Nikon D90 vs Canon 5D MKii

D

drdimento

Well-known member
Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of these two cameras against each other?

I am guessing that surely the 5d should stand out but then when I think of the fact that neither camera takes full advantage of the entire imager but only a 1920x1080 portion of it, I wonder if there IS a difference at all then? Certainly there is in price which normally translates into quality and engineering but I am to wonder if it is true. After all, we stacked up some seriously priced tapeless video cameras up against taped ones and not one viewing public could tell the difference other than a couple said the taped looked slightly better and one said the tapeless had maybe better color but couldn't be sure . . price difference? Half the price OR twice the price depending on your vantage point . . So, I am to wonder.

Thanks in advance for those responding.
 
Forget the D90 arguments. It is soon to be obsolete, it'll be just a memory. It can't compare to the 5D. 5D is superior image quality, even if it is 30p. Hopefully the D400 or whatever else Nikon has will surpass the D90 by far. If not we will have the GH1 to check out.
 
As for me, I don't know I'd feel comfortable with a non-Nikon or non-Canon still camera since both are pretty much the market winners short of the Hazzlbad's etc.

I just use the D90 as back up to my D300 crop camera since they both take pretty much the same picture except that the d300 is more commercially driven and have the same imager. But the dMovie thing is quite functional and I'm just wondering if there is any comparison to offer. I've seen footage from both and they both look pretty darn awesome and exciting.

So I guess in response, I think I'll stick with a still camera manufacturer for the moment and also was sort of shocked to see Panny go cMOS sensor in the GH1 since they have been pretty much hanging on the CCD's even with the latest HMC150 and the 170.
 
I think Panasonic have been using cmos for their still cameras forever. GH1 isn't a video camera as much as a still camera with video . Still can't wait to try it out.
 
No question that the Canon delivers a superior image--at 3 times the price!!

The d90 movie mode can produce some very good results--just check out some of the videos on vimeo that it gnerated.

I agree that you won't go wrong in the long term sticking with Nikon or Canon. In the next year (or two) both will have upgraded bodies that will accept all of your accesories at full functionality (lenses/rods/follow focus/mattebox/filters...etc.) You will then have an easy way to get the best 35mm digital imaging results at a minimal extra cost.

I am very skeptical of the GH-1. I don't believe that the movie results are likely to be as good as some have hoped for. It is clearly a consumer oriented camera. It will also accept standard 35mm lenses at a significant crop factor. Finally Panasonic (and Canon) both have professional video products that they are not going to want to encroach on. I may be proved wrong, but the GH-1 seems to me to be an interesting sidelight rather than the camera of the future.

I expect the GH-1 fans to give you a different answer!!
 
Well we were going to go with the Canon 5D MKii just as a vernacular since we recently switched our video cameras to all Canon but the local Canon camera store in Boardman didn't recommend doing so. He said, that there is too much flux at the moment in cameras, lenses, format, etc. and resultantly we should wait for the dust to settle so we could save money. That is, if we went Canon we would have to sell off all our Nikon D300 and all it's gear, lenses, etc. and then buy much more expensive Canon 5D and get at least one or two lenses and even then we'd not have a back up plan. As he put it, "get a Nikon D90 and when a 'real' movie solution hits that will suffice your video business, then go that route with whomever that is."

This sounded like a wise move to us and thus we picked up the D90 for the back up cam (which wasn't expensive at all) and will shoot our wedding season through November before making any more changes.

Accordingly we'll look at the GH1, I mean why not, but having been a Nikon FM2 user from the 70's/80's and a Canon PowerShot since the late 90's I think, I guess I've sorta gotten trenched in and I have to say I love Nikon lenses and even more so Canon lenses. They do make nice stuff although I think Canon has much better pricing and/or value.
 
Robert Altman said:
. . . I am very skeptical of the GH-1. I don't believe that the movie results are likely to be as good as some have hoped for. It is clearly a consumer oriented camera. . . . I expect the GH-1 fans to give you a different answer!!
Click to expand...

I visited a web review of the camera then the Panasonic GH1 website and looking the accessories it does appear that your "consumer oriented" statement is warranted as the bag and case look very package consumer.

Granted this camera will be great camera and it will warrant a "look see" from us, but the jump hurdle will obviously be the Nikon/Canon stigma of totally professional in the SLR anything. As a former FM2 owner with over $3000 in 1980's lens prices (why did they have to be sooooooo expensive) I am very pleased with the D300 for now and after playing with the D90 last week at the pro camera shop, I liked the feel, look, and obvious similarities to my D300, let alone the same picture for the most part and total interface with the 300 gear, and am anxious for UPS to get here with it. If the interface is great (which we cannot see why it wouldn't) we'll add another to our Columbus operation so that both units are matching.

It will be interesting to see where it all goes for now. I too have been watching videos at Vimeo and am having a really hard time telling the two cameras apart and one in particular that has the 5D MKii and an XH-A1 cut together is absolutely gorgeous. That was our intent as I personally continue to move in the direction of independent low budget movie production to avoid the "lens adapter" idea (which I just don't like). I'm sort of one of those KISS kind of people that got lost in technical "whoopie" a few years ago and then woke up last year and changed our whole operation.

Gotta go, UPS just arrived :o)
 
if you have a "planed" project that does not involve a lot of movement, and the budget it`s short...go for d90

you have to think about lights, tripod, steady mics etc...

I would not go in calling d90 obsolete, used in the right hands and with a nice glass, can produce nice/fast results.

5d it has it`s superior points, but the anoing things are: workflow( editing), playback, 30p that needs to be converted.

Both produce , beautiful images it`s just a mater of taste,output and story .
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen, they both look to make about the same image just that as stated earlier the D90 is about a 1/3 the price of the 5D. In fact, one lens for the 5D is more than a D90 kit with a lens. And, the D90 isn't a toilet bowl either . . with 12 mega bit image, lots of nice feature, pretty darn pro looking and at least in the prosumer range at the very least side. Definitely not a P&S'er and then to top it off the owner gets this movie capacity. Gonna go mess with the one that just came and see how the set up and screens are compared to the D300.

Still looking for someone who had done a real comparison of these two cameras MOVIE features.
 
The Canon image is definitely sharper from the numerous samples on the web. 30p is 30p--not 24p, and it is a different look.

My issue with the Canon is that it is still so compromised that a newer, better body will replace it in a year or so. I would personally have more trouble walking away from a $2500 body than a $850 body (the d90).

For my everyday shoots (more documentary/shows/fashion) my Sony V1 is still my 'go-to' camera. It produces a beautiful (and I feel under-rated) HD video image. My d90 serves as a fantastic dSLR for stills, and my entree into a more filmic look. It is not ready in my hands for 'prime time'-though others have tweaked excellent results out of it. It is not a grab and go camera--good results require careful planning--a lot like 35mm film!

I am sure that within 2 years NIkon will have the camera that fully meets my needs, and I will already have a supply of prime lenses, mattebox, rods, FF, etc... (And if RED can get their prices down the same equipment will work on their SCARLET 35mm sensor camera).

The d90 is for me a tricycle--but my two wheeler is not going to be far off (and I won't need the training wheels when it is ready).
 
Robert Altman said:
. . . For my everyday shoots (more documentary/shows/fashion) my Sony V1 is still my 'go-to' camera. It produces a beautiful (and I feel under-rated) HD video image. My d90 serves as a fantastic dSLR for stills, and my entree into a more filmic look. It is not ready in my hands for 'prime time'-though others have tweaked excellent results out of it. It is not a grab and go camera--good results require careful planning--a lot like 35mm film!

I am sure that within 2 years NIkon will have the camera that fully meets my needs, and I will already have a supply of prime lenses, mattebox, rods, FF, etc... (And if RED can get their prices down the same equipment will work on their SCARLET 35mm sensor camera).

The d90 is for me a tricycle--but my two wheeler is not going to be far off (and I won't need the training wheels when it is ready).
Click to expand...

Well stated and I think your take is exactly the right approach. Neither camera is really designed to be a video camera for the most part, just also happen to take video in NOT their 4K or bigger image but in true (non pixel stretched) HD.

For us the HD video really comes from the XH-A1 where we have had excellent performance in most all conditions, especially with low light and control of blacks without a pile of grain.

All this said however, probably the 5D has a better chance of getting better image even though both the 5d and d90 are grasping 1920x1080 frame size off their respective imagers if for no other reason than that the 5d is pulling light through a prime full frame lens while the d90 is usually pulling through a dx lens that is designed around crop frame.

So really, perhaps "there you have it" the image is different and maybe better on the 5d because in the end the glass is better because it is full frame glass while the d90 is oft shooting through dx crop lenses.

Anyone shoot or see footage by comparison where straight prime lens was used on both cameras in a direct comparison?

BTW, I too join in on the "walk-away" scenario . . I definitely feel good in having less than a grand in my D90 body from B&H and less than 1500 in new D90, excellent lens, extra Nikon battery, case, a handful of 4 and 8 gig cards AND a converter on the way that converts SD to Compact Flash wherein I have been told by fellow Nikon'ers that I can put the SD card inside this CF unit and run the D300 on SD cards and thus stock only one card. Since my Mac has an Express Card that takes SD cards I rather like this idea a lot. We'll see when the thing gets here from the Ebay store I bought it from for under 25 bux . . AND . . says I don't have to take the adapter out to remove the SD card . . just push in and pops out. We'll see. If thusly, this will too cool for sure.
 
The Canon uses a much better compression algorithim and much higher bit rates, so the better image is due more to this than sensor size or glass quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top