First of all Bismillahirohmanirohim and HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009 and EVERYONE ARE WELCOME TO READ MY BLOG ‘EYE OF PHOTOGRAPHY’. Secondly I admit to feeling considerably unhappy about having to summarize of these two cameras "in public." Usually I used Canon film 35mm and never used Nikon before. When I start working with government I tried Nikon Digital D100, D2x, and D2xs. So far so good when the first digital launch at 2005. Then the Ministry of Defence request to order Canon 30D and I’m very excited about it.
Anyway, I've decided that rather than carefully annotate all of my tests and trials, which wouldn't begin to convince anybody anyway, I'll just come out with it and say what I think.
The most recommendable: This prize goes to the D700. Given its sensible size compared to the D3, robust build, fast autofocus, overall responsiveness, superior ergonomics, unmatched high-ISO performance, and perfectly sensible file size, it's going to be the most bang for the buck for more photographers than either of the others. The Nikon is flat-out a better camera than the Canon, a point exemplified by its clearly superior autofocus performance (the 5D Mark II, when asked to autofocus, is sort of like "Huh? Oh, right," whereas the Nikon is a snappy "Yessir!") Its image quality is really pretty, and its files are superbly printable, and my feeling is that it would help more photographers take better pictures in any situation.
The best compromise: And here's where we come to the Canon 5D Mark II. The Canon does not match the Nikon's high-ISO performance. Don't just look at the noise; look at the pictures. (I say that having made myself bleary-eyed poring over the most inane "test shots"—something I also once promised myself I'd do as little of as possible.) But it's pretty close. And here's the thing: it has much more resolution than the Nikon, and much better high-ISO capability than the Nikon.
My personal choice:
I have to admit I have some mild reservations about the 5D Mark II's image quality. It's very good, no question: Canon has hit the "what consumers want" targets on the nose: More Megapixels! Less Noise! (Great Taste, Less Filling). But there's at least a partial price to pay for all that tasty goodness. It shows up in the form of what I'd group under the heading " My personal choice."
Canon conclusion
The 5D Mark II is a brilliant camera in many ways. It has more, and better, of most of the good things we like. But my holistic overall impression is that its images just look more digital, in some fundamental way, rather than just "photographic."
The Canon 5D Mark II can simply be looked at in two ways. From the positive side, it gives you the lion's share of what the Nikon camera do best. And that's good. And from the negative side, it sort of seems like just another digital SLR, only better (and please don't quote that line out of context). Which way will you see it? That I can't say. All cameras are fine devices with formidable imaging capabilities, and all camera deserve your strong consideration....
.jpg)
Posts
