[Guest]

Thanks for your reply.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

The 5D is not a lot lighter than the D700, so that is not a deciding factor, the bulk.

[/quote]

Well, having handled both, the 5D feels substantially lighter and quite a bit smaller to me. But you are probably right and I do not try to base my decision on that.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

From the lenses you list (macro, standard + moderate wide angle primes, standard zoom) you seem not to be a portrait photographer, more s everyday life, land/city scape, macro photographer. In those areas the differences are not huge, lens wise, in my opinion. I find that usually, Canon lenses give a (much?) more pleasing bokeh, but that is not really of concern to you?

[/quote]

It is, of course, but this is the first time I hear about substantial differences in this area. Maybe I will have to browse through some photos taken with each lens with that in mind.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

The Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM is a lovely made, very good macro. But the differences between macro lenses IQ wise are not huge, so there won't be a big gap between 5D +100mm L IS and D700 + 105mm VR.

[/quote]

That is right. I love the 105/2.8VR and would not have considered switching to Canon if they had no equivalent. This lens made me choose Nikon at the time it was rather new. I always feel that it is a bit too long for non-macro work, which is why I think I might like the focal length much more on full frame.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

The 35mm f1.4... again, I have not seen that many images yet (for the Nikon). But for now my guess is that the Canon will have more pleasant bokeh, Nikon seems to have a hang to nisen background bokeh, more than Canon.

[/quote]

Bjorn Rorslett likes the new Nikon 35/1.4 a lot. But he is very enthusiastic about nearly every new lens, I think. Nevertheless, I judge his opinion highly, because it is not only based on sharpness tests.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

For the 50mm, I would choose the Canon for sure. Lovely, expensive lens with beautiful rendering for a 50mm. The Nikon 50mm f1,4 has that harsh background rendering I am not a fan of. Of course, one could substitute the Nikon for the SIgma 50mm f1.4.

[/quote]

It is good to here an opinion that the Canon is better. Reviews seem to be quite mixed, but in the end it isn't sharpness in the borders what you have an f/1.2 lens for.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297697578' post='6108']

Then the bodies... the Nikon D700 is of course a nice camera. IQ wise the 5D at times seems to have something special, but that might just be conversion based. The 5D obviously has no liveview. But it focusses well in low light, probably the D700 will beat it in tracking a moving subject (but, just based on specs, not real data).



If it was me, I would go for Canon. But, that is ME, going for the more pleasant rendering. And I would go for the 5D mk II, because of the live view I do need at times for my low angle nature shots.

And I would get different lenses too... The Canon 24mm f1.4 (keeping my 35mm f2), the Canon 50mm f1.2 (or the old f1.0), the 85mm f1.8 USm, the 200mm f2.8 L USM II and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (keeping my 70-200mm L USM).

But, again, that is for me, and my photography.

[/quote]

I rarely feel the need for anything wider than 35mm. Mostly for landscapes, and there the not-so-fast 24mm end of a standard zoom will probably be sufficient.

I did not think about tele lenses for now. I just use them that seldom that I will be fine with any cheap 70-300.



Is there anything but live view that lets you choose the Mk.II over the Mk.I of the 5D?



Overall, there seems to be nothing really leaning towards Nikon in your post.



Thanks.