5D Mark II vs. Nikon D700 for landscape photography

[frydham]

What are thoughts between these two cameras, in general, and specifically for landscape photography?

The 5D Mark II is lighter weight, has easier customization, more mega-pixels which is good for cropping, video (not a big deal, but still), and I like the big control wheel.

The D700 has better auto-focus (this is the main reason I'm considering switching), and a quieter shutter.

I've haven't handled either of these cameras, and will definitely do so before I make a decision.

Right now I own a Canon 40D, and a few lenses (28-135mm, 50mm f1.4, and a Sigma 70-300mm). Since the 28-135 and the 70-300 came with camera and are just okay, the only lens I would miss would be the 50mm f1.4.

When I make the upgrade, that will be my main camera and will be used for pretty much everything. Not just landscapes.

I'm also considering the Nikon D7000, but I just don't think it would work as well for landscapes. If I was going for a APS-C sensor camera, this would win hands down.

Anyway, which one of these would you go with and why?

[inkista]

If I was only shooting landscapes, neither. Sony A850 would probably be the choice I'd go for. Highest resolution (24MP), better low iso performance, higher dynamic range, and autofocusing Zeiss lenses, with in-body stabilization. As long as you aren't a high iso user, could be the one for you, if your needs fit inside the Sony Alpha system's offerings.

If mostly shooting landscapes, I think it's a toss-up, but the 5D just edges out the D700 with the higher resolution. The problem is that if you want to go ultrawide, you'll have to figure out some way to get glass equivalent to the Nikon 14-24, and on the Canon side that ain't easy. You're pretty much going to be doing manual focus with an adapted lens if you need that kind of performance. The complaints about the 16-35L being soft below 20mm are legion. If you're not into ultraexpensive lenses and don't need any speed, though, the Sigma 12-24 can do ya.

If shooting mostly both landscapes and portraits, or you want to play with HD video (with full-frame DoF and high iso performance) the 5D has the edge. The selection of longer primes on the Canon side is larger and lower cost, and the performance rocks. And you can get autofocusing f/1.2 primes.

If you're shooting both action and landscapes, then the D700 is the obvious choice. The 5D is less of a general-purpose camera, and more of a special-purpose one. The D700 is the best fast-action body in the prosumer full frames.

Personally, I'd hold off on the decision if the need for a full frame wasn't urgent, and consider waiting to see what's going to succeed the D700. Everybody's sick of the rumors, but most everyone agrees, an update is relatively near, and it's a good bet that Nikon has been studying the 5D2's strengths and weaknesses. HD video's a shoo-in at this point.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

If I was only shooting landscapes, neither. Sony A850 would probably be the choice I'd go for. Highest resolution (24MP), better low iso performance, higher dynamic range, and autofocusing Zeiss lenses, with in-body stabilization. As long as you aren't a high iso user, could be the one for you, if your needs fit inside the Sony Alpha system's offerings.

If mostly shooting landscapes, I think it's a toss-up, but the 5D just edges out the D700 with the higher resolution. The problem is that if you want to go ultrawide, you'll have to figure out some way to get glass equivalent to the Nikon 14-24, and on the Canon side that ain't easy. You're pretty much going to be doing manual focus with an adapted lens if you need that kind of performance. The complaints about the 16-35L being soft below 20mm are legion. If you're not into ultraexpensive lenses and don't need any speed, though, the Sigma 12-24 can do ya.

If shooting mostly both landscapes and portraits, or you want to play with HD video (with full-frame DoF and high iso performance) the 5D has the edge. The selection of longer primes on the Canon side is larger and lower cost, and the performance rocks. And you can get autofocusing f/1.2 primes.

If you're shooting both action and landscapes, then the D700 is the obvious choice. The 5D is less of a general-purpose camera, and more of a special-purpose one. The D700 is the best fast-action body in the prosumer full frames.

Personally, I'd hold off on the decision if the need for a full frame wasn't urgent, and consider waiting to see what's going to succeed the D700. Everybody's sick of the rumors, but most everyone agrees, an update is relatively near, and it's a good bet that Nikon has been studying the 5D2's strengths and weaknesses. HD video's a shoo-in at this point.

What she said.

[jdepould]

Irrelevant, but I'm pretty sure the 5D2 has a quieter shutter.

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Irrelevant, but I'm pretty sure the 5D2 has a quieter shutter.

i like the sound of my 5D2's shutter. it's nice. [=

[Kamal M]

shouldnt you be using manual focus for landscapes anyway? i mean to focus a third of the way in? kind of negates changing platform just for the quicker auto...

[frydham]

Originally Posted by inkista

If I was only shooting landscapes, neither. Sony A850 would probably be the choice I'd go for. Highest resolution (24MP), better low iso performance, higher dynamic range, and autofocusing Zeiss lenses, with in-body stabilization. As long as you aren't a high iso user, could be the one for you, if your needs fit inside the Sony Alpha system's offerings.

If mostly shooting landscapes, I think it's a toss-up, but the 5D just edges out the D700 with the higher resolution. The problem is that if you want to go ultrawide, you'll have to figure out some way to get glass equivalent to the Nikon 14-24, and on the Canon side that ain't easy. You're pretty much going to be doing manual focus with an adapted lens if you need that kind of performance. The complaints about the 16-35L being soft below 20mm are legion. If you're not into ultraexpensive lenses and don't need any speed, though, the Sigma 12-24 can do ya.

If shooting mostly both landscapes and portraits, or you want to play with HD video (with full-frame DoF and high iso performance) the 5D has the edge. The selection of longer primes on the Canon side is larger and lower cost, and the performance rocks. And you can get autofocusing f/1.2 primes.

If you're shooting both action and landscapes, then the D700 is the obvious choice. The 5D is less of a general-purpose camera, and more of a special-purpose one. The D700 is the best fast-action body in the prosumer full frames.

Personally, I'd hold off on the decision if the need for a full frame wasn't urgent, and consider waiting to see what's going to succeed the D700. Everybody's sick of the rumors, but most everyone agrees, an update is relatively near, and it's a good bet that Nikon has been studying the 5D2's strengths and weaknesses. HD video's a shoo-in at this point.

Thanks for the info. I'll probably be shooting mostly landscapes and nature, with possibly a little street photography.

Hmm, hadn't thought about Sony, I'll have to into check into them.

Thanks!

[frydham]

Originally Posted by Kamal M

shouldnt you be using manual focus for landscapes anyway? i mean to focus a third of the way in? kind of negates changing platform just for the quicker auto...

While I will mainly be using this for landscapes and nature, this will be my everything camera. I'm quite disappointed with my 40D's auto focus and -correct me if I'm wrong- I believe the 5D's is the same.

I get so frustrated when I get back from shooting and find that 'this would've been a great image if it was in focus'. And on the 40D's 230,000 pixel LCD, it's hard to to tell weather or not the image is in focus

[bruceliv]

Originally Posted by frydham

What are thoughts between these two cameras, in general, and specifically for landscape photography?
Right now I own a Canon 40D, and a few lenses (28-135mm, 50mm f1.4, and a Sigma 70-300mm). Since the 28-135 and the 70-300 came with camera and are just okay, the only lens I would miss would be the 50mm f1.4.

I own the D700 and think it's better...for me, that is. You're a Canon user and would probably be better staying with that system unless you really need it for for higher ISO and AF performance.

So, if I were in your shoes, I'd get the 5D-MII. I would probably buy the 24mm tilt/shift and one or two of the Zeiss or Voigtlander primes fitted with the appropriate mount. For critical work, I prefer manual focus.

[danbaileyphoto]

I'm another D700 user and I love it. It has very high ISO capabilities and works extremely well for landscapes. Not sure why you think it's not as good for that. However,, if you're already heavily invested in Canon gear, getting a D700 won't make that much difference.