5D Mk ii vs D700

[bb45pz]

OK I did a bit of a search on here and couldn't find any threads with this subject. I'm looking to upgrade from a D80 to either 5D Mkii or D700.

Advantages of the Nikon is that I possibly wouldn't have to replace the lens's that I already have (please correct me if you think that I should) and that my wife also shoots with Nikon and we could probably share some gear (although she isn't really that serious and doesn't like to even change lens's).

The main concern that I have is that the Nikon has only 12ish Megapixels and the Canon 21ish. I'm looking to get more serious about landscapes so printing large is probably going to be part of the brief. I like all the other Nikon features over the Canon but this one feature seems to be a bit glaring.

I've also noted that the other photographers on this forum and others whose work I most revere, from what I can tell shoot with the 5D mk ii.

So, anyone with the D700 or 5D mk ii that has done the research and picked one or the other please pipe up.

Thanks in advance.

[Jimbo]

I've never weighed that option as I shot Canon previously, but I can only say good things about the 5D.

The high ISO performance is brilliant, the only weakness at all is the AF system and the motor drive compared to something like the 1D (more AF points, faster motor drive), but then again you pay extra for that I guess.

Be aware that 21MP means BIG files - longer transfer times and more storage. A full RAW file can be ~27MB. I got a bit of a shock when I put in my old 2GB memory card! :Doh:

My biggest complaint is that I don't have enough good glass to make the most of it! lol.

[I @ M]

There is only ONE question that needs to be asked to reply to your original post.

How large do you want to print?

[Redgum]

I shoot with a Nikon D3X (24mp) and a D700 (12mp) and often defer to the D700 as my preference. Megapixels shouldn't be a priority. :)

[darkc]

I had the same choice to make a couple of years ago when I upgraded my system. I went with the D700 purely because of the superior ergonomics and build quality. I have never regretted it, not even for a second. It's the best all round camera I have ever owned (not that I have had that many). My mate has a 5DMKii and I can safely say I prefer the results of the D700's 12 megapixels over the 5DMKii's 21. I prefer the slightly softer appearance, it looks more real to life.

So i guess the question I would be asking myself is how important is it to me to make larger prints?

[Bear Dale]

From every review I've read, I've always been happy that I own the 5DMKII

[bb45pz]

Oh dear, I should have known I'd get totally mixed responses.

I guess the inevitable question is, at what print size will you notice the difference in image quality?

If I can get away with getting the D700 and print high quality at say 50-70 inches then I guess thats what I'll do. The autofocus was the primary reason for my preference towards the D700, just in case I start to do other things with it.

[Redgum]

I've got a 8m billboard in Moorooka, Brisbane shot with the D700. Is that big enough?

[jasevk]

D700 is 12mp.... 5DII 24ish mp... Same sized sensor. Half the mp (d700) on the same size sensor means bigger pixels. Bigger pixels equals superior low light performance

[TEITZY]

I think for your situation the 5D2 is a no brainer really. Looks like you're not that heavily invested in Nikon glass and you would probably be up for 14-24 anyway to get the most out of the D700. Nikon will probably release a higher MP prosumer body in the next 12 months but why wait for something that may or may not happen :D

Cheers
Leigh

[Kym]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/483|0/%28appareil2%29/628|0/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

[scpleta]

check out this DxOMark website (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/483|0/(appareil2)/441|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon) and maybe it will give you a clearer perspective of what to choose.

[darkc]

50-70 inches! You must have some huge wall space to fill :-) I just returned from a trip to Tibet and while in Lhasa photographing people in amongst the crowds I would not have got the people shots I did without the quick tracking autofocus on the D700. Its amazing! Almost feels like your cheating letting the camera do so much of the work. The landscapes I shot were none to shabby either, I am always amazed at the quality of the files out of this camera.

[scpleta]

ooops. kym and i seem to have one thing in mind by posting the same website. hmmm... how should i delete mine to avoid the double up? help please...:o

[JM Tran]

I've got a 8m billboard in Moorooka, Brisbane shot with the D700. Is that big enough?

bad example actually, all depends on viewing distance and DPI

I would go with the 5DMKII for the extra megapixels and ability tor resolve greater details at a good DPI, when viewed from a meter or more away. Not 30 meters away when driving past in a car or something.

[TOM]

both cameras will do essentially the same thing. and don't concern yourself too much with the camera, you will have likely given it the flick in a few years....but the lenses you have and buy now should last for decades. lenses should be the main choice in your decision, and both companies make decent glass. so imho, the choice is obvious; your wife has nikon glass, you already have nikon glass, so if the D700 fits the budget, then grab it and start taking some pics. 50-70" is a massive print, but for the average print, both these diggicams will romp it in.

[rwg717]

both cameras will do essentially the same thing. and don't concern yourself too much with the camera, you will have likely given it the flick in a few years....but the lenses you have and buy now should last for decades. lenses should be the main choice in your decision, and both companies make decent glass. so imho, the choice is obvious; your wife has nikon glass, you already have nikon glass, so if the D700 fits the budget, then grab it and start taking some pics. 50-70" is a massive print, but for the average print, both these diggicams will romp it in.

Yep, this is what I was going to say, the camera body comes and goes but the glass stays. Think you would be wasting money on high-end Canon lenses which might be better put towards new Nikon cameras, these 2 companies go really hard at each-other with new models but the lenses don't change that much I have found:confused013, sure they add an IS or a VR here and there and then a Mk.II or Mk.III version, then people start "blowing-up" that the new version isn't as good as the old one....it's endless. Stick with Nikon:confused013
Richard

[Redgum]

bad example actually, all depends on viewing distance and DPI

I would go with the 5DMKII for the extra megapixels and ability tor resolve greater details at a good DPI, when viewed from a meter or more away. Not 30 meters away when driving past in a car or something.
All relative JM - like watching a 30" TV screen from 10 metres compared to a 20" screen from 5 metres. Also depends on the picture and the processing. Megapixels are not paramount.

[TOM]

true Red, resolution rarely has anything to do with a good photograph.

[bb45pz]

Thanks for the help everyone. Looking at the DXO website it seems that the Nikon has the edge (I hope I'm reading that right).

Ok say I stay with the Nikon, and I do like that my wife and I can share gear. I'm looking at getting a Sigma 10-20mm and keeping the existing Nikkor 50mm and 28-105.

Are these 3 lens's considered to be quality lens's, or should I sell the lens's that I have with the D80 and get a kit with say a 24-120 VR and some other lens's that will likely provide better results.

[JM Tran]

true Red, resolution rarely has anything to do with a good photograph.

I beg to differ actually, I have hired medium format Hassys at 40mp and 65mp etc for client works and demands from clients, either for the amount of dynamic range, tonal gradation and details being resolved. Same goes for any professional landscape photographers shooting to sell or for a client, why bother lugging those big digital large format cameras around, its heavy! Otherwise, I'd stick with shooting everything with my Pentax DL with 6 megapixels from years ago.

Of course, if you are an amateur, extra MPs dont always mean a better photo.

[Redgum]

Can't disagree with that JM they sure have a purpose. But my boss, National Geographic and the Discovery Channel are more than happy with 12 megapixels. And I could add Newsweek plus a hundred national and international magazines. Plus I've never had any agency in Australia complain about that resolution either.
Besides, in the very rare circumstance of needing more than 12 Mps I'll do what you did, hire the appropriate gear. Better business that way and I make more money.
Also, we're in the days of manipulating and merging images, particularly for advertising, so God knows what we end up with after the graphic artists get hold of it.

[TOM]

"there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" A. Adams

If resolution was really that important, we'd all be shooting large format. And the vast majority of pro landscapers do shoot large format, and resolution is only part of why the do so. I have clients that have their own set of demands, but just because they demand it, it doesn't mean they are right. I'm not saying there isn't a place for mf/lf cameras, but if you make a good image, the resolution is rarely important. If you start out with a requirement that you have to shoot a certain size, then you need the right tool for the job, but that specialty tool doesn't guarantee a good result. Of course if you're shooting product shots, then resolution is important, but those types of shots aren't usually good photographs, they're just a means to an end.


Otherwise, I'd stick with shooting everything with my Pentax DL with 6 megapixels from years ago.

I suspect that a great deal of your work could be shot on the Pentax, and still get you the results you need/want. I have been shooting a lot on my iPhone, and the pictures could go 8x10 on canvas.

[JM Tran]

Can't disagree with that JM they sure have a purpose. But my boss, National Geographic and the Discovery Channel are more than happy with 12 megapixels. And I could add Newsweek plus a hundred national and international magazines. Plus I've never had any agency in Australia complain about that resolution either.
Besides, in the very rare circumstance of needing more than 12 Mps I'll do what you did, hire the appropriate gear. Better business that way and I make more money.
Also, we're in the days of manipulating and merging images, particularly for advertising, so God knows what we end up with after the graphic artists get hold of it.

thats def true mate, hire when I need to as I dont see it to be a wise 'investment' to drop 60k mortgage on a new Hasselblad that I might use a few times a year:) And regarding, web and graphic designers and editors etc getting your files after, quite often their outcome was a lot diff to what I expected. But in my genres of work, they need all the MP they can get for cropping. Might take a nice shot, and find out later the published work is a 1/4 crop of the original image......sigh

[arthurking83]

The D700 will have a better dynamic range capability if that's important to you for landscapes.
I believe it should be for landscapes!(as opposed to more pixels).

note that Nikon have recently claimed in an interview that they'll be looking to up res their next generation of sensors(ie. we guess that means the D3/700 series) whilst maintaining high ISO noise ability.

But if that comes at the expense of dynamic range, I'd stick to the current generation D3/700 sensor's 12Mp output.

One thing to note about ultimate detail in an image is the ability of the lens to capture that microfine detail as well, so having extra megapixels but using slightly inferior lenses to begin with may be equal to the same ultimate output as the end result.
Already noted is Nikon's 14-24mm zoom, and while it's heavy cumbersome and doesn't readily accept filters, it's ability is beyond even the D3x's 25megapixel count, surpassing it's resolving power.

So you said:

.... I'm looking to get more serious about landscapes so printing large is probably going to be part of the brief. I like all the other Nikon features over the Canon but this one feature seems to be a bit glaring......

what are the other parts to the brief?
Is there a limited cash fund?
Does it have to be a Nikon or Canon?
If Mp count is the major factor, and value for money is a high priority then nothing comes close to the Sony A800 for both(at the same time of course! :rolleyes:). Get some decent CZ glass, of which they are some of the best also!.. and you're set to sell 100" prints.

according to my preferred sources of info:
in terms of sheer resolving power the Sony A800 + CZ 16-35/2.8 will win in terms of ability to resolve fine detail.
next would be the 5D plus 16-35/2.8, but the lens doesn't resolve as much detail as the Nikon 14-24mm can, so in actual real life terms, I think it may be a closer run thing that the pure Mp numbers may be indicating, between the Nikon D700+(14-24)mm combo and the Canon 5D+(16-35) combo.
if it were my money, I'd be putting it into the nikon... with an almost guaranteed soon to be released D700x in the next 6 months(if nikon's recent history is anything to go by.
if I had no problems in changing brands and indeed operating two brands concurrently, then the Sony option would be my preference going by current system specs.
(otherwise I'd wait for another few months to see what nikon has in store over the coming Chrissy period :th3:)

I have to admit I've never printed any of my stash of a 'billion and a half' images (seriously) but I do have two images I'd like to print at 1 meter sized prints, both of which were taken by my lowly 6Mp D70s. They've both been cropped to a wide looking pano format, and the printer told me that as long as they're sharp(which they are), 1 meter prints should not be a problem for the 3000 pixel width of the image.
I need to save the image in the highest quality Tiff format and it'll apparently come out fine.
Larger physical pixels can be up-rezed a lot better than smaller photosites can be ...
Note the printer(Prism Graphics here in Melbourne) explained this to me and they do it for me! I only supply the tiff file as best as I can.

Note that a Sigma 10-20mm, while it will still work on the D700, is a bad investment as it'll really only end up using approximately only 6.5Mp of the available 12Mp.

A better investment is a Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. They usually sell for about just under $1K and are good enough for most purposes... just be mindful of your toes! :D

[bb45pz]

Thanks for the information Arthur.

There is a limited cash amount (probably around $7000 including whatever lens's and a few filters). I don't have a problem changing brands but for some reason have either Canon or Nikon stuck in my head and probably am not comfortable going away from these two when talking about this price range.

After looking at the DXO website I came to the conclusion that, particularly for an amateur like me, dynamic range is more important that MP so I think I'll stick with the D700.

Say I go for the Nikon 12-24mm and keep my 50mm and 28-105mm, which telephoto would you recommend for the D700, was considering the Nikkor f4.5-5.6 80-400mm ED?

Thanks again for all the help.

[arnica]

Thanks for the information Arthur.

There is a limited cash amount (probably around $7000 including whatever lens's and a few filters). I don't have a problem changing brands but for some reason have either Canon or Nikon stuck in my head and probably am not comfortable going away from these two when talking about this price range.

After looking at the DXO website I came to the conclusion that, particularly for an amateur like me, dynamic range is more important that MP so I think I'll stick with the D700.

Say I go for the Nikon 12-24mm and keep my 50mm and 28-105mm, which telephoto would you recommend for the D700, was considering the Nikkor f4.5-5.6 80-400mm ED?

Thanks again for all the help.

Why would you look past the 70-200 VRII?

[jasevk]

Why would you look past the 70-200 VRII?

Agreed...... Magnificent lens.... If you need longer throw in a 2x teleconverter

[arthurking83]

When looking for lenses make sure that in the lens's name description, the description doesn't include 'Dx'.

The Dx refers to the smaller sized sensors, so they become limited on the Fx sized sensor.

Nikon 12-24 will work on the D700, but really becomes an 18-24mm lens at Fx setting, and even though it'll work in Dx mode, that's subsequently only @ 6Mp.

Alternatives include the Nikon 16-35mm f/4VR and the 17-35mm/2.8, both lenses are more than capable on a D700 :th3:

As for telephoto lens, because I'm assuming it's for birding the 80-400VR is a good lens and the D700 has more than capable focusing ability to make this lens work ok.
If it's for portraiture or sports shooting from a close-ish distance arnica's suggestion is the best.
You could also add a Nikon 2x teleconverter to that lens, and the TC20EIII seems to work well :th3:

[dulvariprestige]

If you need to get more out of the files from the d700, you could always use onone's genuine fractals, from what I've learnt, this is the software to use when you want to do really big prints.

Plus the d700's focusing and fps would be better if you did want to shoot sport or wildlife.

[mkooper]

I like the additional MPs as it allows me to take a larger framed picture and crop to desire.

Careful about the lenses you listed above. I upgrade to 5DII and had to sell the Sigma 10-20 as it does not fit on a full-frame camera.

[bigdazzler]

Does it have to be a Nikon or Canon?
If Mp count is the major factor, and value for money is a high priority then nothing comes close to the Sony A800 for both(at the same time of course! :rolleyes:). Get some decent CZ glass, of which they are some of the best also!.. and you're set to sell 100" prints.



How many times AK ... A850 !!! :rolleyes: :p

Yep ... Ive got a 10m self portrait billboard going up on the side of Sydney Town Hall any day now ... Geez I look good too :D

[bb45pz]

Ok so here we have it.

Nikon D700
Nikon 28-105 and Nikon 50mm f1.8 which I already have just as general purpose lenses.
Nikon 16-35 f4 for wide angle and either Nikon 80-400 or 70-200 VRII with teleconverter for wildlife.

Is this setup compatible to make the most of the D700 full frame sensor?

Thanks Arthur for your unbelievably helpful advice, thanks everyone else also for your contributions.

[Darinpix]

Lots of good advice here - and remarkably little Canon vs Nikon sniping! Certainly lens investment has got to be a primary consideration, and almost enough to base the entire decision on. Another factor well worth considering is camera ergonomics. Nikon and Canon take very different approaches to control layout, and switching from one to the other is not that simple. I favour Canon's simple approach with a main dial and thumbwheel controlling most things, but I know a lot of people rate Nikon's "dedicated button for everything" approach.

Sooo... hire out a body for a weekend, have a play, and choose the one you prefer. Nowadays, image quality, ISO range, colour, tonality etc. are simply outstanding whichever way you go - so pick the body that YOU find more intuitive.

[ricktas]

Lots of good advice here - and remarkably little Canon vs Nikon sniping!

That's cause we don't allow to much. A bit of a jab here or there in fun is ok, but we are fairly strict on the baiting etc on this site.

[bigdazzler]

I favour Canon's simple approach

.

and Sonys are even simpler. My entire A850 is controlled from a one touch Fn button, and a single joystick. IMO Sony has Canikon covered easily in terms of menu layout, and ease of use and navigation.

[arthurking83]

....

Sooo... hire out a body for a weekend, have a play, and choose the one you prefer. ......

if better ergonomics are a priority, then even just a very short stint at playing with a camera on the shop floor will suffice to determine which one is better for you.

The OP has semi decided that the D700 is the camera for him(so far) and going from a D80, the D700 will be easy peasy in terms of understanding the workings of the controls.

I've never used a Canon 5D, but I have now on two occasions had difficulty 'operating' two lower end Canon bodies(I think something like a 350D wayyy back and recently a 1000 type body who's owners had no idea on how to control various aspects of the camera).
In the time that it took to figure out how to control ISO, aperture(it must have been set to shutter priority??) and exposure compensation to at least help them get the shot, the day was over. I reckon it took me about 30sec to 1min, to figure out that I couldn't figure it out, and as all three of us looked up the sunset was now gone.
Ergonomics should come naturally, and BigDazzer has mentioned that Sony's have good menus and ergos, and I tend to agree with him(based on my playing with a friend's lowly A100 type camera).

[Redgum]

and Sonys are even simpler. My entire A850 is controlled from a one touch Fn button, and a single joystick. IMO Sony has Canikon covered easily in terms of menu layout, and ease of use and navigation.
Much like a point and shoot, Darren?

[bigdazzler]

Much like a point and shoot, Darren?

Not quite mate, like a DSLR with a Fn button that gives you access to pretty much the entire camera. You can toggle through, and access, all the functions of the camera on the LCD using the joystick.

It also has one touch dedicated buttons on the body for all commonly used critical functions like ISO, WB, motor drive, EV Comp, Metering, AF, etc .. So you rarely even need the Fn button anyway.

They are very intuitive, and user friendly mate. I have played with both Canons and Nikons and I feel Sonys are by far the best laid out of all when it comes to menus and button layout.

I suppose like anything though, you will become accustomed to your chosen brand, but the thing with the Sonys is, when I first picked up a DSLR in the shop, I wasnt immediately overwhelmed by the camera. It made sense, even to an absolute noob :)

http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq176/DarrenGrayPhotography/sony-a850-viewsa.jpg

[Redgum]

Ah! I see. Much the same as a Canon or a Nikon.

[bigdazzler]

Ah! I see. Much the same as a Canon or a Nikon.

I dont necessarily agree .... I find both of them a lot harder to navigate when you go deeper into the menus, and a lot more confusing in where the features are placed within the menus. I was on a workshop the other day, and had a bit of a look at one of the students 7Ds .... well, Im glad Im not using that camera.

Im not saying the Sony is any better or worse overall than anything else, but in that regard I find it much more user friendly. Horses for courses I suppose.

[peterb666]

If you already have a collection of Nikon lenses, stick with the Nikon. Likewise with Canon.

If you don't have any ties with either, choose the camera body based on the lenses you want.

The body will be obsolete in 4 or 5 years but you will probably use the lenses on a number of camera bodies. Both Canon and Nikon make fine cameras (and lenses).

[2cr4ck]

Thanks for the information Arthur.

There is a limited cash amount (probably around $7000 including whatever lens's and a few filters). I don't have a problem changing brands but for some reason have either Canon or Nikon stuck in my head and probably am not comfortable going away from these two when talking about this price range.

After looking at the DXO website I came to the conclusion that, particularly for an amateur like me, dynamic range is more important that MP so I think I'll stick with the D700.

Say I go for the Nikon 12-24mm and keep my 50mm and 28-105mm, which telephoto would you recommend for the D700, was considering the Nikkor f4.5-5.6 80-400mm ED?

Thanks again for all the help.

Do you mean 14-24mm rather 12-24mm? 12-24mm is DX lens and if you going for D700, I would go with FX lens.

[ricktas]

OK I did a bit of a search on here and couldn't find any threads with this subject. I'm looking to upgrade from a D80 to either 5D Mkii or D700.

Advantages of the Nikon is that I possibly wouldn't have to replace the lens's that I already have (please correct me if you think that I should) and that my wife also shoots with Nikon and we could probably share some gear (although she isn't really that serious and doesn't like to even change lens's).

The main concern that I have is that the Nikon has only 12ish Megapixels and the Canon 21ish. I'm looking to get more serious about landscapes so printing large is probably going to be part of the brief. I like all the other Nikon features over the Canon but this one feature seems to be a bit glaring.

I've also noted that the other photographers on this forum and others whose work I most revere, from what I can tell shoot with the 5D mk ii.

So, anyone with the D700 or 5D mk ii that has done the research and picked one or the other please pipe up.

Thanks in advance.

Some thoughts:

You have a 28-105 listed in your signature, did you mean the 18-105 (http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=1282-150d0ae5b3)? If so, that is a DX lens, designed for a cropped sensor camera. It will work on a D700, but will leave you with photos that are about 5-6 MP.

Now, what is the new camera body going to offer you that your D80 cannot? To give you a direct thing to answer on. How would this photo (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=60323) or this photo (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=62435) be better if you took them with a D700 or a 5d mkII? When you know the answer to that, and can give it to us, then you are ready to upgrade.

[bb45pz]

Thanks Rick.

The lens is a 28-105 and not a DX lens. The actual focal length wide open on my current body is 42mm instead of 28.

I'm just about to invest in a wide angle and telephoto lens and thought that I'd upgrade the body to a full frame sensor body.

I guess this is where I haven't entirely got a handle on it however, if I use a 10mm DX lens on a DX sensor, and a 10mm full frame lens on a full frame sensor, do i capture exactly the same field of view?

Despite the question above, my other reasons are...

I'm hoping to gain some improvement in dynamic range and colour vibrance as the sensor in the D80 is only a CCD sensor rather than CMOS. I know that I could just go for the D90 or D300 but the cost is not that much extra.

I'm also hoping that the D700 will have much improved noise characteristics allowing higher ISO settings without the noise of the D80. I have noise problems currently on ISO400 and above and as such, shoot almost always on IS100. Its not that I have any intention of shooting on higher ISO than necessary but there are times when it would be convenient.

I would also like to do some longer exposures, several minutes for example, and the D80 has some real problems with sensor hotspots so this is also a consideration.

As for the two photos that you referenced... #1 I don't think would have been improved significantly with a different body and #2 required a fair bit of post processing to get it where it is, mainly in the sky area. It would also be much closer to what I want to see with the wide angle lens. Now I'm aware that filters are the key for this type of problem and part of this upgrade is going to be more filters on top of what I already have, but an increase in dynamic range would be nice.

I guess the other point is that the photos that i post here are the ones that I'm happy with, it'd be nice to be able to try some different things or possibly get away with a bit more and hopefully have a better useful--not useful hit ratio.

Now I know that most of this can be achieved without going to a D700 and a D300 would probably suffice, however if spending $2000 why not just spend $3000 on the body ???

[bb45pz]

I'm pretty much set on Nikon, based on the opinions here that MP isn't the be all and end all. I've been using the D80 for about 3-4 months and am quite happy with the Nikon layout and ergonomics.

Besides, if I can keep my existing lenses and make use of them then that'll save a bit.

[Jimbo]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics, I've never had a problem with either of mine. On my 5D, everything I ever need is on the series of buttons across the top, I rarely have to go into the menus.

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me :confused013

To the OP, it's sounds like Nikon is the camera for you, enjoy your new toy :)

[AdamR]

I would go with Nikon as you mentioned thats what your wife shoots with. They are both wonderful cameras and you wont know what your missing from the other one unless your using both. The D700 is a gem.

I liked Nikon but I went Canon as that is what my family and wife use. Made it a no brainer for me.

[bb45pz]

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me

Yeah I'm a bit the same with that as well, it takes a day or so and I've got most of the buttons and menus down pat. Its probably good that my wifes camera is the same brand as mine though as she isn't quite as good with the tech stuff and it makes it easy to help.

Thanks for the help.

[joele]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics, I've never had a problem with either of mine. On my 5D, everything I ever need is on the series of buttons across the top, I rarely have to go into the menus.

I like the Canon ergonomics too.. Though I think with all models it is just a matter of getting accustomed to how each works..

[farmer_rob]

...
The lens is a 28-105 and not a DX lens. The actual focal length wide open on my current body is 42mm instead of 28.

I'm just about to invest in a wide angle and telephoto lens and thought that I'd upgrade the body to a full frame sensor body.

I guess this is where I haven't entirely got a handle on it however, if I use a 10mm DX lens on a DX sensor, and a 10mm full frame lens on a full frame sensor, do i capture exactly the same field of view?
....


To paraphrase another member of the forum - "focal length is focal length is focal length". The concept of "equivalent focal length" is wrong, and a misrepresentation of the crop factor.

You are confusing field of view with focal length. The 10mm focal length will be the same regardless of DX/FX (or for that matter 4/3rds, m4/3rds or MF/LF). However, the image circle that results on the sensor is what matters.

10mm on a DX sensor will give a narrower (smaller) FOV than the 10mm on a FX sensor, because the FX sensor gets the parts of the image "that fall off the edge" of the DX sensor.

Note - this is why there are DX lenses - they produce smaller image circles that waste less light (ie less falls outside the sensor), but because the image circle is smaller, they are cheaper to produce (less glass etc.)

If you use a DX lens on an FX camera, only the central portion of the FX sensor will have an image circle, giving a somewhat extreme vignetting effect if left alone. (However, I believe the FX cameras automatically recognise the DX lens and only use the DX equivalent area of the sensor for those photographs.

(Check luminous landscape here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml)for some more detailed information with diagrams)

(Oh, and the actual focal length of your 28-105mm is 28mm.)

[Redgum]

Maybe I'm just too much of a tech geek and all this stuff comes naturally to me :confused013

But of course, being a tech geek has absolutely nothing to do with being a good photographer, often a handicap. :)

[Jimbo]

But of course, being a tech geek has absolutely nothing to do with being a good photographer, often a handicap. :)

But of course, I never claimed to be a good photographer :p

[bb45pz]

(Oh, and the actual focal length of your 28-105mm is 28mm.)

Thanks for the info Rob. You're right I was confusing the two.

I guess the main question that I had further to this would be if using a 10mm lens thats suited to DX sensor on a DX body and a 10mm lens thats suited to FX sensor on an FX body, would the field of view produced by both be the same?

[ricktas]

I really don't get all the hate on Canon's ergonomics1

I don't either. Once you understand your camera, with a DSLR fairly much everything is available via buttons and wheels. It is on the initial setup that sees me entering the menu all that much, setting RAW, colourspace etc. Once that is done, I use my Nikons and rarely enter the menu system.

[I @ M]

bb45pz, around 18 months ago I hand held ( sat in a chair actually ) one of our D200 bodies with a Sigma 10-20mm on it @ 10mm and took a couple of shots then straight away repeated the shots with a D700 and a 14-24 Nikkor @ 14mm and the depth of field and field of view ( same aperture ) was almost identical.
The BIG difference was the level of distortion and detail rendered on the D700 14-24 combo -- much better.

And --- as far as I know, for a full frame Nikon body at the moment the widest lens other than a fisheye is going to be a 12-24mm Sigma.

[bb45pz]

I @ M, thanks for that info.

I'm tossing up between Nikon lenses at the moment. As I want the wide angle to be my primary lens for landscapes I don't mind spending a bit on it, particularly as if I do go for the FX body then I want to make the most of any other advantages it might have also.

[Zac]

Doubling resolution only gets you 41% more DPI. To double the DPI you need 4x the resolution... think about two images : 1000x1000 pixels vs 2000x2000 pixels and you'll see what I mean.

As others have said image quality depends more on things like having the best quality glass. The D700 is an excellent camera...

[farmer_rob]

I @ M, thanks for that info.

I'm tossing up between Nikon lenses at the moment. As I want the wide angle to be my primary lens for landscapes I don't mind spending a bit on it, particularly as if I do go for the FX body then I want to make the most of any other advantages it might have also.

As I see it, you have two major advantages on FX for landscapes:
- better choice of wide angle lenses, without the need for very short focal lengths to get the same FOV (Note that in I@M's example, he used a 10mm on DX and 14mm on FX to get the same field of view),
- higher quality wide angle lenses (at a price)

[RaoulIsidro]

Both are very good cameras, no doubt.
Putting aside all techno gizmo reso wambo jumbo...
Each has a unique sensor design that displays a different "feel" from each other.
One can only discern this after thousands of images from both cameras.
I would use the Nikon for people photography because to me, it renders flesh magnificently.
I would use the Canon for everything else.

[maccaroneski]

How's this for an idea? (to be taken with a grain of salt).

Keep the D80.

Take your $7k, and buy a 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and a 14-24 and a TC-20III. Keep the 28-105 as a walkaround / travel lens.

Wait a year, save some money, and buy whatever replaces the D700.

You will then have the "perfect" kit, and be able to take plenty of fine shots in the meantime with that glass.

[Dylan & Marianne]

i have not used anything nikon in my life so I can't help you with that side of the debate.
What I can tell you though, is that we have been printing reasonably large (20"x30") from files generated from our old 40D (10+ MP) and from the 5dmkII.
You'd be kidding yourself if you said you couldn't tell the difference in resolution between the two from up close viewing (ie gallery situations). The D700 is undoubtedly better than the 40D in other ways so I guess the differences aren't entirely due to MP count - but that is my anecdote to share.

the 5dmkII 's low light capabilities in terms of image quality are fantastic (eg wedding receptions) - but once again, I cannot give you a nikon comparator.

I can tell you that if you want to go taking your 5dmkII out in harsh conditions - be very very careful with it - mine has died to moisture that wasn't even direct contact. (iceland - cold, high humidity , waterfall spray etc). It is not known for its weather sealing.

[bb45pz]

How's this for an idea? (to be taken with a grain of salt).

Keep the D80.

Take your $7k, and buy a 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and a 14-24 and a TC-20III. Keep the 28-105 as a walkaround / travel lens.

Wait a year, save some money, and buy whatever replaces the D700.

You will then have the "perfect" kit, and be able to take plenty of fine shots in the meantime with that glass.

I have considered that idea, however with bodies its always the case that something better will soon be out and if you waited then you'd never buy. I think/hope the current D700 specs will do the trick for at least a few years.

[bb45pz]

I can tell you that if you want to go taking your 5dmkII out in harsh conditions - be very very careful with it - mine has died to moisture that wasn't even direct contact. (iceland - cold, high humidity , waterfall spray etc). It is not known for its weather sealing.

I had read similar things anecdotally and it was one of the reasons for preferring the Nikon.

Thanks for the help.

[maccaroneski]

I have considered that idea, however with bodies its always the case that something better will soon be out and if you waited then you'd never buy. I think/hope the current D700 specs will do the trick for at least a few years.

I was thinking more along the lines that right now, you'd get better bang for your buck with some great glass (which will last forever) whereas bodies come and go, and that it might be a happy coincidence that if it took you a while longer to save for the body, then it might be a happy coincidence if the new version was out.

[Redgum]

I was thinking more along the lines that right now, you'd get better bang for your buck with some great glass (which will last forever) whereas bodies come and go, and that it might be a happy coincidence that if it took you a while longer to save for the body, then it might be a happy coincidence if the new version was out.
But then again we could/will get some great new glass too. Simply buy what you need and be consistent. I think if you're sharing make it one brand otherwise you may need two of everything and that does no one good except the manufacturers.

[maccaroneski]

But then again we could/will get some great new glass too. Simply buy what you need and be consistent. I think if you're sharing make it one brand otherwise you may need two of everything and that does no one good except the manufacturers.

I wasn't really suggesting waiting for the better product - it was more that if something had to wait, then a D80 and great glass will get better shots than a D700 and average glass, so invest in the lenses now, and the body when you can.

[Jules]

Both the 5DII and the D700 are excellent cameras held in very high regard.

My advice? Pick one, go out, take photos. :)

[bb45pz]

Ended up getting the D700 (arrives tomorrow hopefully) and Nikon 16-35 VR.

Would have liked the Nikon 14-24 but the filter anguish and extra cost wasn't worth it IMO.

Thanks again to everyone for their help.

[Redgum]

Let the fun begin. :)