyalty. Nikon people will say Canon sucks, and Canon people will say the same of Nikon. Both are industry leaders, both make fantastic products, period.

Click to expand...

Oh my, Hasselblad, Pentax, and any other digital medium format camera maker must not have been told. They must shut down immediately lest the go bankrupt. Nikon, please stop selling the D3s, I implore you! It shall be your downfall! It's just common sense!

My 5D MKII must be a rebranded D700. It takes excellent high ISO shots. I have usable concert photos at 6400 ISO. I guess the photos being in focus means it's not a 5D MKII either. And shooting at 4 fps has to be incredibly limiting since all the Nikon shooters say so, I must be shooting at 8fps since I'm able to get the shots I want. Oh, and I crop it down to 12mp for a teensy weensy file right off the bat so I don't have a large image to work with in post. That would be absolutely horrible to have a 21mp or larger image.

Click to expand...

Dude, relax. Don't get all offended and start whining like someone made a personal attack on you. I brought up the fps of the 2 cameras simply because I am a sports photographer for a local newspaper, and 3.9fps simply wouldn't cut it for me. I never said the 5d2 took bad photos. If you could read, you would actually see that I did nothing but give credit to both companies.