David Williams , Oct 29, 2009; 04:33 p.m.
(I'm sorry I posted this question initially in the Nikon forum but feel this forum is more relevant)
Greetings. I have come to an impass. I am a pro photographer shooting 40+ weddings a year. Currently I shoot with a pair of D300s, one with a 17-55 f2.8 (Nikkor) and the other with an 85 f1.4 (Nikkor). Having shot DX(crop frame) for years, I want to upgrade now and still get some cash for my current equipment on ebay. Full frame it is then, but let me see. One of the main reasons to go full frame (and obviously I started thinking about the D700) was for superb low light photography (wonderful for dark churches and so on). However, is it really worth going the D700/D3 way with only 12mp on offer. What I'm getting at is that the Canon 5D Mkii is D700 money and has 21mp and is almost as good in the low light stakes. And as I crop quite heavily sometimes in the editing process, I am starting to think about jumping ship... Your thoughts would be appreciated...
Mark T , Oct 29, 2009; 04:36 p.m.
I dont see 12 mp as a deterrent to get a d700.. How big of a print are you planning to make?
David Williams , Oct 29, 2009; 04:42 p.m.
Well my standard print size is 14" x 11" and if you crop a 12 megapixel file more than a little, the quality goes down the pan.
Matt Laur 
, Oct 29, 2009; 04:46 p.m.
I sell 20x30 prints from D300 imagesl, to some very happy customers. The prints, even that large, look great, even if somewhat cropped. The only thing that would get in the way would be a lot of noise, or motion blur because I couldn't get a high enough shutter speed. The D700 addresses that part of the problem very nicely. And if you've already got batteries, grips, etc., and keep the lovely 85/1.4, you're in nice shape. How about keeping one D300, with that terrific 17-55/2.8, and using a D700 in the other role?
Josh Laronge , Oct 29, 2009; 04:52 p.m.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Nadine Ohara - SF Bay Area/CA 
, Oct 29, 2009; 05:05 p.m.
Response to Jumping Ship: Nikon to Canon?
If resolution for cropping space is your primary reason, the answer is pretty cut and dried. There is no arguing 21 megapixels against 12--there are not gray areas to argue about. Unless you wait for another D3 or D700 successor, which will undoubtedly have more megapixels.
I would get a sample D3 or D700 file and crop it as severely as you would. Then get a 5D MkII file and crop it the same way. That will answer your question for sure.
Then sit down and write out your list of priorities in a main wedding camera. Then compare the two with your list. You should have a definite answer, combined with the above info, pretty quick.
Laurentiu Cristofor 
, Oct 29, 2009; 05:16 p.m.
Response to Jumping Ship: Nikon to Canon?
Jon Curtis , Oct 29, 2009; 05:37 p.m.
I'll take better low light performance over megapixels any day.
Anyone should know they don't need more then 12 megapixels.
Please throw your money away and buy all new equipment. Our economy needs people to spend.
Marios Forsos , Oct 29, 2009; 05:45 p.m.
" Canon ... is almost as good in the low light stakes"
Well...it really is not you know. Seriously. It does not come close. If you truly wanna shoot low light with true abandon and know you'll get a superb image, then no, they are nowhere near close. As for the usual, boring-by-now, megapixel spiele, that too is becoming slightly pointless (and equally boring). You can export a 12MP RAW file easily into a 1m by 1.5m print at amazing quality - have done it enough times to know.
Oh, and something else: I have travelled with my D700 from Africa to the arctic circle under truly horrendous conditions and the machine simply took everything the elements could through at it and kept on going... I met two Swedes in Iceland who had BOTH their brand new 5MkIIs short from the waterfall mist...
I hate going into the Canon vs Nikon game again and again, but some things are just as they are. Wanna spend less and get a Canon? By all means, do it. Bot don't expect to get the same camera...
Nadine Ohara - SF Bay Area/CA , Oct 29, 2009; 06:05 p.m.
Marios--I would guess that no one would argue that Nikon's newest sensor and technology is superior to Canon's for low light (by how much is arguable, depending upon how a person uses the camera and for what, in the overall scheme of things). But low light response is not the issue. Being able to make a superb large print from a 12 megapixel image is not the issue. Being able to make a superb large print from a severely cropped 12 megapixel image vs. a severely cropped 21 megapixel image is the issue--as I understand it. From that standpoint, there is no arguing. You are going to get nicer prints from the severely cropped 21 megapixel image, as far as actual 'real estate' goes.
Other factors may enter into the comparison, including one's personal preference based on nothing more than feeling one just looks better than the other, resolution aside. This is why nothing beats comparing the real thing based on your particular uses. I have a 5D and am often tempted by the D700. Should I become serious about going with the D700, I sure am going to get my own samples and use my own priority list to make the decision.
Everything else, including reliability, build and being waterproof, should probably be on David's priority list when evaluating the whole camera. But these aren't the issues being asked about. Why would anyone expect to get the same camera as a D700 when he or she bought a 5D MkII after determining the latter fits his or her needs?
