D300 vs 5D

[shojin]

I am moving fully to digital from 35mm (an old Minolta system) and will be

investing in some pro quality glass. So, I've narrowed my choices to a D300 and

5D, with a strong lean towards the 5D. If glass wasn't a factor, I think I'd go

with the D300 due to superior weather proofing, state of the art metering,

focus, etc. However, the 5D is a proven platform and the kicker is that Canon

seems to have a better range of pro quality lenses. Any comments on why I

should continue to think about the D300? I apologize if this is an incorrect

place to pose this question... not trying to be a troll.

 

Matt

[james_symington1]

Matt,

 

The 5D is two years old and, as good as it is (and I used to have one), time moves on quickly in the digital world. I wouldn't be surprised if the D300 is clearly superior. If you like fast primes then Canon still leads but Nikon produces great f2.8 zooms that are second to none - and that's without including the new lenses coming in November. Yoou won't be displeased with either.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

The 5D will probably be replaced in Feb. so hold off till then. Even now, the 5D is probably better in low light than the D300 will be. Unless you really need to pul the trigger right now, I would wait till spring so see what's out there and some real tests of the new cameras.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"the kicker is that Canon seems to have a better range of pro quality lenses. "

 

You're flat arong about that. I;m not saying Nikkors are better --they aren't -- but that Nikon and Canon both make equally fine lenses wit hthe nod to Nikon in the ultra-wide angle department and Canon with a current lead aand prioce advantage regarding super telephotos.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I would not by either until you have had a chance to handle both and see which is most suited to you.

[fourfa]

Agreed, rumors of a 5D replacement are at a fever pitch right now. That would mean both a new camera and even deeper discounts on the current one.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

My questions to you Matt would be these.....

 

1, what was the fastest film roll ASA you ever bought?

2, do you want to shoot low light?

3, what kind of colors do you like?

4, are you looking for sharpness or the "silky" look?

5, what do you normally shoot?

6, how about renting two cameras for a weekend - a D200 & a 5D with about corresponding lenses (remembering that the D200 is a 1,5 crop/magnification) - go out & shoot what you normally would & see how you like the result & then make a decision?

7, would the crop factor benefit you or be potentionally to your disadvantage?

8, normally I'd ask how much money you wish to spend - - but that's fairly evident here..

 

Personally I'd answer like this

1, ASA 400

2, not really, but bumping the ISO is convenient when I shoot wildlife

3, I like strong "passionate", warm, saturated colors. I don't like the watercolor effect.

4, I want sharp sharp sharp - none of that "silky" (due to noise ware look)

5, I shoot everything from horses in action, wildlife, macros, flowers, to portraits of people & bees. ;-)

6, I haven't rented but have seen the D200, D2X, D2H, Mark II & 5D pinned against each other - - I know which I pick in each of these tests.

7, for me the crop factor is to my advantage. I don't need to spend the money on lenses nor do I have to lug as large a lenses to handle the wildlife shots.

8, I kind of go by what our situation is at the time. My husband's freelance.

 

All these questions are here placed to help guide you. We can not answer them for you. We can answer them for our selves only. If you want the equivalent of the 35mm frame - then you have to go with the 5D or consider the Nikon D3.

 

Also, I've also read rumors about the 5D being upgraded & that of a potential Nikon in the same class.

 

As for Canon having a better lineup of pro lenses - - I really have to question that. Nikon has a wonderful lineup of lenses & a few will be coming out along with the D3 & D300. You can easily cover yourself from 12mm to 600mm. Be it with zooms or primes.

 

I hope these questions will help guide you.

 

JMHO

 

Lil

[Peter_in_PA]

If you had to move today...

 

It's easy. Both Nikon and Canon make great glass. I think they're about equal. But the

Canon 5D is awesome and available now. The 300 will not likely be a vast improvement

over it, especially with regard to the crop factor.

 

But... if, like me, you hold both in your hands and find that Nikon just "feels more right"...

then... get a Nikon.

 

I for one don't like certain annoying things about the Canon and don't find much

"annoying" about the Nikon.

 

It's personality. What's yours?

[daverhaas]

Matt -

 

I had to make the same exact choice a few years ago (back when the D70 was new and hot). I looked at both the Canon and Nikon systems at the time, and landed on the Nikon and haven't looked back.

 

My number 1 reason was the build and feel of the Nikon compared to the Canon. The Nikon felt better in my hands... period.

 

I have since upgraded to D200's and might go with a D3 someday.

 

Nikon has a ton of good and great lenses available. Nikon lenses built in the 70's will work with the D200 (and I'm assuming the D3/D300) Yes, I know that they are manual, etc... but they still fit the body. Canon can't say that about their lens line-up.

 

Until you can get both the D300 and the Canon 5D in your hands to check out the feel and build (you can get the Canon today) I'd recommend waiting. If you really can't wait that long, I'd suggest comparing the 5D to the D200. The 5D will win on High ISO, color tones / range and Full Frame, the D200 will win on build, weather sealing, Auto ISO, and speed.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the 5D rumors are just that...Rumors. The only people who know what Canon is doing work for Canon and guess what... They aren't talking. Last year at this time, Canon announced $600 (us) rebates on the 5d and everyone said that the 7D or whatever would be announced in Jan/Feb/Mar... and viola... we're at the same spot this year.

 

Dave

[shojin]

Thanks for all your responses... I'll start by answering Lil' Judd's questions: 1)800 ASA; 2) yes; 3) I like colors that pop; 4) I like both sharp and silky, sharp for people and landscapes, silky for abstract weirdness; 5) I shoot people (reportage), landscapes and weird abstract architectural images; 6) good idea; 7) I think full frame might have a slight advantage for landscape and architectural shots, but not enough to prevent me from going 1.5x crop); 8) this is a relevant question as I do have an initial budget of about $3,800 bucks for a body and 1-2 lenses.

 

So, I considered the D300 because its price (around $1800) will allow me to spend $2K on a couple of lenses. However, because the 5D is getting discounted due to the impending 5DII, I?ve become interested in the Canon system due to its full frame sensor. However, at a (net) price point of around $2200, I only will be able to get one L lens to start with.

 

This is also a hard decision because I am investing in a lens system that I want to stay with as camera bodies change; e.g. when the 5DII price drops in a couple of years, I can keep the lenses and change out the body. I am afraid that if I invest in DX lenses, I may want to move to full frame at some future point when Nikon makes a full frame camera in the 3 or sub 3K price range.

 

Ellis? you?re absolutely right about Nikon quality. My comment about Canon quality has more to do with having more options for pro grade glass for the 5D (being full frame) than there is offered by Nikon in the DX format. Probably the only real need for DX is in wide angle. I could go with full frame lenses in the longer focal lengths.

 

Re: waiting for the 5DII to be released? I?m sure I won?t be able to afford the 5DII price point of 3K plus and I don?t want to wait as my current digital died and is not worth repairing.

 

Re: lenses, I like zooms? for Canon, the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM would be my first (and probably only to start with) lens. I would later get the 70-200 f/4L and 13-35 f2.8 as I save the $$. If I go with Nikon, I?d get the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX and one more? not sure if I?d go wide angle or telephoto.

[elliot1]

I had been considering the decision for several months. I have been shooting an indoor event for several years and managed well with my Nikon gear. Last August, the venue changed. I am significantly farther from the stage and virtually all of my shots were shot at ISO 600 to 1000. It was too dark for my D200 to focus accurately even with my favorite lens, the 70-200 2.8. I used my backup D80 which fared much better for focus, but images had more noise than I am comfortable with (I should have shot with my D40!).

 

I made the decision 2 weeks ago and bought a 5D. I am thrilled with the image quality, especially at high ISO. Although I have read comments about poor focus speed, I find the camera focuses faster than my Nikon cameras. It also focuses significantly better, consistently accurate with much better results than my D200 or D80. I bought the 24-70 f2.8L lens, and will be receiving my 70-200 2.8L tomorrow. I am shooting the event again in November, and will make my final decision based on the results of that shoot. I am confident the 5D will do the job exceptionally well.

 

Whether you should get a 5D or a D300 depends on what you are shooting. For average situations with good light, you probably won't see much of a difference with the two. The 5D excels at higher ISOs.

 

I find the images at ISO 1600 and 3200 incredibly sharp, detailed and virtually noise free except for a little color noise which is easily removed without reduction in image sharpness using Reduce Color Noise in CS2. While the D300 will certainly offer lower noise than the D200 and D80, I don't believe the D300 will be able to achieve the noise free high ISO images of the 5D because of its DX sensor.

 

Is the 5D a perfect camera? Absolutely not! The monitor is just good at best. Important? Depends. It did bother for me for the first few days. But the superior image quality, accurate focus and responsive shutter more than make up for the monitor deficiencies.

 

Another nice feature I have become used to the my Nikon cameras is Auto ISO. So now I have to think a little bit about the lighting conditions before I start shooting.

 

If you want superb image quality (superb in every regard - color, contrast, low noise, sharpness) and great low light capabilities, the 5D is the affordable way to go right now. Based on the sample images I have seen of the D3 and the quality of the shots I have taken with my 5D, I don't think there will be that much of a difference in image quality between the 5D and the D3 (ok, feel free to beat me up on this comment, but until side-by-side tests are done, there is no way to know for sure). In fact, as an avid DXO user, I am confident that my 5D images processed with the new version of DXO just being released will be on par with the D3 (again, just an educated guess).

 

For what its worth, I did one of my famous side-by-side comparisons this past weekend between my D80 with the 17-55 2.8 and the 5D with the 24-70 2.8L. Shot raw with both cameras. The exposures with the 5D were much more accurate, had richer color and seemed to have better dynamic range. Sharpness was virtually identical (after processing with DXO - the Canon was better out of the camera). Even though the D80 is 10mp and the 5D is almost 13mp, you could not really see a difference in image quality when putting the images under extreme magnification, which was not a surprise for me. Your really need big jump in megapixels to see a significant difference in image quality.

 

My conclusion? If you are much more than a P&S kind of DSLR shooter, you will love what the 5D has to offer, especially at it current bargain basement price. But feature wise, it is most certainly not a replacement for the D3. But if you want really fantastic images and shoot a lot at higher ISOs, the D3 is your only option other than the 5D.

[Sanford]

Size (sensor size) counts. Bigger is always better. This is why $50.00 garage sale Yashica Mat always took better pictures than my Leica M6.

[peter_lawrence]

Matt,

 

If you are currently strongly leaning to the Canon 5D, then by all means, go get it. It's an

excellent proven camera. Remember, you are buying a system, not a camera. If for

whatever reasons, you prefer the Canon SLR system over the Nikon SLR system, then the

5D should be your choice.

 

The Nikon SLR system is no slouch and holds up well against the Canon system. But each

SLR system has different points of emphasis and strengths, so again, if your preference is

the Canon system, buy the Canon body that best suits your requirements.

 

In reading the your comments from your two posts, I don't see any compelling reason why

you should choose a Nikon body (and its system) over a Canon body and the Canon

system. You seem to prefer the Canon, so go with it. You won't be missing anything

that's critically important (a deal breaker) by choosing Canon over Nikon.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"You won't be missing anything that's critically important (a deal breaker) by choosing Canon over Nikon."

 

Or Nikon over Canon.

 

I went with a Nikon D200 about 1.5 years ago. The main reason was the intuitive design of the camera. Of course, it probably seemed intuitive because I've use Nikon SLRs for aver 20 years.

 

It really dos not matter which system you chose. Both companies make excellent lenses and bodies.

[johnw63]

The only real kicker seems to be the lens compatibility. With the D300 or D3, you can use lenses from about 1960 to the present. Not so with a Canon. If that is low on your list of wants, then...go with what feels and works best for you.

[dan_brown4]

The D300 renders the 5D a little child's toy.

 

Yours truly, the Nikon Forum.

[peter_lawrence]

Robert,

 

I agree. I myself chose Nikon over Canon, and currently use a Nikon D200 too. And like

you, one reason I bought the D200 was that I previously used Nikon film SLR's.

 

But Matt has already stated that he is strongly leaning toward the Canon 5D. And I just

want to reassure him that he won't go wrong by choosing the Canon 5D (which a number

of my friends own and love) even though he seems to have some reservations because of

Nikon's latest and greatest prosumer DSLR, the D300.

 

One should carefully choose an SLR system (be it Canon, Nikon, or even Pentax or

Olympus) and then not worry if another company comes out later with a "better" camera

body. Choose the SLR system that best suits your wants, needs, and budget and then be

content to stay with that system for the long run unless you start having real problems

with it.

[shojin]

Thanks again for all your intriguing responses. I am not really that wed to the 5D? just a little edged over by full frame. What edges me towards the D300 is weather proofing and the potential for more modern technology. I hadn?t really thought about buying older Nikon lenses. I did hold both the D200 and the 5D, both felt good. I do think I might like features like auto ISO? will the D300 have lower noise than the 5D, I guess we?ll just have to wait and see.

[keith_leonin]

Since you don't mention any budget constraint, why not just go all out and get:

 

Nikon D3 -- 14-24mm -- 24-70mm/2.8 -- 70-200mm/2.8 -- 85mm/1.4 AFD

 

The above list takes care of landscape and people needs, and pretty much ends the D300 v. 5D debate, since I would think that BOTH would be inferior to the D3.

[keith_leonin]

Oops, sorry, I missed your $2k to $3k post...

[sam_thompson2]

If you have Minolta AF lenses, then I would seriously consider a Sony Alpha series.

 

They use the same sensor as the D300. But with couple of added bonuses, built in IS and the availability of auto focus Zeiss branded lenses which should be comparable if not better to their Nikon equivalents.

 

This means that you are able to use fast prime lenses with IS without pumping up the ISO.

 

Larger sensor doesn't mean lower noise. The EOS 1D Mark III has lower noise than the EOS 1Ds Mark II even though of smaller size.

 

Unlike Pentax, Olympus or other brands Sony has laid out plans for a larger sensor camera.

 

That being said. Canon has more lenses suited for architectural photography like tilt and shift lenses.

 

Next generation of DSLR wars will not be fought by Optical companies, it will be fought by electronics giants Canon for one, Sony/Nikon/Fuji, Samsung/Pentax, Panasonic/Leica.......Olympus.

[rcoder]

When my D70 died about six months ago, I seriously considered jumping ship to either Canon or Pentax. Canon had the sub-$3k upgrade path to the 5D, and Pentax had the best bang-for-the-buck in the K10D.

 

In fact, if I hadn't already invested a chunk of cash into Nikon lenses and accessories, I probably would have picked up a 30D or 40D instead, along with the 10-22mm and a general-purpose zoom like the 28-105 IS.

 

That being said, I went with a D200 instead, and haven't regretted the choice for a second. I very much wish that the D300 had been available for the same price when I was pulling the trigger on my camera, given the impressive high-ISO samples I've seen, but in terms of ergonomics, AF performance, and build quality, I certainly can find no fault with the good ol' D200.

 

If a super-fast wide prime like the 35mm f/1.4 L is on your "short list" of lenses to pick up early on, then by all means go for the 5D. On the other hand, if you're more interested in having a balanced camera system to work with, do consider either a D200 or a 40D with a couple of solid lenses and a good flash unit instead of putting all your cash into the body.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

More is less. I would get the cheapest DSLR you can and polish your skills, and become familiar with the digital workflow. All this freaking about equipment is a waste of energy. You produce the image, not the camera, it is not a robot. I can recommend the D70, or perhaps a refurbed 20D. Then get a couple of primes, such as a 24 and 5o and just practice your skills.

[RaymondC]

For me FF is more future proof speaking if you look at 20yrs from now and wonder if small sensor will still be there as new.

 

I shoot film as well so I prefer FF. At the mo, I don't like buying stuff that I will eventually replace, so as a hobbyist I just use a FF 18mm zoom lens on a digi and don't have a ultra wide lens and accept that.

 

If I had the 5D, I would get the 24/1.4, 85/1.2, 35/1.4, 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8.

 

For me its not what comes out cos both brands are equal. Its just that FF is more future speaking 20yrs from now and if one shoot film as well.

 

If a person got a DX Nikon body, and got the 12-24, 17-55 and the 10.5 fisheye and then a film body and again a 17-35, 28-70 and the 16 fisheye. Buying one FF body digi is cheaper with one set of FF lenses.

[sam_thompson2]

"For me its not what comes out cos both brands are equal. Its just that FF is more future speaking 20yrs from now and if one shoot film as well."

 

Canon will probably change mounts again, there s speculation that they will introduce a new mount to take advantage of their 21 megapixel mount.

 

Also Nikon removes features from their low end cameras that enhance compatibility with older lenses, manual focus metering, autofocus in the D40 series, I am pretty sure that the D3 doesn't mount AI lenses either.