• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon's 3 years old EOS 5D can still stack up against the D700 in image quality..?

The 5D has a weak anti-aliasing filter, so edge definition is very good, but at the cost of moire on fine detail like fabrics. The D700 has better high-ISO performance. Other than those characteristics their image quality is more or less the same at sane ISOs (100-800), IMO.
 
Is that really surprising? At low ISO's, wouldn't most SLR's cameras (even the old-ish ones), particularly full frame cameras, have excellent image quality?
 
Since the days of 10D, Canon's image processing tech. was ahead of other companies. On the other hand, Nikon really sucked. Now, although D700 is slightly behind, the gap is narrow but not narrow enough. Well, Nikon makes it up by offering superb bodies.
Because Nikon were really behind, they could make great jumps every time they changed algorithms while Canon made very subtle changes.
I think 5D replacement would only show tiny bit of greater image quality compared to 5D unless Canon comes out with something(image processing algorithm) very new which is very unlikely.






 
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Since the days of 10D, Canon's image processing tech. was ahead of other companies. On the other hand, Nikon really sucked. Now, although D700 is slightly behind, the gap is narrow but not narrow enough. Well, Nikon makes it up by offering superb bodies.
Because Nikon were really behind, they could make great jumps every time they changed algorithms while Canon made very subtle changes.
I think 5D replacement would only show tiny bit of greater image quality compared to 5D unless Canon comes out with something(image processing algorithm) very new which is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

well if the 50D really has caught the 5D in terms of noise at higher ISOs, then using the same tech on a 2.56x larger sensor should put a pretty good size gap between canon and nikon in terms of IQ.

with the D90 nikon has done a very good job rationalizing it's lineup over the last 2 years, starting with the introduction of the D40, with a good reason to step up from one camera to the next. other than the new video mode in the D90 there is very little in the way of features that are lacking when you step up a notch compared to what may be found at a lower rung.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Since the days of 10D, Canon's image processing tech. was ahead of other companies. On the other hand, Nikon really sucked. Now, although D700 is slightly behind, the gap is narrow but not narrow enough. Well, Nikon makes it up by offering superb bodies.
Because Nikon were really behind, they could make great jumps every time they changed algorithms while Canon made very subtle changes.
I think 5D replacement would only show tiny bit of greater image quality compared to 5D unless Canon comes out with something(image processing algorithm) very new which is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

well if the 50D really has caught the 5D in terms of noise at higher ISOs, then using the same tech on a 2.56x larger sensor should put a pretty good size gap between canon and nikon in terms of IQ.

with the D90 nikon has done a very good job rationalizing it's lineup over the last 2 years, starting with the introduction of the D40, with a good reason to step up from one camera to the next. other than the new video mode in the D90 there is very little in the way of features that are lacking when you step up a notch compared to what may be found at a lower rung.
Click to expand...


Is IQ Image Quality or ISO Quality?
 
The 5D has a weak anti-aliasing filter, so edge definition is very good, but at the cost of moire on fine detail like fabrics.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot fabrics or window screens for a living, so I prefer the weaker AA filter. I'd rather correct moire' in software when it rarely shows up than have every frikken image require USM just to catch up to a 6mp 10D at ISO 100.

The comparison between the D700 and 5D only shows how good the 5D is. I've hated the concept of APS-C from the get go anyways......FF has simply been too expensive to afford.
 
Used 5D prices on eBay right now hover around $1500-$1600, body only.

Give it another month and you'll be able to score one cheap. Some people are already dumping their 5D bodies in anticipation, but there will be a large migration of 5D users upgrading after Photokina...enough to really drive the used prices down. I'm guessing $1200-$1300, which is a great value for a FF body. If I don't get a 5DMk2 or a D700, that's my third choice; inexpensive 5D with a solid L prime.
 
don't forget, that if you SHOOT RAW, then the difference is negligible. If you shoot JPEG, then the canon has the edge in JPEG performance. When you do the RAW comparison the information are almost identical in both cameras. So this comes down to which body do you prefer. Though the D700 has weather sealing, and a much more robust feature set, (including the infamous 3D Auto tracking focus technique from the D300) it just doesn't produce the JPEGs that the 5D does. So what does this mean?

the 5D is an outstanding camera. The D700 is an outstanding camera. If you have to ask yourself which one to get, go back to entry-level cameras before you waste your money on either. You're not qualified enough yet to use the benefits of a FF body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top