From the Comments: Nikon to Canon 5D Mark II The Hot Shoe Diaries: Creative Applications of Small Flashes

From the Comments: Nikon D700 over the Canon EOS 5D Mark II

0 comments

Posted by Patrick on Jan 17, 2009 in Cameras

Meant to post this awhile back, but here’s a different take on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II from commenter Kinson who ended up preferring the Nikon D700:

I have both D700 and the 5D Mk2. I returned the 5D MK2 and got myself a Nikkor 200mm F2 instead. For 5DMk2 I just cannot get a proper WB out of my shots. Try a few glasses on it, nowhere the IQ I am getting from the D700 with good glasses. May be I have so gotten used to the feel of Nikon, for the two weeks that I used Canon exclusive use I still cannot adapt. A note for landscapers, why people kept saying 5DMk2 is good for that purpose while I cannot see a comparable wide to super wide angle lens from Canon camp as good as the 14-24G. The 5DMk2 is for sure sharper, but overall noise in shadows are still more prominent. Same as comparing 1DsMK3 to a D3X where dark is dark for D3X, and you can see noise in shadows even in a shot by 1DsMk3 (same ISO same F stop, same lense with different mount sigma 50 F1.4)

I also want to say, for static shots 5DMk2 is super. But try shooting people it is just not efficient as Nikon. May be it is just the way I shoot to have such differences. To be fair with 1DsMK3, I love the design and feel of this wonderful camera, but when I got hands on the D3x, the images just somehow felt brighter, and less noise in chroma and luma. Also other than the little black spot on high light/contrast issues in 5DMk2, for me the LCD is not really showing the final result of the shot. When I looked at the shots on a calibrated screen, it is just different, may be it is just too good. (Same as G10). The Nikon LCD gave me confidence that when it is good, the result would be similar; most importantly when it sucks the recorded file should be bad.

Similar Posts:


Leave a Reply