Here is my personal comparison of the two bodies. Input appreciated.

5D2
- 21.1 MP (with two other RAW modes, 10.1 MP & 5MP)
- Full-Frame
- 3.9 fps
- 15 AF points
- 9 Selectable AF points
- 50 - 25,600 ISO
- HDMI Video
- "Mild" weather-sealing
- 14 RAW Buffer
- Unable to use EF-s lenses
- 3.0" 920,000 pixel LCD
- Self Cleaning Sensor
- Auto-ISO
- 1/200th Sync Speed
- Micro Lens Adjustment
- 810g

D700
- 12.1 MP (with DX mode of 6 MP)
- Full-Frame
- 5 or 8 fps with grip
- 51 AF Points
- 51 Selectable AF Points
- 100 - 25,600 ISO
- No video
- Great weather-sealing (similar to D3)
- 15 RAW Buffer
- Can use DX lenses in DX mode
- 3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD
- Self Cleaning Sensor
- Auto-ISO
- 1/250th Sync Speed
- Micro Lens Adjustment
- 995g

So, why would you pick the 5D2 over the D700? Maybe for the video, more megapixels or for the prime lenses? We all know that Nikons zooms are better than Canon's...lets get real, I've used both. Canon has better primes but that is rumored to change at Photokina!

Just curious why you would pick one over the other.

Several possibilities...


Loyalty.
Image quality. (might not be the best, but you still have the 'good enough' argument)
Depth of investment. (eg 'the cost of switching')

Weathersealing on the 5dmII is "Mild" foam surround on battery compartment, and some small sealing around the buttons. It'll take a splashing but not a dousing.

You also forgot the ABYSMAL placement of the focus sensors in the 5dm2. The d700 isn't much better but still better.

Thanks Bryce...was unable to find that info! Appreciated!



IQ, well I think Nikon is at least as good there, if not better in some cases.

Investment, good point. Sell that Canon gear while it still has value!!!!

I still think all these arguments are bunk -

Say for example person a has a $2000 mountain bike with an all air craft aluminum frame, disc brakes, and all that jazz, and person b has a $500 bike made from tube steel, good ol' fashioned rubber brake pads, etc... if person b can peddle faster, and navigate better, and beat person a in a race then really what is the point of the extra money spent on the high tech bike? Do all those little things like disc brakes and faster shifters really make it better? Or does it really all come down the the operator?

In this day and age with where digital has come to its not so much the tool, its the person operating it.

We're construction workers sitting around comparing hammers. We're good at what we do and can take great images, while you make an obvious and solid point, that's not what we're doing here.

Thanks Mike. This clearly would be a hot topic today. Im staying close to see what develops out of it.

Ill buy it purely out of loyalty. Im a Canon guy fullstop. The comparisons dont mean anything to me!

Thats great Graeme! Canon and Nikon love people like you.

I am just curious as to why someone that may have a 40D or the like with EF-s, considering the switch would do so. Can't use your lenses on the new camera and you can't your use your battery. So why not upgrade to a Nikon.

This truly isn't a bash...now I can see where it may seem that way but I am seriously just looking for reasons why one would pick one camera over another.

Wedding shooters won't be impressed with this camera. Stock and portrait photographers are dreaming up ways to afford multiples.

Great point! Always forget about those guys!

I dont have any EF-S lenses so thats a bummer right there.

The battery and chargers are a pain because I already have 4 and two chargers....I guess Ill be adding more stuff to my bag.

Nice try tho.

The people that strictly are using EF-s lenses are probably a minority that would be better suited staying in the 30/40/50/...line. I'd imagine that most working pro's have some investment in EF lenses.

Personally, i'm waiting for the Red.

Graeme...seriously, I had NO idea that you had 40D, it was just a senario...seriously bud!

So Matt, you thinking that wedding photographers would still prefer the faster speeds of the 40D rathern than the higher Mpixel of the new MKII?

I do love my 40D's speed though.

Added three more specs, Auto ISO, Self Cleaning Sensor and Sync Speed.

Keep them coming! I just love provocative conversations.

I don't know about Matt but I would rather have a 40d/50D than a 5D2...thats for sure! I had a 40D once and loved it. Just look at what Ed Pingol gets with his 40D.



Ok, I'm lost!

You should see what countless people are getting with their 3 year old 5D.

At this point, the specs don't really matter anymore, i think. I feel that we finally got to the point that the "need" to run out and pick up every camera body has gone away. Any of the current line of cameras should last a very long time. Unlike when we sat and waited for every single upgrade.

Same thing with computers. 6 years ago, computer would become unusable after only a few years. Now you should be able to get 7 years out of a new desktop.

I'll buy it because of the full frame, high iso, and lens adjustment. Unless Canon has another camera up their sleeve, of course. Still disappointed, though.

thanks for the comparison, Mike. Side by side... Nikon D700 beats Canon 5DII in my book.

+1! I was thinking how much I want to upgrade to the D700 but in all honesty, my D300 is a spanking camera.

What are the NEEDS that everyone is still looking for? For me, going full frame seems to be the final frontier. If you have full frame already, don't you feel that the camera you have gets the job done? And really, really well? Be it Nikon or Canon?

That's well said. 21mp is going to put a world of hurt on the computer for wedding photographers.

+1 It all comes down to what kind of crop you want. I was waiting for full frame and didn't want to get the older 5D because there just wasn't the need and I could wait for a replacement that had to be coming. I also didn't want to spend 8K on a 1Ds.

Slightly off topic, but you would think that 1Ds has to come down in price now. The 1Ds is about 4K more than the 1D, and the sensor is the only difference that I know of...Now you have an updated version of that same sensor in a $2700 camera. I can see a little of a premium for that sensor in a full pro body, but that seems a bit out of control.

You could get a 5D and a 1D for less than the price of a 1Ds. Another nice combo.

Just added the Micro Lens Adjustment to both since they both have it. I also added the other RAW modes.

"why would anybody buy the 5d over the D700?"

Because it would be idiotic for me sell all my equipment everytime a different camera company came out with a better body than the one I am currently using. Selling all my lenses, all my flashes, all my camera bodies, and let us not forget that the intuition with the body and lenses I am used to is very valuable too. I really have no dedication either way, I just started with canon, and they produce a system that works for me. It is purely a practical matter for me.

Boy this question reminds me of the film vs. digital debates over at www.Photo.net. It got so bad over there it seemed that nobody could say anything without somebody chiming in about film or digital being better than the other. whew, was that ever annoying. it seems much less hostile over here. But then again I don't visit the "canon vs. nikon" section very much

Absolutley. If I was just doing weddings with it I'd pass, but the 21 megapixels for stock is a dream - as well for the editorial work I do. If it's still as slow as my current 5d is focusing in dim light - I'll only us this for portrait work.

amen.

I dont need the damn camera to wipe my ass, give me a full frame and some high ISO help and Im set. It just makes sense for me to buy the 5DMII instead of the 5D. I NEED that ISO because I love my natural light.

The camera is just a tool, it doesnt matter what its specs are as long as you know what to do with it. Things like ISO will improve your shooting capabilities and that is definitely one thing to consider, but Im not going to "switch over" just for that. I have gotten a good response with the images I am putting out with a 40D and a few primes.

p.s. I own not one EFS lens and even if I had one, I plan on shooting with two cams for reduced lens changing and one of which will be my trusty 40D.

Cool. Thanks for keeping the list current.

While you are at it, why not make the better spec bold. Will make it easier to see the differences.

Don't forget that the Nikon zoom lenses have a backwards zoom ring

You can shoot 10 megapixel raws as well. This is huge to be able to have the option, and Canon's very smart for including this with such a high megapixel camera. Because you're right, no wedding shooter is going to be wanting to shoot 21 megapixel files all day. But I'll happily shoot 10 megapixel raws all day at a wedding and then 21 megapixel when out shooting landscapes. I'm very excited about this feature.

Not only the zoom ring, but the focus ring and the bayonet mount are backwards, as well. Took me a while to get in the habit switching from Canon FD.

Is anybody interested in RAW in Automatic mode? Found that interesting when I read it.

Done!

As for the backward thing...you got that backwards! Canon is the one who switched when they went digital. You can still use Nikon lenses from way back in the day on our digital cameras...can't say that for Canon. Also, Tamron (best of the off-brands in my opinion) uses the same zoom as Nikon.



WOW, really? Cuz I don't recall anyone asking a camera to take care of those sorts of jobs.



How is the natural light in receptions these days!!!! HAHAHA, sorry had to!



Sorry, I am not going to start with amen! But I will start with, this isn't a debate, just curious WHY one would choose one over the other. Hell, I don't want either of them. In my mind they are BOTH pro-sumer cameras. I ain't a pro-sumer! I am surprised Trevor has popped his head in here yet to tell you all to get a 1D series...just like I would tell you all to get a D3.

Easy. Nikon does not offer a 24 1.4, or a 28 or a 35. Canon for me!

I think wedding photographers should have a 1D3 not a 5D2.

I've said this 100 million times but not in the last 6 months I guess. The 5D wasn't built as a wedding camera. It's a portrait/commercial camera. Still is. Wedding photographers are 1D line, stock & portraits are 1Ds line. That's basically the difference in the lines -

1D3
50D
XTi2

1Ds3
5D2

I think the 5d2 is a camera I'm going to own!

I hope that difference explains my thinking on this - it's not a wedding camera. Wedding photographers are going to be "disappointed" everytime they look at a portrait camera. DUH.

Go look at the commercial photog forums today - like me, Sandra & Shawn, they're drooling. It's a commercial & portrait cam.

I'll bite on this one. I do not own any EF-S lenses but I do own a 40D. So... it would behoove me to stick with Canon seeing as how my lenses are EF unless I wanted to sell. In regards to specs between the two in question I would be more interested in quality of output then anything I can derive from specs. But for me and as crazy as this may sound... Nikon bodies are uncomfortable for me to hold onto for any great length. So while Nikons are great cameras I probably will not (for now anyways) own one unless the body is redesigned. So there is a response on why one might stick with Canon over Nikon and it has nothing to do with specs, glass owned, or brand loyalty. It is just a more comfortable machine for me to slide into then the other.

(and as for HD video on the 5D... I don't get it, nor want it)

Anyone Canon shooter who has had a chance to shoot with the D3 (and I believe the D700 has the same sensor?) and see the creamy amazingness that is there high ISO should be praying that the 5D Mark II gets this right and it probably will.

I've had a chance to play with Nikon primes and they are slow-focusing and just not sharp and pretty like the Canon glass. I am a prime shooter and even with the drawbacks of the high ISO noise, I don't see myself going Nikon for that reason. Nikon has been promising amazing new primes at <insert photo convention here> for several years now.



I disagree. I had a chance to use the Mark III 1ds for a wedding and though the file sizes were unwieldy at full res, they were AMAZING for portraits...SICK amazing. Having that option plus the lower res options available on the 5D Mark II creates an incredibly flexible camera which will be a nice step up...if Canon is on its game...no promises there I would imagine.



Having used the Mark III 1d for my last like 20 weddings, I can tell you that is is damned damned heavy. Ouch heavy. I would much prefer to carry a more compact 5D Mark II if it can do the same thing. The only difference is weather sealing and shutter speed. I never shoot above 5 fps and keep it out of the rain anyhow. It's lost on me except for the slightlly higher ISO and nice little magnification factor on the cropped sensor.

I think that even with the "lesser" AF, the 5DII is going to be my choice for wedding photography over any of the others, including the d700. The reason, weight on my wrists. Big part of the reason I switched to primes as well. The d700 has awesome features, but it still requires a zoom to be wide and is heavier.

Photokina...I'm telling you! You'll see those new Nikon primes!

Added the weight, Canon wins there!

I agree 100%. Both are great companies (though I am a Nikon shooter). Really depends on preference and how much it would cost to switch.

To address this question I'll stick with simple human nature. So here's my top ten.

10. Bragging rights
9. Manurfactuer Software
8. Workflow
7. Ergonomics and usability
6. Pertinent technological Advancement
5. A need or preference for a particular lens
4. Cost
3. Affinity to primes or zooms
2. Extensive (relative) financial investment
1. Brand Loyalty (FanBoyIsm) lmao on this one j/k

This will vary from photographer to photographer, pro vs amatuer, style and type of photography. The End

I think you're missing my point Ryan...

You said the 1Ds3 was amazing for portraits....I think that's the point I was getting at - it's a portrait camera.

As far as the 1D3 vs. the 5D2, I think the point I'm making is that a lot of people aren't impressed because what? It's 4 fps? It's not weather sealed? What exactly are the knocks on this camera?

The knocks are that it's not a 1D3. That's the point - it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a mini-1D3. It's a mini-1Ds3.

Anyhoo - people are going to use the 5D2 for weddings. I know people will miss my point - they always do about this camera - but the point is that it's not *specifically* built to be the best event camera ever. The 1D3 is. And it is - heavy or not, it's the best event camera. The 5D2 is BUILT to be a cheaper, lighter 1Ds3 and it is....

The knocks against it don't stand up - but wedding pros won't be impressed because it's not a "wedding camera" even if Gino & Jess & Jesh use it.



I think my other reply addresses this but if not, I'll try and be specific.

1) Photographers WILL use this camera for weddings and it WILL produce awesome images.

2) Wedding photographers looking for a wedding photography camera are going to be underwhelmed on average because it doesn't improve on already-existing wedding camera gear.

That's all.

argree 100%. The more i think about it, a 1D3 and a 5D2 would make an awesome combo for many reasons, and would be 1K cheaper than a 1Ds3.

Matt makes a great point!

I am currently shooting with a 5d I'm liking the specs on the new 5d MarkII for a lot of reasons. Seems like pretty much the perfect wedding camera to me.

1. Sensor cleaning. I know it is included in consumer level cameras now but the old 5d sensor has to be cleaned after every shoot. This is a big upgrade for me.

2. High iso. The 5d has served me well but I'm looking forward to what the new camera can do in low light. No flash ministers be damned.

3. 21mp will be great for those big group shots of the whole wedding at 100-200 people.

4. 10mp for the rest of the wedding day.

5. 5mp for the dancing/party/drunken revelry shots that never get printed big.

4. 4fps is fine for me. Already shooting 2000+ images a wedding and I don't need more. Assuming that first kiss is 2 seconds, I'm getting a few good shots for sure. While the 1d3 is intriguing I can't imagine needing 10fps unless I get the bungy jumping, skydiving ceremony.

5. Live View so I'm not laying on the dirty pavement or pissing some decorator off by standing on her chair covers.

6. I live in Vancouver, one of the rainiest cites and the 5d weather sealing has been fine. When I start shooting weddings in Antarctica and the Sahara I'll definitely upgrade to a 1 series.

7. Movie mode. A bit of a gimmick but might come in handy for some promotional stuff especially for slideshows and testimonials.

8. A high res LCD is a nice touch.

9. Auto Focus. This seems to be the main sticking point for a lot of people. I have been happy with my auto focus on the current 5d so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

10. Price. $2699 is a fair price for a camera with these specs. A lot of people on the forums like dpreview were expecting a better camera than the 1ds for a few thousand bucks, get real people.

Anyways I'll be buying this camera when it is available as the old 5D is getting a little long in the tooth. I don't really understand the portrait vs wedding argument. I shoot weddings exclusively and consider myself a portrait photographer for a good part of the day.

Just my 2 cents.

Dan

I think the new 5DMKII is a great upgrade for those who use and love their 5D. It addressees at least one of the biggest 5D complaints... sensor dust. It adds a sweet 21.1MP sensors and higher ISO (waiting to see some samples), better weather proofing and sturdiest built so Canon users should be very happy with the upgrade.

There is only one area that I expected improvement but didn't see much of it and it is the autofocus.

I may be missing something here, I am not a Canon user, but after reading the specs and price on the 5DMII, why would someone buy a 1DsMKIII? Could this means that Canon will be replacing the 1DsMKIII soon? After hearing the 25MP by Sony, who knows maybe Canon is moving toward a 25, or perhaps, a 30MP camera?

Looking forward to Photokina and Photo Expo...

Personally, I'm grateful we have two really great camera companies competing here. I've been a Nikon shooter from day one, but I was ready to switch to Canon before the d300 came out. Now I have a D700 and I doubt I will ever seriously consider a switch again.

But it's the competition driving the innovation at both companies!

Have fun with the back-and-forth, but don't forget that the camera is just a tool.

I disagree, Shane. You're the tool...

Just kidding, my friend!

C'mon dude, spare us the false innocence. I am not upset you asked the question. If I didn't want to jump in then I wouldn't have replied. But anytime you start a post with "why would anyone want to buy this canon model over this nikon model"...that is not "just a question." Again, I am not upset in the least that you asked the question. But call a spade a spade - you were starting a debate.

Now addressing the "pro-sumer" comments. I guess I don't understand how a canon 5dmkII is not suitable for a pro just because it is marketed to pro-sumers. What is it that makes a professional camera "professional". Is it the megapixels, the buffer, the sync-speed? If this is the case then should we classify a Leica M6 as a mere toy...cuz talk about lack of features...no focus points or autofocus at all, limited ISO options, no PC sync, ...you get the point. The way I see it, the only thing that separates a pro-sumer camera from a professional camera are the limits it poses on the person using it for the job they are using it for. And to me, if Jessica Claire, Jasmine Star, and the thousands of great photogs that are using the 5D to produce amazing photographs....then it is a professional camera for their application. Let's not forget the digital cameras that we were calling "professional cameras" about 8 years ago...they didn't have the features that a digital rebel has nowadays. Yes a MarkIII has MORE features than a 5D but a camera doesn't have to be the BEST camera or have the MOST features for it to be useful in the professional world. So, in my opinion: "Professional", "pro-sumer"...they're all just marketing words the camera companies use to define their target markets. And we fall for it.

While I agree with some of what Matt Antonio is saying, I think the one thing is missing is the fact that with ANY camera you buy there is going to be sacrifices. What makes a wedding photographer attracted to one camera over another is not just budget but also their personal preference as to what they want to gain/sacrifice. Some might hate lugging around a heavy markIII all day and a lighter weight 5D might be better on the neck. Some may hate that the 5D doesn't have weather sealing BUT like the fact that it is full frame unlike the markIII. It's all about what you want to sacrifice.

Look, no need to get upset about my prosumer comments...its the truth...does the truth hurt you? lol

Seriously though, Nikon's pro bodies are as follows (digital only).

D1 (and the spawns)
D2 (and the spawns)
D3 (and future spawns)

Canon

If it doesnt have a 1D, then it isn't a pro body. Pro bodies can handle more abuse, are rated for higher shutter counts than the prosumer bodies...i.e., Nikon D700 = 150,000 shutters actuations, D3 = 300,000.

Just because J* and others use the body doesn't make it a pro body...heck, if you read how Ken Rockwell lays it out, wedding photogs and such are NOT pros! Only journalists and something else, can't remember.

A pro body has top of the line features, weather sealing to handle the elements and built like a tank.

And my question was, why would a person choose the D700 over the 5D2 or vice versa.

The 5D2 is the better camera. The D700 is the better camera in a downpour when you're looking for that +5 EV look and can't focus through the rain.