Nikon D300: A good alternative to 5D and/or 40D?

[shuo_zhao]

Canon's top adventage to me is not really its top-of-the-line lenses; instead I'm much more interested in building a lower cost system with the cheap-but-good lenses.

 

- 17-40 f/4L

- 70-200 f/4L

- 50 f/1.8

- 85 f/1.8

- 28-105 f/3.5-4.5

 

You can't find these lenses' counterparts in any other manufacturers' line-ups, at similar prices.

[greenlander]

Shuo,

 

I'm in almost the *exact* same situation you're in. I'm trying to decide between upgrading the 40D or the 5D, but the D300 keeps catching my eye. Our budgetary concerns and shooting styles seem very in line as well, so I'm keen to hear all of your well thought out musings on the subject thus far. Seems like we're drawing a lot of the same conclusions.

 

I already own the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4 L and would swap my EF-S 10-22 for the 17-40 f4 L if I bought the 5D. So, even though I don't have an extensive glass library, I've got enough to want to avoid the hassle of finding Nikon replacements. What I hadn't researched was the compared cost of doing so, but based on what you've said it sounds like this turns out to be a strike against the Nikon switch.

 

Despite the endless ravings on the 5D image quality, the price is still putting me off. $2k (roughly) is still a tough swallow to me when you're basically buying the sensor and a nice viewfinder. I've been close to pulling the trigger on a few used bodies in the $1600-$1700 range, but have opted not to thus far.

 

If I could get my hands on a 5D for the same price (or close) as the 40D, I wouldn't care about the missing features.

[david_wu6]

Although I have a 5D, I'm still tinking to get a Nikon because of the super 18-200 zoom (a unmatchable vacation kit).

[shuo_zhao]

Chad, I know exactly how you feel. The situation now is really tough, and will probably remain so until Photokina 2008. I can still try to hang on and wait, but obviously the new FF won't become widely available or available at a reasonable price until around the end of this year (assume it's announced at photokina); and that's if the new FF or 1 of the new FFs will actually be cheap enough ( w/ a starting price of around $2200 max? ).

 

Right now, it has gotten to a point that the 5D is really not superior to anything in the competition in anyway beside the fact that it has a FF sensor (and its benefits) and a nice viewfinder.

 

I felt that the 40D could be a feasible choice, but honestly for what I do, the only direct benefit I got is the better egronomics/controls. Of course the DIGIC 3 and 14 bit A/D converter are good features, but everytime I think about what they can do when coupled with a FF, I really don't want to buy the 40D anymore. I also don't want to pay for the 10-22, as I don't want to invest too much $$ in EF-S lenses (There were reports claiming that Canon will make all DSLRs bedie the entry level model FF in the future). Ironically if I use the 17-40 on a 40D, not only it's not really super-wide but also to a extent, I'm "wasting" a good piece of glass designed for a FF. Furthermore, the descriptions of the 40D often labeling it as a "souped-up XTi" really turns me down, not to mention the new XSi is seemingly competitive against the 40D as well.

 

So with all that said, we go back to the D300. From my recent researches, it seems that the D300 is a fantastically good camera, even for its $1800 price. It's essentially a baby D3 with everything its big brother has beside the FF. Its focus system as good as a pro sports camera's. Its IQ and high ISO noise performance almost matches the 5D. Its built and egronamics are both on the pro level. It also seem to be able to preserve shadow details better than its competitors; it seem to have the ability to render colors in a very film like way (no blown-out high-lights, instead their realistic colors are shown); its designers clearly paid serious attention to IQ. Overall, I feel this could be the best crop-body DSLR ever made beside the 1.3x 1D series (which actually costs over 2 times as much).

 

To be honest, with a battery pack, which boosts the D300's burst rate to 8FPS, you could essentially do everything you can do with a 1D Mark 3; you can do it nearly as good, at 40% of the 1D's price, and free from 1D's problematic focus system. Although the D300 is really not cheap, it really seem to be a excellent buy if not a bargain. I guess this is why the D300 has been the "best-selling" model and going out of stock at so many places.

 

What really troubles me is that Canon has not been nearly as innovative as the way they had been a few years ago (when the XT, 20D, 5D, and more came out). Its actions now could very well indicate that they are exploiting the temperory lack of seriously effective competition during 2004-2006, using it as an oppertunity to maximize profit with pre-existing, if not obsolete technologies.

 

Meanwhile, Nikon has been the polar opposite of Canon since mid-2006. They first made their products more appealing with solid built, convenient controls, excellent performance, and good IQ (It all started with the D80, the baby D200). Then they challenged the Canon dominated budget-DSLR category with the D40/D40x. Finally they invaded Canon's home territory: High speed pro-DSLR, and prosumer DSLR. The presence of the high speed FF D3 and the marvelous D300, in contrast to the "now obsolete" 1.3 crop 1D and the Souped-up XTi 40D, it really shows Nikon's comeback, if not future domination.

 

I can see that Nikon is really serious about the business, it's efforts are effective and right on target. For example, because Nikon's AF had been weak compared to Canon's, they come up w/ the new 51 point system, even for the $1800 D300; while Canons had relatively bad LCDs, the Nikon come up with the brilliant VGA resolution 3" unit for its D3/D300 duo.

 

What troubles me even more is that afterall a DSLR system is comprised of lenses. Nikon, despite of its recent advancements with the new bodies, doesn't have Canon's huge lens line-up, which includes the cheap/good choices. For example, Nikon doesn't makes counterparts of neither 70-200 f/4L and 17-40 f/4L; and the lenses Nikon makes that are closest to them are too expensive or too cheap in terms of quality (They got no budget-Ls). That's bad, because those are excellent, but relatively affordable lenses.

 

So looks like i'm back to where I originally started.

The conflict in my head continues...

 

 

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>because of the super 18-200 zoom (a unmatchable vacation kit)</i></p><p>Well, perhaps for convenience. But, certainly not for image quality.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Well, perhaps for convenience. But, certainly not for image quality."

 

agreed

[seismiccwave]

Ah Shuo Zhao. You are assuming that Canon makes a superior lens. Yes, granted the L

glasses are nice but personally I feel that the modern day glasses are no where as good as

some of the older glasses. The newer Canon glasses are only reasonable compromise.

They are no where near as pure as some of the older glasses like the Carl Zeiss' and

Leica's.

 

IMHO you can get some of the older manual focus Nikkor lens for a 300D and have

spectacular images at wide open aperture compare to some of the Canon modern L

glasses.

 

Even a Nikkor AI to Canon EOS adapter will yield some spectacular results. Unfortunately

you have to manually step down the aperture every time you press the shutter.

 

Therefore a Nikon body that can handle the AI lenses will give you a lot of options

compare to the Canon glass line up.

 

I just picked up a Nikkor 105 f2.5 for $67 on eBay.

[shuo_zhao]

You definitely made a valid point Hansen.

I didn't think much about the classic lenses.

 

But when I claimed that Canon has a better system, I simply meant Canon had more choices in its current system, including choices w/ good quality-to-price ratios. While Nikon seem to make some modern lenses that are equal or superior than the Canons, they are almost always more expensive. Nikon clearly lacks the Canon's variety/large selection.

[seismiccwave]

You are right about the modern Canon lens choice. I get dizzy looking at how many Canon

lens are available. That's the reason why when I jumped from film to digital I went from

Nikon to Canon.

 

I was not totally happy after I jumped. I am used to the "pop" that the Leica and Nikkor

lenses used to give me. The Canon lens will give me equivalent only when I made a

conscious effort to do the "right" thing.

 

I never realized that I could still use my old Nikkor lenses with the Nikon digital until

recently.

 

I even used the Nikkor to Canon EOS adapters to fit my old Nikkor to the Canon bodies.

 

If you are not ready to blow big bucks on the top of the line Canon I suspect that you will

be a lot happier with the Nikon D300 and the better Nikon lenses.

 

Of course you can always spring for the D3 but I believe that may be too much for most

people including me. I do have the Canon 1Ds Mk 3 so I cannot justify getting the D3

yet.;-)

[mark_chappell]

<I>Therefore a Nikon body that can handle the AI lenses will give you a lot of options

compare to the Canon glass line up.</i><P>

 

Of course, you can also use Leica or Zeiss or Pentax or Olympus lenses on Canons via

adapters and maintain infinity focus. You can't do that (? maybe screw-mount Pentax lenses

are possible) on a Nikon because of the longer lensmount registration.

[greenlander]

I forgot to mention, one of my main concerns with going with the D300 is going wide.

 

From my *brief* research, the equivalent Nikkor offering is the DX 12-24 which seems to be no where near as good as the 10-22 EF-S, wouldn't be quite as wide as the 10-22 on Canon's 1.6x, and is $300 more.

 

The 14-24mm, while it looks absolutely amazing, is priced out of my reach and - regardless - wouldn't be wide enough on the D300.

 

I haven't looked to see what other lens manufacturers offer for the D300 in terms of wide zooms. If I turned out there wasn't something at least equal quality to the 10-22, that'd probably be a deal breaker for the D300.

[tonybeach]

"From my *brief* research, the equivalent Nikkor offering is the DX 12-24 which seems to be no where near as good as the 10-22 EF-S, wouldn't be quite as wide as the 10-22 on Canon's 1.6x, and is $300 more.

 

I haven't looked to see what other lens manufacturers offer for the D300 in terms of wide zooms. If I turned out there wasn't something at least equal quality to the 10-22, that'd probably be a deal breaker for the D300."

 

> Your research regarding the Nikkor 12-24 compared to the Canon 10-22 is not consistent with what I'm seeing at Photozone.

 

With different crop factors (Canon is 1.6x and Nikon is 1.5x) the Nikon is slightly wider at the same focal lengths, so the Nikkor 12-24 has a slightly narrower FOV than the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 has a slightly wider FOV.

 

Nikkor 12-24/4 $920: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/229-nikkor-af-s-12-24mm-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1

 

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 $500: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1

 

Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 currently $640 (w/ $50 rebate): http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

[greenlander]

That's what my last post indicated. The 10-22 on the Canon is effectively 16mm wide at its widest, while the 12-24 Nikkor on the D300 would be effectively 18mm wide at its widest.

 

Thus making the 12-24 not quite as wide as the 10-22 when used on their respective crop bodies, as mentioned above.

 

Word on the Sigma 10-20 you mention makes it sound like a decent lens.

[anson_ko]

There is no One system that fits all your requirments. Keep more than one system if possible. The best way is to rent both systems and shoot a couple of days. Compare it side by side and decide it yourself. People have un-realistic requirments will end up bitter. For example, I wish 5D cost $500 and weights 0.5lb :-)

[greenlander]

Anson,

 

If I had the budget to have both systems, I'd be smiling, out shooting with both, and as a result not have any time to blather here on the PN forums. :)

[shuo_zhao]

>> "If you are not ready to blow big bucks on the top of the line Canon I suspect that you will be a lot happier with the Nikon D300 and the better Nikon lenses."

 

It seems that Nikon lacks many of the good mid-range choices Canon has. For example, if I go ahead and get a D300, the 18-70 will most likely be my general purpose lens. But if I get Canon, I can at least get the 17-40 f/4L, which is a higher grade lens covering the "most useful" length for me.

 

>> "Of course you can always spring for the D3 but I believe that may be too much for most people including me. I do have the Canon 1Ds Mk 3 so I cannot justify getting the D3 yet.;-)"

 

...Too...Much...

 

>> "From my *brief* research, the equivalent Nikkor offering is the DX 12-24 which seems to be no where near as good as the 10-22 EF-S, wouldn't be quite as wide as the 10-22 on Canon's 1.6x, and is $300 more."

 

Chad, the 12-24 is a solid lens. I know the 10-22 Canon is superior, but the Nikon is not bad at all, from as far as I heard. The price could be a problem, but I have seem it priced around $600 on ebay, new.

[tonybeach]

"the 12-24 is a solid lens. I know the 10-22 Canon is superior..."

 

> Based on what? Certainly not MTF numbers. Most of the other measurements are comparable, so perhaps you are referring to maximum FOV. Since you say you know it is superior, then I presume that is based on personal experience -- if that is so then perhaps it comes down to sample variation.

[shuo_zhao]

Anthony, I said "I know the 10-22 Canon is superior..." to indicate that I agreed with Chad, as his experience about the 10-22 confirms with the general opinion about that lens.

 

I could be getting the Nikon 12-24 if I buy a D300. SO what you know about it? Especially as far as the MTF numbers goes.

[bruce_stenman1]

If someone is just starting out and trying to decide between the 40D and the D300 I would say that looking only at the two cameras the 40D is the better value. If someone is looking to get lenses then the 5-year warranty on the Nikon lenses should be considered in part of the decision. Flash has been much better with Nikon but the 40D with the 580EX II for most purposes will work as well (though the 40D will also need the ST-E2 for the 580EX to be used as a remote slave).

 

With lenses there are distinct differences in the offerings from Canon and Nikon. With Canon there has been a much wider range of TS lens (though this really requires a 5D to take full advantage of their capabilities), and there is a much better offering of fast wide angle AF primes like the 24mm f1.4, 28mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.4 lenses. With Nikon there is only the 35mm f2 lens. With Nikon there are significantly better zooms with the 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 VR, for which there are no Canon lenses with equivalent IQ and reliability and lack of back focus concerns, but these lenses primarily benefit the D3 user.

 

Weather sealing has traditionally been better with the D100/D200 cameras than the Canon 10D/20D/30D cameras, but the jury is still out on the 40D which is supposed to be better in this regard than its predecessors.

 

One thing that is truly distinctive with regard to Nikon is that every lens currently in production can be used on every camera in production.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "...40D is the better value."

 

True, but its IQ is not truly a step up from the entry level.

 

>> "much better offering of fast wide angle AF primes like the 24mm f1.4, 28mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.4 lenses. With Nikon there is only the 35mm f2 lens."

 

Now that's something that only matter when you have the budget to afford them.

 

>> "With Nikon there are significantly better zooms with the 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 VR, for which there are no Canon lenses with equivalent IQ and reliability and lack of back focus concerns, but these lenses primarily benefit the D3 user.

 

This is true, but then Canon also has lenses without any Nikon equivalents, such as the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L (both relatively cheap but good choices).

 

>> "One thing that is truly distinctive with regard to Nikon is that every lens currently in production can be used on every camera in production."

 

This is a good thing, but it shouldn't matter too much if the system is to be built from scratch.

[tonybeach]

"I could be getting the Nikon 12-24 if I buy a D300. SO what you know about it? Especially as far as the MTF numbers goes."

 

> Mostly what I know about it as that most people who have it like it, and the review at Photozone, which I linked to earlier. I am unware of some generally held consensus that the Canon is better, they seem similar and I would not doubt that an individual copy of one could be better or worse than those tested at Photozone.

 

FWIW, the Sigma is generally considered the better choice because it is wider and less expensive. Thom Hogan is a big fan of that lens for going wide with DX format. The Sigma is also available for Canon EF-S mounts.

[keith reeder]

"True, but its IQ is not truly a step up from the entry level."

 

Aside from that being a *highly* disputed "truth" (there's wealth of comment on other forums confirming that the 40D does indeed bring considerable IQ benefits over the xxxD series), 40D IQ is *every bit* as good as D300 IQ - and some people consider it to be better because of the effect the D300's in-camera NR has on fine detail.

 

So if your comment is a mark against the 40D, it also damns the D300.

[jim_larson1]

Highly disputed? By who?

 

The flamebaiters in the forums of a certain well known review site?

 

I am sure the 40D is better than the XT, just as the XT was better than the 30D which preceded it. I would surmise that the new XSi, which uses the 40D's imaging backbone coupled to a new 12mp sensor, is probably superior to the 40D.

 

What I am seeing is that Canon rolls new imaging technology into the X0D/XXXD line as it becomes available and is doing nothing to distinguish image quality between these lines. Features. . .no question that the X0D's are superior. Image quality. . the newest one is the better one.

 

As for the D300. . .I personally have no clue. I suspect the Canon's are superior in IQ. But I don't think anybody disputes that the features set (Speed and AF) is in a different (and better) league.

 

Of course. . . the pricing reflects the feature set. In a *big* way.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Aside from that being a *highly* disputed "truth" (there's wealth of comment on other forums confirming that the 40D does indeed bring considerable IQ benefits over the xxxD series), 40D IQ is *every bit* as good as D300 IQ - and some people consider it to be better because of the effect the D300's in-camera NR has on fine detail."

 

I started a thread called 40D IQ vs. entry level IQ a few days ago. Almost everyone who contributed to that thread claimed that the 40D has near identical IQ to the XTi. To be honest, I personally had minimal experience comparing those 2 models. But I can't assume that EVERYONE lied. I actually questioned such universial response, because the 40D still had the DIGIC 3, 14 bit A/D converter, and a new filter; not to mention it also has better agronomics and a high burst rate.

 

I heard about the in camera NR, but it's not a big deal to me. I shoot at low ISO, and often tripod-mount my shots. Also, there seem to be a lower setting for the NR, along with the "high". Most reviewers seemed to be happy with the low setting.

 

>> "So if your comment is a mark against the 40D, it also damns the D300."

 

I'm completely neutral about everything in this thread. I don't know where you got that impression.

 

>> "I suspect the Canon's are superior in IQ."

 

From everything I've heard so far, it seems to be the other way around this time. It's obviously something new, as Canon had dominated the market for years now. From my researches, it seems that the D300 performs especially well with shadow details, high lights (no blown-out high-light), and color rendition right out of the camera.

[Jim_Tardio]

The problem with the Sigma is that it's dreadfully slow @ 20/5.6.