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

By: Tomek

Tomek — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:08:31 +0000

Great comparison otherwise!

By: dirk

dirk — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:34:46 +0000

Nikon vs. Canon, Sony vs. Olympus. I think, the lenses and accessories in your camera bag are probably the deciding factor if you have been eyeballing this pair of cameras. Behind the Camera is a photographer and befor the light. For many years, this technik was a wonderfull dream for every photographer. – Now – make pictures, from Cologne, Dirk Baumbach

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.