Nikon D700 vs. Canon EOS 5D Mark II

[prinothcat]

The thought I had in my mind which didn't articulate at all... and for that I'm sorry, is that I believe that too many people think they can simply make any digital capture "art" with Photoshop. As I understand the thinking, schools use film because it makes the student stop and think before hitting the shutter release. If you operate under the conditions imposed by the limitations of a 36 or 24 exposure roll of film with a limited range of ISO values, you are placed in a situation where you have to understand those limitations. By knowing the limitations imposed, you have to make decisions about how the image will render. It's this thought process that many people bypass with digital. I grant that there are many great photographers using digital. But they all learned somewhere about the visualization process that is required. I wonder how many learned that process through film? Finally I would bet that the use of film in many teaching situations allows an instructor to establish a common basis for comparison of the work being generated. For instance told to go photographer a given situation, with a specific film stock, process with this chemistry and print on this media, one could really push a classes ability to see the situation in unique ways. By using the same situation and varying one of the criteria, a new set of challenges is presented.

Anyway take the digression for what it's worth.
Chris

[availablelightimages]

The thought I had in my mind which didn't articulate at all... and for that I'm sorry, is that I believe that too many people think they can simply make any digital capture "art" with Photoshop. As I understand the thinking, schools use film because it makes the student stop and think before hitting the shutter release. If you operate under the conditions imposed by the limitations of a 36 or 24 exposure roll of film with a limited range of ISO values, you are placed in a situation where you have to understand those limitations. By knowing the limitations imposed, you have to make decisions about how the image will render. It's this thought process that many people bypass with digital. I grant that there are many great photographers using digital. But they all learned somewhere about the visualization process that is required. I wonder how many learned that process through film? Finally I would bet that the use of film in many teaching situations allows an instructor to establish a common basis for comparison of the work being generated. For instance told to go photographer a given situation, with a specific film stock, process with this chemistry and print on this media, one could really push a classes ability to see the situation in unique ways. By using the same situation and varying one of the criteria, a new set of challenges is presented.

Anyway take the digression for what it's worth.
Chris

Thanks for that Chris, and I agree you are correct. With film there are limitations that are imposed upon you by the medium, whereas a lot of digital photography, a good understanding of what can be achieved "after" is of key benefit... I believe we agree 100%

[prinothcat]

whereas a lot of digital photography, a good understanding of what can be achieved "after" is of key benefit... I believe we agree 100%

Thanks. I know there is so much discourse lost in this internet environment. I agree that much can be achieved with good post processing in digital. If the photographer doesn't understand how to make a good image to start, however, I think no amount of post will save it. It's hard to add data that isn't there.

[bug322]

Making good photo's both digital or not for both u have to understand the conditions.
I never bothered film im just to lazy to let my film develop on the other hand i dont want to miss the fun off critizise my pictures and correct the way i want them.
PS or not that is proces to learn also.
I got a great respect for people who still work with film and make great pictures it,s just not mine cup of tea.

[bomogo]

I think too often we get concerned with equipment. Not that it isn't important. It is, of course it is. The fact of the matter is that you can take a great picture with a cell phone. You need an interesting subject, light and composition. The only difference is how large you can print the photograph. I think we need to spend more time on our photography (myself especially) and less time counting megapixels. I get so exhausted listening to people talking about how nikon is absolutely better than canon and vice versus. They are both very capable systems. I found nikon to be more intuitive to learn the camera. Though I personally went with canon simply because when I started I didn't know what direction my photography would go and canon had a larger lens lineup and that was more versatile for me. I find camera systems are often like a sports team. You love it because they are your team. Of course if you grew up in a different city you would hate them. We are all products of our environment.
[url]http:www.boydgphotography.com[/url]

[hanskoot]

You mentioned it in the side lines, but its what all is about, you buy a system and not a camera... lenses and system should be more the lead in any choice. Best choose one system and stick to it. In case of these brands I think both will satisfy you. As a help, some shops offer the rent of a camera, this will give you a serious user experience, and some even offer the return of your rental price when you buy.

cheers, Hans

[joer]

I practice fashion photography (plan on going to school for it [photography] in fall of this year).
I have been considering either the Nikon D700 or the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, however, as there must always be, I have small issues with both cameras. (Keep in mind I have extremely little experience with both brands. I have been using Olympus for the past five years.)

With Nikon, it is that the Nikkor lenses always seem to have a bit of distortion, even if the lens is not wide-angle. Although, this perception could also be due to my lack of experience with them. They also seem to have quite a bit of vignetting. Both of these things, and, just typically the work I've seen done with Nikons (the D700 specifically) seem to be good for portraiture, landscape, and night scenes / architecture, whereas the work I've seen done by Canon (specifically, the 5D II) seems to be more up my alley in terms of processing and in terms of how the lenses and sensor are built.

However, I have seen / heard quite a few complaints about the 5D II, mainly that it is almost incapable of taking a truly sharp image, which greatly concerns me. I have viewed a lot of work done with this camera and seen the same thing as well.

A little help via opinions of people who have used both or either camera would be greatly appreciated, and extra points for links / examples. c:

I use both cameras. The Nikon flash system is better than Canon. Canon's 21MP is very handy if you want to crop. Both are very capable. Can't imagine where you got your ideas.