ShunCheung Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 <I>I am pretty sure that the D3 doesn't mount AI lenses either.</I> <P> Where did you get that impression from? Of course the D3 is fully compatible with AI lenses. The D3 and D300 work with AI lenses in the same manner as the D2 and D200. <P> I am not sure exactly what types of "weird abstract architectural images" Matt Stevens shoots. If one shoots more traditional architecture with a DSLR, Canon has 3 tilt/shift lenses, including a 24mm. Nikon has a 35mm and a 28mm shift lenses from the manual-focus era, but those are less effective unless you use an FX-sensor DSLR such as the D3. On a cropped DX sensor, those lenes are not wide enough. T/S lenses is a major plus for Canon if you shoot architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_thompson2 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I meant to say I am pretty sure that the D3 doesn't mount non-AI lenses either.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "The D300 renders the 5D a little child's toy." Dan, Take image quality out of the equation, and you are absolutely correct. Even if Nikon added all the features of an i-phone to the D300, I would prefer a stripped down 5D type camera that delivered superior image quality. (Well, actually, I might reconsider my position under those circumstances - the i-phone is pretty cool!) On paper, the D300 is a photographers dream. And I am certain it will deliver just everything it promises and then some. But there are limits to what a DX sensor can deliver and I don't believe it is possible (right now) for its sensor to deliver low noise images at high ISO (I hope I am wrong, because if I am, I will sell my 5D and get a D300 - I love what the D300 has to offer). I suspect that if Nikon had a D300 and a D300 FX for about the same money (next year, perhaps), most photographers would get the full frame version. The sensor and the image quality it delivers along with a great lens is pretty much what a photographer wants/needs. The features are nice, but without image quality, what good are they? The bottom line is if you do not shoot under extreme circumstances, you don't need a full frame camera. The 5D is not a great camera feature wise, but its image quality will be tough to beat for many years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 The D300 has top level autofocus, ergonomics, build quality, a viewfinder usable with glasses (I can only see about 70% of the frame in the 5D viewfinder), shoots at a high fps rate if necessary, and so on, but obviously it has a smaller sensor, which is advantageous for telephoto shooting but a disadvantage for some other applications. I think we can expect an FX version in the D300 class in 1-2 years, but my guess is that it will cost at least $1000 more than the D300 if it has the same features otherwise. If you are not interested in shooting with long lenses and don't wear glasses, I suppose the Canon 5D (or its eventual successor) is a better buy because of its high image quality (and large sensor). I can't put up with its ergonomics so I did not buy it, and use the D200. I don't have any complaints about the D200 image quality. My main complaint about the D200 is that I don't have a well-performing wide angle prime for it so I have to use the big 17-55/2.8 for wide angle. I am hopefully able to buy an FX Nikon within a year. I think the biggest asset Canon has apart is the large array of USM lenses that they have. Nikon has been slow in updating their primes to AF-S but on the other hand the mid and high end Nikons can use a wide array of manual focus primes (with metering at full aperture) which are really nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I'd like echo Ilkka's point that the 5D and D300 are drastically different DSLRs. The 5D is a slower, 3 frame/sec camera but has the full 35mm (FX) frame. The D300 has Nikon's state-of-the-art AF and can go to 8 frame/sec with the MB-D10 grip. In a way the D300 is what a D3H sports DSLR would have been without the top-of-the-line build. If you don't shoot action and sports, instead you shoot landscape, architecture and more statis subjects and abstracts, the 5D will likely be better. But the 5D is over 2 years old and a replacement should be due; that means you can either take advantage of the model-end discount or wait for its replacement, which presumably will be a better camera. Incidentally, IMO the speculation that Canon might change the EF mount is completely baseless. It would have been suicide for Canon to do something so unwise. Incidentally, Thom Hogan currently has some discussion/speculation about an FX version of Nikon's prosumer DSLR (something he code names D300 FX) on the front page of his web site http://www.bythom.com. I tend to agree with Hogan that such a camera will be considerably more expensive than the D300 and will not be introduced in the 1st half of 2008. (Should you read this thread a couple of weeks since this is posted, Thom's article will likely be moved into his archives later on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "I am pretty sure that the D3 doesn't mount AI lenses either." Just read section "Usable Lenses" in DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "I meant to say I am pretty sure that the D3 doesn't mount non-AI lenses either.." D200 mounts non-IS lenses, and T_Mount lenses, and Tamron Adapt All lenses. Why D3 would not mount non-AI lenses ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 <i>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.</i> <p> If the price is a big factor, you can now get a new 5D from a reliable vendor for a net of around $1900. you'll just have to ebay the Canon printer you'll need to buy to get the new $400 rebate. <p> <i>Canon will probably change mounts again, there s speculation that they will introduce a new mount to take advantage of their 21 megapixel mount.</i> <p> this is based on nothing but juvenile speculation on DPReview, let's please stay grounded in reality. And to be fair, if you must know the speculation is that Canon would introduce an ADDITIONAL mount, a line of medium format SLRs. Again, based on nothing at all. <p> <i>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.</i> <p> Depends how you define compatibility... if you're willing to do without automatic aperture, you can use Contax (C/Y), Leica-R, Olympus (OM), Pentax (M42 and K), Nikon (any: pre-AI up to but excluding G-type), Rollei, and many types of medium format on any Canon. Contax-N lenses can even be converted to full autofocus and autoaperture (for a steep price). There is a thriving trade in classic manual focus lenses being used on Canons for various special purposes. Not trying to be a Canon booster here (I shoot both C and N, and O and M for that matter) but let's please tell the whole story. <p> <i>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.</i> <p> cosigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_thompson2 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "D200 mounts non-IS lenses, and T_Mount lenses, and Tamron Adapt All lenses. Why D3 would not mount non-AI lenses ??" D200 doesn't mount non-AI lenses either. Only current camera that can mount non AI lenses is the D40x. "And to be fair, if you must know the speculation is that Canon would introduce an ADDITIONAL mount, a line of medium format SLRs. Again, based on nothing at all." Canon and other companies changing mounts has been the case for 20 years. Even in your example you list several mounts for a given camera maker. Speculation is based on past performance. If all serious photographers are using Canon medium format in 20 years, all your precious full frame lenses will not be worth too much in 20 years especially since all the new Canon and Nikon lenses lack an aperture ring preventing its use on other brands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_thompson2 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Here is an interesting take on the Canon tilt shift causing people to switch systems. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/10/in-the-early-19.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_ricks Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I hear you talking money pretty loudly. May I offer some observations. The D200/300 will be not just a little cheaper. With the 5D you will immediately have to purchase a flash. So add about $250.00 to the price of the 5D. You can 'get by' with the flash on the Nikon especially if you do not anticipate using it often. If you require a professional quality flash you can add about $300.00 to the Nikon and $450 to the Canon. Full frame is an advantage to some and disadvantage to others. Modern wide angle lenses obviate this to some extent. As others have said the D200/300 is ergonomically a superb camera. If you are going to carry this camera in inclement weather or 'bang it around a bit' there is no choice but the Nikon. The 5D is positively fragile by comparison. Your assumptions about the quality of glass are incorrect. Both manufacturers make lenses so good that I defy anyone to show me which one is better using an actual photograph. Since I am being a contrarian for the moment I would say that you should consider professional glass is simply any lens used by a professional. I own what many call professional glass but I do not hesitate to cary an 18-200 vr for many assignments and an 18-70 on my spare body for others. I prefer to think of them as heavy glass and light glass. As to the "range" of glass available? Tell me again when you anticipate seriously considering the difference between 400mm F2.8 lenses. You will find absolutely no limitations imposed by the offerings of either company. I would go with the D300. It is a joy to handle. For my uses the APS sized sensor has advantages for me and as I own a 12-24, the full frame sensor offers no real advantage. The D300 is significantly faster. It has a far superior metering system and is tough as nails. The low light performance is no big deal unless you are a professional concert photographer or some such and the claims I am reading show the D300 to be far superior in this regard to the D200. And the 5D is not THAT much better. Anyway. Consider that given the choice between a good consumer lens and a great flash and no professional flash and a "professional" lens I will go with the flash anyday. I Don't care one whit about the Nikon/Canon debate. I have always used Nikon so I had no decision to make in this regard. Who wants to retire a 6mm F2.8? But as one earlier poster pointed out you are really comparing apples and oranges. They are very different cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Lee, I agree with some of what you say but like you, I have my opinions. I suspect you do not own a 5D and likely have not even used one because you have stated many inaccuracies and a 5D user would know better. If I am wrong, I apologize. As a new owner of the 5D (1 1/2 weeks), I can assure you that the low light performance of the 5D is indeed far, far, FAR superior to that of my D200s, D80's and D40 in focus ability, speed and especially image quality. Is that enough to warrant someone switching from Nikon to Canon. Well, yes! I did! Should everyone switch? Absolutely not. But if you really, really need better low light performance than what you have now regardless of what brand of camera you own now, the 5D is a viable alternative. The 5D is certainly not the best camera out there. It does tax a photographers abilities (it is certainly not a P&S kind of camera). As I said previously, it does delivery the goods when it comes to exceptional image quality, in both good and especially in low light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shojin Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Interesting comments and observations... as I stated earlier, I am concerned about weather proofing... However, after all the input and factors I've considered, I think I'm going with the D300. So... what are your thoughts about potential bugginess with first copies? Thanks, Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shojin Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 Ok... I just put a third down on a D300 today! Now it waiting time;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 D300 vs 5D. Do you want to hold something that fits your hand like a glove or do you want to hold and old red brick with a lens attached? If you need to get in and get the shot, D300. If you have the time to toss a full-frame up on a tripod, 5D. After holding and using a 5D, I would never consider it versus my D200. There is just that much difference in feel for me. Plus, who wants a weenie 3fps on a $2000 camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backcountryjeff Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I got my D300 yesterday. Last night I did some low light work and it definately isn't a D3 (I went to the D3 presentation and got to play with it some). I loved the D3 and it does really well in low light since it has the large sensor. I can tell you that yes the D300 does better at 800 than my D200. In the daylight I shot some squirrels and hummers in the back yard today and I was really impressed, much better at that then my D200 for similar shots I have made lots of times. What I really didn't like about the D300: low light just isn't there, very grainy at 1600 and up. The grip is different than the D200, tighter in the fingers and the thumb isn't there. I can hold my D200 for hours with oe hand and never feel like I might drop it, but the D300 requires some grip all the time or it feels like it will slip right out of my hand. I didn't have this feeling with the D3, but wasn't ready to spend so much as an amature. Also the overall feel of the D300 is poorer quality than the D200. On the other hand, lots of really nice new features! I think I'll be happy with the D300 in the long run, while th grip is worrysome, I can get a grip strap and not worry. I'm shooting snow tomorrow so we'll see how the D300 does there. -- Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_cassidy Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 good god, i havent seen such a childish reply since i was 13 as 'The D300 renders the 5D a little child's toy.' err why? and dont quote a nikon press release and next we have- 'D300 vs 5D. Do you want to hold something that fits your hand like a glove or do you want to hold and old red brick with a lens attached? If you need to get in and get the shot, D300. If you have the time to toss a full-frame up on a tripod, 5D. After holding and using a 5D, I would never consider it versus my D200. There is just that much difference in feel for me. Plus, who wants a weenie 3fps on a $2000 camera?' oh jesus based on holding them you can tell the beter camera. anyway my twopence is even though i have a 5d dont buy one yet as it may be about to be replaced by another, d300 is a fabulous body but its still just a crop camera, and i agree with sanford about image quality. but at the end of the day a 6mp superzoom will give you superb piccys unless you want to print at a3 or over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now