Canon EOS 5D Mark II OR Nikon D3?

Question

Canon EOS 5D Mark II OR Nikon D3?

Answer 1

Both of these are great cameras. Both will give you the ability to take great photos and both are well made and will last. You will be ahppy with either. That said I am a Nikon person so I recommend the Nikon The D3 is great but you also should consider the D700 which for the money is an amazing camera. Right now the nikons have better performance for low noise particularly at high ISO better backwards lens compatibility and on DXO benchmark software whish is third party and not associated with any company the Nikon D3 and D700 both beat out the 5D Mk II and A900 on signal to noise ratio, dymanic range, tonal range and color sesitivity. DXO does these benchmarks from RAW data outptut. Someone said you cannot see the difference DXO helped us with that also on the graph tabs there is a colored bar on the side if you point to the colored bar on the side a photo will appear under the graphs. As you move up and down the colored bar you see how the different numbers on the graph look different. Try it if you want and I'll just let you decide if you can see a difference in the output. I know my answer to it. And no the photo they show is not obscenely magnified



Here are the D3 the D5 MkII and the A900 compared side to side on output make sure you look at the tabbed graphs



http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/209%7C0/(appareil2)/279%7C0/(appareil3)/265%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Sony



Just for fun I also compared the D700 to those two cameras. If I were buying right now with the D3X not out I would seriously want a D700 for photojournalism and street photograhy. You will notice the D700 is also graphed noticibly above both the contenders mentioned

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/205%7C0/(appareil2)/279%7C0/(appareil3)/265%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Sony



Only you can decide how important video is to you and if you would use it. If its really important the lines on the D90 are extremely close to those of the canon mentioned and its way cheaper. Its even a bit above the others we are discussing on dymanic range, Here are those benchmarks

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/202%7C0/(appareil2)/279%7C0/(appareil3)/265%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Sony



Yes the sony has the VR/IS in the body. Canon and Nikon made a consious choise to put IS/VR in the lens because thier data reveal that it does a better job with less impact on focus times. A canon whitepaper stated that to do as well as the in lens IS an in body system would have to move 1/4 inch with a 300 mm lens. No in body system moves this much. No I do not have VR/IS on my AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED but you know I have never found that to be a detriment.



And as I said all will do good. I would say the D700 if you want a little more money for accesorries will give you a camea with RAW output that is nearly the same as the D3 and the D3 otherwise but thats just me I have friends who are as commited to thier canons as I am to my Nikons. Nikon and Canon stay neck to neck with one taking the lead for a while then the other. I had to listen to my Canon owning friends expound on how many white lenses you saw at sproting events for the last couple of years but now Nikon has "answered the call" and pulled ahead and yes I am going to pay them back by shouting to the corners the better quality image Nikon has now.( I am sure the Canon loyalist would to the same for me if the charts went the other way ~lol~ ) I am sure I will not be able to do this forever. Its only a matter of time till Canon pull slightly ahead again. As I started with both are good, and we the camera owners are the real winners in this competition as neighter can rest and be satisfied with the status quo

Answer 2

Sorry to be the one to ask you this, but how much experience do you have? Are you really sure you need to blow $2700-5000 on a camera? Have you thought about the $5000-$10000 worth of good lenses you are also going to need as well as a second camera body? Full frame sensors need top of the line glass and you are looking at $1000 at the least for one lens with the exception of a few prime lenses. And any journalist will tell you that having a backup body is a must. Have you considered a Nikon D300 or D700? The new D3x is going to be worthless unless you are a serious landscape or studio photographer, same goes for the 1Ds mark III. Moving on. If you are still determined to pick between these two cameras, the Nikon D3 hands down. It has the weather sealing and the fps and focusing speed, buffer speeds etc over the 5D mark II that are going to be essential for journalism. Not to mention the ISO performance is probably on par with the 5D mark II. As for cons, I have never used one, but I have never heard of any either. The 5D mark II while it is a great camera, seems to be suited to weddings, portraiture, landscapes, studio work, not so much what I would think of as a photojournalists camera. Well I hope this helps. Think this through before you do it, I have no idea what your level of experience is, but your not just buying one camera here and stopping. Your going to need a backup, your going to need at the least a wide angle, mid range, telephoto, and perhaps super telephoto lens all of which you will quickly discover have to be a constant f/2.8 aperture. Not to mention flashes, extra batteries, etc.



Sorry I didnt look at your profile. Now that I have though, I have to ask what system you are using now, or have you just been shooting film? Sticking with a system is usually a good choice. Disregarding that, I would say the D3 if only for its rugged durability and weather sealing seeing as you travel a lot.

Answer 3

Okay, I am in exactly the same boat here.... I ordered the Nikon D3 and upon finding out about the Canon 5D Mark II .... I begun having headaches... I guess it depends what you need it for... I want all purpose with the best image quality..... while it seems that the Canon 5D has the best image quality (or does it?!) it lacks in the everything else component. I was speaking with someone from a cameraq store and he kept mentioning that even though the D3 had less pixles that it was in fact... better quality images... Can anyone please tell me which camera will have better quality images?! okay I guess for sports and action the D3 is better and for landscape its the 5D... I get that... but what about for everything... an overall better camera??? Also, the black dot issue is a bit disturbing... i was reading on Canon's website and every third person was complaining about the stupid black dots!

Answer 4

Ok a Sony Alpha A700 owner here so you know I don't have a reason to sway you to any particular brand here.



My pick would be the D3 and here's why. First, I don't need the extra resolution, and you seem to like it, but it's not a deal breaker, otherwise you'd already have the Canon.



The canon takes a hit in High ISO noise with the extra pixels. Yes the photos look clean as high ISO, but at the expense of detail it looks like Canon's aggressive noise reduction to these eyes.



In tough low light shots, the D3 is still the current king. It shoots more frames per second, and the body construction just blows the doors off the 5D. Too be fair it costs a lot more, but these are your two picks to compare, not mine.



Canon finally put a real LCD on the 5d, something to match the Sony A700, and Nikon's D300/D3 so that's a wash.



I don't like that Canon came out the gate with a sensor defect the 'black dot' issue and banding. It's not a huge issue like the focus problem on their flagship, at least they came out and admitted to it right away.



The movie mode for both the Canon and Nikon are crippled just like their live view so don't get too excited. To be first to market, you have to give up some things. You can't autofocus and there are other issues, look into that before you get to worked up, read the early reviews. A simple HD camcorder will blow them away.



Sony waited and did way better with their live view. I suspect Sony will do better with HD recording down the road. I expect Nikon and Canon will too, so maybe best to wait till they get that nailed down better. So bottom line, if you don't need the extra resolution for your work, and you can afford it, and can wait for video to get better, go D3.



http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10120964-39.html



http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RewZ

Answer 5

I suggest that you check them out at these review sites.



All cameras ranked:

http://digital-cameras.toptenreviews.com/



Best cameras recommended, others listed:

http://www.consumersearch.com/digital-camera-reviews

Answer 6

i would for sure go with the nikon d3 its overall a better camera in my opinion. I am no pro but i know my stuff. I have a d40 and my friend has the xti and i love mine over his. Nikon is the stuff. I am very satisfied with the quality and for sure get the d3 if you need to film get ea video camera lika sony handycam.

Answer 7

if you go on photoforums or read outlet reviews you'll see that Canon is leading in DSLR technology. my question is, what's a beginner want with a Pro' camera ?

Answer 8

nIKON

Answer 9

You will find lots of evidence in publications and online reviews (and the answers here) of the following:



** Nikon's high-end range of cameras have technically superior sensor technology for high-ISO shooting.**



I am not sure if your eyes will tell the difference at ISO 800.



Pretty sure that nobody could be sure about whether a shot was taken on a Canon or a Nikon at ISO 400 or below, with their eyes.



Shooting at high ISO above 400 is the last resort for exposure adjustment when the goal is clear, crisp photography. So you have to consider whether you will need to use ISOs higher than 400 often to get the shots that you want (are you shooting action in low light, or long telephoto lenses 200mm and longer?). Otherwise, the cure is longer shutter speed, wider aperture, or a tripod/image stabilization.



Nikon provides better value dollar for dollar in their camera body technology.



Canon has a much more extensive range of camera lenses and add-ons (both from Canon and from third parties).



I would only consider these top end cameras (D3, D3x, 5D Mark II, and 1Ds Mark III) if I were being provided equipment by an employer for a gig... perhaps to go shoot wildlife or to do studio photography.



If it were wildlife, I would go with the Nikon D3(x) because the high ISO will benefit shooting distant or moving objects in uncontrolled lighting situations.



If it were studio shooting with controlled lighting, or product shots, I would put the cameras back on par because high ISO does not matter in this environment.



If I were talking walk-about photos and candids in uncontrolled lighting situations, I would get a D90 with an 18-200 VR, or an XSi with a 24-105mm IS.



If I were shooting weddings, i would use those same cameras as backups to either a D300 or a 50D with a prime lens around 100mm.



I hope that you get the information you need to make your decision.