Nikon D300 vs Canon 5D

[lindsey_mortimer]

Just curious what everyone thought about the new d300...

 

I currently have a d70 and desperately need an upgrade. Thinking about the d300 with 18mm-200mm vr

lens.

 

Does anyone know if the CMOS in the Nikon matched up to the CMOS in the Canon?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

As far as I know it isn't even in the stores yet so this is really a question far far too early...

[kari douma]

The 5D is a full frame camera, and I don't believe the D300 is. I don't know much about the sensors. If you are doing wedding photography (this is the wedding and social event forum) you will need a faster lens than the 18-200.

[tonybeach]

Over in the Nikon forum the moderator just posted some shots with the D300 at ISO 3200 that look very impressive. If you are already invested in Nikon glass, I would definitely wait for the D300 -- but I would personally pass on the 18-200 for professional use.

[tholte]

It's not an easy question to answer because by the time the D300 hits the store shelves, the price of a new 5D will be about the same as the D300 - $1,900.

[tim_schultz1]

They will both do the same thing when you press the shutter.

[djphoto]

"They will both do the same thing when you press the shutter."

 

Yes, but which one will do it better? That's the question.

[tim_schultz1]

Better? I think at this point they are both excellent cameras. Its just a matter of taste. Do you want to build a system using Nikon or Canon? Too many people are worried about having the perfect gear. Both cameras will do what you want them to do.

[pete_s.]

The 5D will have superior noise handling and image quality due to the full frame advantage. Problem is it doesn't have an f mount :-)

[tonybeach]

"The 5D will have superior...image quality due to the full frame advantage."

 

Up to ISO 400-800 I doubt it, but at this point it is almost pure speculation.

[kev_400d]

Getting back onto the topic of this forum!

 

A question that has been nagging me for a while:

 

A few friends of mine who are pros (and Canon devotees) insist that most pros have moved form Nikon to Canon these days. I have certainly noticed that over 90% of sports, pap, PJ etc photographers seem to be Canon users, (from my very unscientific observations).

 

However at the weddings I?ve been to this year all of the pros have been Nikon users!

 

Now obviously any decent photographer can make spectacular photographs with any current DLR and a couple of decent lenses (even with just a few inexpensive primes) but are there reasons that Nikon system is preferred for weddings?

 

PS sorry for Hijacking the post!

[lou korell]

I am a Canon shooter presently however I did get a chance to play with a D300. It is a really terrific camera and if you have any good Nikon glass or you want to stick with Nikon, you will be really happy with this camera. It is not a full frame camera though and since I use a 5D I would prefer the D3 as my Nikon choice.

The new lenses are really cool. The 14-24 2.8 - sensational! The 24-70, really awesome. With those two plus the 70-200 2.8VR you can do the whole job easily. But it will cost you big $$$$.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to get the D300. The focusing is fast, the LCD is amazing, the focus points are just great and it has focus follow which allows you to move around a subject and shoot from all angles while remaining focused on the same point. You have to experience that one!

 

That said, I do like my 5D and if I do decide to get a Nikon, my 5D will still go with me and a few 1.4 primes. :) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot with a 5D and a D300. As long as I could make the files look somewhat similar. That's the only challenge as far as I can tell. I won't decide that until I know if I'm getting one of the new Nikons and if the RAW software seems to be what it should be.

 

If you are a Nikon user now, I don't recommend switching until you have tried some of the new gear.

 

Lou

[picturesque]

I've never been an early adopter so I would suspend any judgement about a camera that isn't currently available until the time that it is. I wait until the first flurry of excitement about the new camera dies down, read all the reports and reviews, then maybe, think about whether I might actually get one. In the meantime, if you need a replacement or upgrade fast, I either wait it out one way or another or get a known candidate, with the thought that I could sell it if I decided to switch.

 

Kevin--on the contrary, most of the wedding photographers I know use Canon, but I don't know for sure which brand dominates in the wedding world. It must just have been an odd sampling in your experience. As far as I know, wedding shooters like Canon for the high ISO/low noise feature.

[2yellowdogs]

I had a chance to play with a D300 on Saturday and a local store's photo expo. I've been doing wedding work with a D200 and the reduction in noise that Nikon has achieved with the D300 is substantial.

 

I brought a card along to take some JPEGs home with me. You can see full-size, original, downloadable files here:

 

http://danzimmerman.smugmug.com/gallery/3849318#222755664

 

I was playing with focus points and I think I had the camera on continuous auto focus, so disregard the funky focus points. With the D200, I didn't like having to go to ISO800. With these results, I won't give ISO1600 a second thought. 3200 looks very good and 6400 looks extremely useable, although some work with NeatImage is probably warranted.

 

Long story short, I put a deposit down on a D300 (should have it next week) and will use the D200 as my backup.

[eddes]

A lot of people talk about full frame versus DX frame as a big advantage. It does make a difference if you have a stable of full frame lenses they will still work the same with a full frame. That 17-55 f 2.8 is really made for a DX size frame. Most of the others advantages attributed to a 5D such as lower noise, I believe, comes more from having the A/D converters on the sensor chip and from the space to have more pixels. With the technology getting better all the time (Nikon has moved it's A/D converters to the sensor chip on the D3 and D300) the proof of the capability of the D300 as a low noise machine is coming out. The D3 being even lower usable the 1600 iso easily. Just like micro lenses in front of the capture sites has eliminated the advantages of CCD versus CMOS.

At this level of body, you need prime lenses and heavy tripods to really see a difference.

Other factors come into play which may have more impact. I find the Nikon dual wheel control much more intuitive (but that is me) and I would certainly look into the gorgeous 900 thousand pixel screen to better show images to clients. Good lenses are more important. The 18-200 is not so hot.

Of course Canon will not sit still. They will improve the 5D.

[Brad_]

>>> Nikon has moved it's A/D converters to the sensor chip on the D3 and D300

 

Do you have a link to some official information? I'd like to read more on that.

[._._z]

Sony claims for the A700 a proprietary on-chip column A/D conversion and dual noise reduction. The A700 NR is applied even on RAW images, which has annoyed many photographers who don't want their RAW altered. No word yet as to whether this is also the case for the D300, which used a substantially similar if not identical chip.

 

Sony claims, "Because proprietary Sony noise reduction technologies are applied both before and after analog-to-digital conversion, right on the Exmor CMOS sensor itself, signal output is exceptionally clean...."

 

Canon's Highlight Tone Priority is done on the chip too, btw.

[._._z]

Also see:

 

http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/08/20/sony-unveils-124-megapixel-10fps-aps-c-sensor/

 

or just

 

http://tinyurl.com/ys3zd6

[backcountryjeff]

I have a D200 and a D300 that I shot with against the D200 yesterday. I love the D300, but I'd have to agree with some of the other folks out there that it's not worth upgrading from a D200.

 

I'd definately upgrade from anything lower than a D200, like the D70. You'll be VERY happy you did.

 

I do like the new screen very much, but not enough to make the move. Thus I am selling my D300 and getting on a list for a D3 (or I'll wait for a D300x full size sensor to come out in the future which I'm sure they will do since they have the full size sensor and need something in the 5D range)

--Jeff

[eddes]

Here is the link to the reference to on-sensor A/D converters for the D300. I did not find a reference for the D3 but I am certain it is the same case.

 

I quote "All-new 12.3 effective megapixel Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor with integrated A/D converter and the increased bit precision of selectable 14-bit NEF (RAW) output"

 

see http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/index.htm

[._._z]

Nikon also pissed off the astrophotography community -- again -- by applying DSP to the RAW image (just as Sony does), so as to compromise the RAW image.

 

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm

[eddes]

I can understand why this does not suit the astrophotography community. But if I were in Nikon shoes, I would also concentrate on pleasing 99.9%+ of their market. But I would try to allow the feature to be turned off. This goes to show, Raw is not pure sensor output. At the very least A/D has to happen.

[._._z]

"if I were in Nikon shoes, I would also concentrate on pleasing 99.9%+ of their market."

 

Do you think that 99.99%+ of users prefer to have their RAW images mucked about with unapproved noise reduction without their approval?

[don_e]

"...by applying DSP to the RAW image"

 

Thanks for the link, .[.Z. Always did prefer Canon's raw files (not specifically to Nikon's, but generally). Now I guess I know why.