EOS 5d Mk II vs Nikon D700

[dunedin]

Hi all,

I am aiming to take pictures of (in order of frequency):

1) Landscapes that I want to blow up to at least a metre wide (I know this will involve pixellation but I don't want to go medium format)
2) People shots, some in fairly low light
3) Architecture shots in good light

I know both the D700 and 5d get rave reviews but I'm having such a hard time deciding between them!

(BTW my current camera is a D40x and I've got a fair few lenses with it but most are DX apart from a 50mm prime).

Any thoughts?

[TheFatControlleR]

In terms of ability across your innerests I suspect they're much of a muchness.

If I had the body/system/lenses you already have I'd stick with the brand, unless you're willing to totally reinvest.

Failing that I'd offer the oft doled advice of; handle the two and see which feels the best for you.

[Benchista]

I would think that your requirements are better served by the more pixels but higher noise of the Canon - it copes fine in fairly low light, but the D700 beats it in really low light. But for those print sizes, the extra pixels will tell. I would normally agree with Myk about not changing systems, but as most of your lenses would be of limited use to you anyway, that's much less of an issue.

[PeteRob]

A metre wide. Sure you don't want to try medium format? it will do a) and c)- you have capability for b). For static subjects you don't need much kit - waist level finder and a simple hand held meter. Digital is now amazingly good but printed to A4 a 6x6 neg is just better than a 5D so that would be the break point for a 5D mkII probably! I am sure lots will disagree.

[dunedin]

A metre wide. Sure you don't want to try medium format? it will do a) and c)- you have capability for b). For static subjects you don't need much kit - waist level finder and a simple hand held meter. Digital is now amazingly good but printed to A4 a 6x6 neg is just better than a 5D so that would be the break point for a 5D mkII probably! I am sure lots will disagree.

I agree that Medium Format is better definitely for the kind of size I'm looking for but I'm working in a fast moving environment and I don't have the time to develop or send away negatives and then scan them. I also need to see my results instantly...so it kind of has to be digital.

[Roger_Provins]

You need whichever digital camera delivers the most pixels.

There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.

It seems digital cameras, 35mm full frame and with sufficient pixels, can now equal or even exceed the best 6x6 film cameras.

[alanS]

Why not add the Sony A900 as a possibility? It's the only FF digital with in body IS.

[Benchista]

Why not add the Sony A900 as a possibility? It's the only FF digital with in body IS.

There, you've answered your own question.

[alanS]

It is a beautiful thing though...

[Zou]

It certainly is. By the by, I was working on a 6x6 scan last night and noticed it was roughly 25MP, despite being a fairly lo-res scan (2400 if I recall correctly). So I expect a great lens on a Hassie 500 with good film well scanned could provide huge amounts of detail. Certainly better than the Holga pic I was working on.

[LargeFormat]

There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.

Thanks Rog, That's what I call a comfort read. shame I don't read Polish.

[Roger_Provins]

There is a professional comparison here between a Sony Alpha 900, a Hasselblad H3 and a Mamiya AFDIII. The Sony came first (just) and the Mamiya last.

Thanks Rog, That's what I call a comfort read. shame I don't read Polish.

.... Google (translate) is your friend