Comments on: Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D700 High ISO – Quick Comparison

By: Severin Sadjina

Severin Sadjina — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:19:02 +0000

This test is a little in favour of the D700 for a couple of reasons:

1.) Exposure is better on the D700 and underexposed on the 5DmkII. Noise in digital cameras is exponentially higher in dark areas, so it is absolutely crucial to get the correct exposure!

2.) The WB is off on the 5DmkII shots, it is to orange, also increasing the noise in the final image.

3.) Comparing shots at 100% is uninteresting. What should and does matter is how the noise is visible at the full image, print or on screen. I can’t think of any application where per pixel noise is of importance!

That being said, if you repeat this test again with correct WB and exposure I am almost certain you will end up getting virtually indistinguishable results when viewing the full images (in print or on screen).

Best regards!

By: nikon

nikon — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:37:44 +0000

Men,you couldn’t post iso comparation between a camera set in correct wb,for the nikon,and a canon setted in incorrect white balance for the reason that the noise in an incorrect wb register the light in a spectar,that could influence the cmos noise due to termal noise

By: zach Ameen

zach Ameen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:10:24 +0000

D700x probably be about $700 more expensive then MKii. So for me pricing is every thing because for that difference I could buy a better lense. Majority of us do portraits and and land scape so there is no need to spend extra money for little non-noticable difference in picture. The Pixels are every thing because you can crop the picture at will to point where D700 can’t touch it.

By: zach Ameen

zach Ameen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:04:09 +0000

Well this comparison is not fair because when you take close ups from the distance vs taking pictures from distance with telezoom , you will see more noise if its a closup. so this comparison is nothing more then bull. Distance, zoom, and light should be same in order to compare plus the lense.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:38:32 +0000

@JF – It’s your lucky day. I did improve the comparison. See the following post:

http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison/

By: JF

JF — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:29:25 +0000

This comparison would be improved if you changed the layout so that I could see the relevant image pairs side by side.

By: gurbally

gurbally — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:12:00 +0000

Confusion, confusion, confusion. I read myself to death over these two camera, still couldn’t decide which one to buy.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:29:41 +0000

Your focus points were different on the Canon. Seems the blue book in bkgnd was in focus on canon shots, but the ticket in foreground was on the Nikon shots. These two cameras are ~very~ close in performance, but who looks at pixels anyway? My clients dont.

By: albert

albert — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:55:00 +0000

All I like about Nikon is the build.
By the way, what are the main differences between D3 and D3x? I should say advantages of D3x. The obvious difference is the only High Resolution sensor but Nikon needs to raise the price double to produce the sensor alone?
When d700x is out, there will be an another camera from Canon (maybe 7D but I don’t know exactly) for Nikon to catch again. Moreover, I don’t think the price of d700x would be affordable for most of the dslr users.
Maybe D700 is better in NR but 5Dmkii is 21MP. With that pixel count with that much noise, it’s like comparison between an apple and an orange. Dare to compare the sharpness? Look at the letter “T” from both iso1600 pictures. I don’t know how the photographer focused the subject in them but normally Canon make sharper pictures. That’s why I chose Canon for Landscapes. Less expensive, sharper, good for those who work with big prints.
Anyway, I am not a Canon-faithful. I also use Nikon. Nikon also make very vibrant colorful pictures and some people love this advantage. Since both cameras have pros and cons and choose the one that suit more. Do we still need to argue who is better? No camera is better in everything.

By: Natalia

Natalia — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:10:09 +0000

Something is obvious, they are almost equal, but Canon has 21 instead of 12 of Nikon. And as always, Nikon is trying to achieve canon sucess, first, trying to get a full frame, then, having high iso development slr, later, more than 11 af points, now, they took out the d3x, wich 20 mp.

Nikon will always copy what Canon does, cause Canon EATS Nikon, get over with it Nikon fanboys, Canon is your daddy.

and dont forget that in long teles, Nikon is out of the fight…