I agree with you completely.

I didn’t mean to say that it’s not possible to use 5DMkII as a professional tool, on the contrary, (I know some photo journalists pros on a tight budget who were still using 40Ds here in Europe and with quite good results) but I wanted to say that d700 has some features that make a fast moving pros life easier.
So, if I was a pro whose job involves shooting something often in bad weather conditions, or requiring better focus performance, I would choose d700 and be more at ease, while if I was a pro with a more leisurely style of photography, I would choose the 5D for it’s resolution. But, most often the photographer is the limiting factor, not the cameras.
Finally, I think that both are awesome cameras, but also that both could benefit from further improvements, to the benefit of us all.

Best regards

I tend to agree with you on the resizing the pictures. I like seeing what the end result of a 16×20 or whatever-sized print will be. For the most part though, I just try to convey the facts and make the full-res images available for download and personal inspection.

I agree though that it is all relative to how you are using the images that counts. I think you can see from the above images that comparing prints of the same size to each other, the 5D Mark II is going to look cleaner because of the increased resolution. Although, you won’t see it in all but the largest of prints.

I disagree with your synopsis that the 5D Mark II is geared more toward enthusiasts and fine art photographers. I’m sure a lot of pros who use the 5D Mark II as their daily workhorse would disagree as well. While it’s not the perfect pro camera (particularly when focusing in low light situations), there are many from the Nikon camp that wish their D700 offered more as well.

Finally, I agree that ISO results from these two cameras should really be a non-issue. There are plenty of other reasons to pick one over the other – with the lenses in your bag being the biggest factor. I’ll echo my previous sentiments that I think both cameras are excellent representatives of the two big brands. These cameras are, for the time being, the hottest pro and serious amateur cameras on the market – with each offering outstanding noise and high ISO performance.

Thanks for your comments Lancet.

5d mkII seemed to me like a camera with great image quality but lacking in pro features, geared toward enthusiasts and fine art photographers, while Nikon seemed more feature packed and robust, more like a photo journalist camera.

I would choose between the two based on what kind of work (or pleasure) I do, and not based on half-stop better ISO.

Best regards

I think it was a o.k. test, and the lenses don’t matter. I have had both Canon 50 mm f/1.4 and 1.8 and at f/8 there is no difference, and lens won’t in any case influence ISO noise. WB is also non-relevant for noise. Difference in shutter speed could matter, but shown images from both cameras seem equally exposed.

In my opinion, tests should be done with pictures resized for usual print sizes and leave it at that. I’m interested how will the image look on the wall or in a magazine and not on my monitor enlarged 100%. And all the tests one can find are done in the studio with good lightning and analysed at 100%. I don’t understand why, since that is not how I would use my camera.

And all these reviews spur is a never-ending debate between the hard-core fans of both cameras on whose camera is bette.

I have a 5D Mk II and I have many friends who have the D700 and I know for fact that the D700 has better ISO sensitivity, not by much. There are many pros and cons about each camera some a matter of preference.
When doing a test like that you have got to be precise. The white balance is clearly different (or different lighting) or you were shooting a black and brownish cameras on this test.
It’s just a quick question.
When you see a great photograph, can you tell if it was taken with a Canon or Nikon?
There we go!!!

I think the ISO comparison between these two cameras is about a wash, and probably why so many get bogged down in semantics over which is better. However, each camera has advantages and disadvantages in different categories over the other.

I spent $3k on the 5D Mark II because it’s a great camera; however, I’ve been a very vocal critic of its AF performance in low light. In my “real world” experience, the D700 outshines it in terms of autofocus and metering. The megapixel difference may be the kicker if you think you’ll be using those 21.1 megapixels on the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark II can accurately focus – it’s just that it sometimes hunts a bit in low light. I generally don’t have a problem in a studio environment – it’s those evening city walks or dimly lit rooms that give it the trouble.

Here are links to the two reviews of these cameras where I give my honest impression of what I think about these cameras:

http://www.photographybay.com/2009/05/04/canon-5d-mark-ii-review/

http://www.photographybay.com/2009/01/05/nikon-d700-review/

Frankly, I think either camera is worth the price of admission. There are nuances to both though and, hopefully, you can see some of those to help you make a decision in the above reviews.