[ltdstar]

I'm thinking of getting one of these, most probably used. I want a system that focus fast in low light situation, prefer hi-iso also but not mandatory, most important is accurate and fast focus. Right now I have two K20Ds but the focus is kinda suck and Pentax don't have really fast primes. I wanted an FA*85mm 1.4 but its $1300 USED, so might as well try another system and see what they can do. I actually ordered an FA85mm on Ebay but they said another guy sold it at their store already...

So the choices are:

Canon 5D II
Canon 1Ds II
Nikon D700

maybe:
Sony A850/900
Canon 5D

I would love to get some feedbacks from those that own any of these bodies and comparison to K20D with respect to low light focusing. Or if you have some other body that you would recommend, let me have it.

Thanks in advance...

[awo425]

I have 5D2. AF is accurate with center AF point, but sometimes will miss with off center AF point.
In the dark it can hunt even with center AF point, but will find accurate focus in >90% situations.
Overall AF on 5D2 is light years ahead of Pentax K10D,K20D, Kx, but I found Nikon D700 be considerably better. One thing that bothers me in 5D2 is that it does not have AF assist lamp.

Canon 5D does not have AF microadjustment, I think it is a big drowback, 2 out of my EOS lenses needed small AF correction.

[cwood]

You should make the decision based on the lenses you want. For example Canon's 135mm F2 lens is pretty special... and Nikon makes the only 200-400 F4 zoom. They are all good camera's so as far as I'm concerned the body is kinda irrelevant. Glass is where you make the big long-term investment.

I agree with AWO425 that the lack of micro adjust on the 5D is a big deal.

[ltdstar]

Thanks, AWO and kunik for your valuable input. I'm just looking at doing portrait so no super-telephotos needed but I'm leaning toward the D700 since my studio-mate is using it along w/ D300. I'm just wondering if Canon is any better than Nikon in low light focusing.

[cwood]

I can't comment on low-light focusing of the D700 vs 5DII. But I'd still recommend careful research of lenses before deciding on body. You don't have to look hard to find people complaining about the Canon 85mm F1.2 even though it is widely acknowledged to be a great lens. The point is that every lens has weakness and you should look into those weaknesses to see if they will be a problem for you.

I know a guy who just got an 85mm F1.8 for his D300s and it has the worst purple fringing I have EVER seen... but I have heard people say good things about that lens too so I really can't say if its a good lens or not (maybe there is something wrong with his?).

Not too many people are really knowledgeable enough to provide great advice to you here so just take what you can learn and put it all in to your decision.

I can tell you the Canon 24mm F1.4 (mkI version) is the worst lens I have ever put on my 1DmkIII. And a lot of people (including me) find the 24-105mm soft at F4 (some others seem to disagree). The 70-200 F2.8 IS is quite a popular portrait lens though because its tack sharp at F2.8 so you can back up and get some nice bokeh on outdoor portraits (but its also 2.9 lb)... And the 135mm F2 is just flat out one of the best lenses I have ever used. The 35mm F1.4L was great but I have limited experience with it (one wedding) so I won't comment further

... there's my input on Canon lenses. Get some good honest opinions on everything you are interested in and go from there.

[wlachan]

The impression I have, after reading so many user opinions, is that Nikon beats Canon on wide angles, while Canon offers the sweetest teles, in general. One big plus for Nikon is that they beat everyone else for wireless & TTL flash.

[Clicker]

Thanks, AWO and kunik for your valuable input. I'm just looking at doing portrait so no super-telephotos needed but I'm leaning toward the D700 since my studio-mate is using it along w/ D300. I'm just wondering if Canon is any better than Nikon in low light focusing.

From all my own comparison research and friends with cameras, Nikon beats the daylight out of Canons in the high iso competition. Canons have become very good at integrating video but Nikon still reigns supreme in imaging ...this is what i'm mostly hearing/seeing.

[cwood]

From all my own comparison research and friends with cameras, Nikon beats the daylight out of Canons in the high iso competition. Canons have become very good at integrating video but Nikon still reigns supreme in imaging ...this is what i'm mostly hearing/seeing.

Its the type of personal question everyone will have their own answer for... but this whole race to shoot perfect pictures at ISO 999,999 seems to be over as far as I'm concerned - at least in the range of camera's being discussed here. Its like the megapixel race... I would never spend more money for an 18MP camera instead of a 12MP camera because it is irrelevant to me. As far as I'm concerned the MP race ended at 10... For ISO I consider ISO 6400 to be the end of the issue. If I can get a clean image at ISO 6400 then I'm happy. Whenever I see the specs on a new camera that have a number bigger than that my eyes just glaze over completely.

I've seen awesome pictures at ISO 6400 from 1DmkIV, 5DmkII, D3, D3x and D700. I have actually seen really nice pictures from all these cameras at higher ISO's but as I said my eyes glazed over and I can't remember how high they went...

[jonlee]

I've owned a 5D Mk I, 1DSII, and still own a D700.

Frankly, I think you'd be happy with any of these. Focusing, even in low light, shouldn't be a big issue for any of these bodies especially when you put some fast glass on it. The 5D 1 and 2 aren't really known for their AF capabilities, but for your usage, I think it would still work out for you. In low light, you could use a Canon ST-E2 that may help with focus acquisition in low light. The D700 and 1DS-series do track moving subjects better however, probably because they have so many focus points.

Can't speak about the 5D2, but the 5D1 was excellent up to ISO 1600. The 1DS2 slightly better, and the D700 is clean at 3200. Personally, I felt confident shooting the 1DS2 even at 3200 and the D700 at 6400, but I'm not especially sensitive to a little noise in my pics.

In regards to lenses, Canon has some amazingly fast primes. The 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2, and even 200 f2.8 are all wonderful, but also wonderfully expensive.

Nikon also makes a really nice 85 1.4 and 105DC F2 - perfect for portraits on full-frame. Nikon's current line-up of pro zooms (14-24, 24-70, and 70-200) are all outstanding.

D700's and 1DS2 are about the same price now, and 5D2's just a few hundred more (all used pricing). There are many other considerations, however as each body has strengths and weaknesses to one another. For instance, if you'd like to do any video, you'd have to go with the 5d2. For build quality (and heft), the 1DS2. However, the D700 is still my favorite all-around camera, as it can do just about everything really well.

[er1kksen]

You should make the decision based on the lenses you want. For example Canon's 135mm F2 lens is pretty special... and Nikon makes the only 200-400 F4 zoom. They are all good camera's so as far as I'm concerned the body is kinda irrelevant. Glass is where you make the big long-term investment.

As a lover of the 135mm focal length, I don't know if the 135 L (great as it is) is really that special. It would seem to me that this one is a bit more so. I must admit that while I'd like one of each (and the Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8), if I had to pick just one, it would be the Nikon...

On the high-ISO question: There's hardly any functional difference. Claiming that either of the big two beats the snot out of each other is to make a mountain out of a less-than-1-stop molehill. Relationships between noise and resolution are important to keep in mind, as are noise reduction methods (both in RAWs and Jpegs). Even the Sony FFs can be made to look almost as good as a D700 through proper handling of the files, despite their awful reputation on web forums for "unacceptable noise above ISO 800."

[dylansalt]

Yes the D700 I would say is the best "all-rounder" very serious amateur/pro FX dslr i.e. landscape,portrait, action, ca/vignette correction.

I used one with a really old model 50mm 1.8 and was impressed.

Where Nikon possibly lacks (compared to Canon) is in FX VR lenses e.g 14-24, 24-70 are non VR (but very expensive) - these are brand new lenses, so I can't understand why they couldn't VR them.

Canon 5dmk11 is the Landscape/Portrait camera of choice with many pro's and would be my choice over a 1dsMk11 as it's more portable.

Canon lenses are generally lower in price than the Nikons.

Too be quite honest after using a 450d and playing with many raw 5d/7D images I just can't seem to like the Canon cmos handling of color and to my "eye" the images (even if they are technically brilliant) seem flat.

Togs generally tend to use Canon more due to the easy trade ability of lenses & bodies and that the overall package cost's less money than Nikon.

The Nikon D700 is now really showing "excellent" value costing just a little more than a D300s/7D dx sensors.

The Sony 850 FX, actually comes in at the same price as the D300s/7D and has in body IS.

The 24-70 2.8 Zeiss lens easily out performs the N/C equivalents and if I was just doing portraits/landscape work in decent light I would choose this combo any day over 5Dmk11 (pricing is better and many don't require video)

Personally I like the rendering from the Sony cmos exmor sensor (especially color) which Nikon & the new Pentax's (kx) use.

Some food for thought?

[cwood]

Too be quite honest after using a 450d and playing with many raw 5d/7D images I just can't seem to like the Canon cmos handling of color and to my "eye" the images (even if they are technically brilliant) seem flat.

I think you are absolutely correct here. I rarely say this because it is difficult to show or prove... but when I take the exact same picture with my Canon and Pentax I prefer the Pentax almost every single time. I think Nikon is much closer to how Pentax images look.

Canon still works very well for sport but I tend to push the saturation and contrast quite heavily with my Canon images. With pentax I sometimes find I have to go the opposite way so people don't think I've been too busy with the sliders in lightroom.

^^ this ^^ is why I continue to carry Pentax equipment in spite of the fact that i have one of the nicest Canon camera's ever made. And the reason I did not go with Nikon is because they did not make all the lenses I wanted ... or at least I did not want to pay that much.

[dylansalt]

Hi Kunik

Quite amazingly my 21 yr old son who has used friends D90, 450D says the Nikon is closest to Pentax when coming to color (he's big on color) but says the Nikon's af is leagues ahead of my K10d (I agree)

Also when I look at how compact the Pentax 55-300 is compared to other offerings.

If Sony had a better following & good residual I would be buying it just for those 2 CZ zooms - which indecently are less expensive than Nikon.

[jonlee]

Hi Kunik

Quite amazingly my 21 yr old son who has used friends D90, 450D says the Nikon is closest to Pentax when coming to color (he's big on color) but says the Nikon's af is leagues ahead of my K10d (I agree)

I would agree with the comment regarding color too. I'm finding both my K-7 and D700 seem to share similar palettes when it comes to color. I'd go on to say that I actually think the K-7's AWB does a better job than my D700. However, I'm not liking how the K-7 handles color in it's incandescent/tungstun WB setting.

Seems like most many here at the forum agree that the Pentax's AF capabilities are that great. I haven't had a good chance to compare it to the D700 yet, but I plan to see it for myself when my DA 50-135 arrives later this week.

[awo425]

Thanks, AWO and kunik for your valuable input. I'm just looking at doing portrait so no super-telephotos needed but I'm leaning toward the D700 since my studio-mate is using it along w/ D300. I'm just wondering if Canon is any better than Nikon in low light focusing.

I think Nikon D700 is better in low light focusing, maybe because it is equipped with focus assist lamp, maybe because AF module itself is more advanced, but Canon 5D2 is OK IMO.

I took this portrait at the party. Canon 5D2, lens EF 50mm @ 1.4, ISO 6400, shutter 1/25 sec

The only light at the party was from a few candles, no kidding. I did not have my flash with me, and couldn't use focusing assistance from the flash. Nevertheless 75% pictures from this event were in focus, again camera was focusing almost in the dark, there were no light source other than a few candles.