Canon 50D vs Nikon D300 for Wedding photography?

[will_akandou]

<p>Hello<br>

After have been for a while now on Pentax, i sold all my gear and want to go for Canon or Nikon and would like to start some paid wedding photography (i've done few weddings and the result was nice)<br>

As far as i don't have the money for a full frame camera and/or L lenses, i will stick to the "semi-pro" Dslr.<br>

I'm hesitating between the Canon 50D and the Nikon D300 (only between these 2).<br>

Actually, the 50D seems to have almost eveyrthing for itself, except the only 9.6 pts of AF....whereas the D300 as it's very fast 51pts AF...<br>

In your opinion, and/or assuming you campared in real situation both which one is the best camera for wedding? (i will try to do some models books in studio and outside just like that, if i can find some clients, and will do other type of photos syuch as landscapes and portraits ( i lvoe that) but as far as it will be jsut for my pleasure and not a "paid job" (except maybe model books) my main consideration is really which one performs better on wedding situation (and other types events such as anniversaries etc. obviously)</p>

<p>Does the 6x more AF pts of the D300 will "help" me in weddings (inside churchs, low light situation etc.) or the 9.6pts of the 50D are enough for this job? <br>

The 50D is much more cheaper, has cheaper lenses, seems to perform as well in high ISOs, has extra megapixels etc. while the only advantage i see in the D300 now compared to the 50D is the feel in hand (i prefer Nikon for that, but i'll get used to canon without problem) and this fast 51pts AF</p>

<p>Thx if you can help me, i'm so lost and don't have the possiblity and the money to try both or rent them...</p>

[will_akandou]

<p>Well maybe the D90 too (reviews say quality is very close to D300...and it has more AF points than the Canon (11 vs 9.6)</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>I agree that the D90 is the camera to compare to the 50D: similar build & feature set. The D300 is a much more robust body with more controls on the camera body than either the D90 or the 50D. I have shot with the Canon 10D through the 40D (not the 50D) and the Nikon D90 & D300. While either system is capable of delivering great results, I prefer the Nikon system myself. In my experience, the Nikon flash system has been far more consistent. Both the Nikon D90 and D300 are capable of controlling a Nikon flash off camera whereas with the Canon system you need to purchase either another flash or a remote flash controller to do the same thing. I personally love the SB900 flash and the gel holder to gel the flash. Both Nikon viewfinders offer a grid overlay (rule of thirds) whereas with the Canon you need to buy another screen. The Nikon system has (again in my experience) as a superior AF system (AF points aside). With virtually every photo session with my Canon equipment I could expect that some image simply wouldn't be in focus. I always had an excuse: backlight threw the AF off, I must not have focused and re-composed properly etc... Funny thing is that now I hardly ever have an out of focus image. The battery grip for both the D300 and the D90 feel far better than the cheap battery grip of the 40D (and thus I assume the 50D). And the D300 just feels like a pro grip. You can also get the bigger battery for the D300 grip and I love that too. The only thing I remember like about the 40D is it was a machine gun: it could fire off shots one right after another for quite sometime (I don't remember the numbers but I am sure you could look them up). Custom white balance on the Nikon is easier. The list really does go on. For me, I switched when the Canon 50D was announced. I was tired of Canon reserving their best AF and metering for their top two bodies whereas with Nikon you essentially got it on the D300 and up. As far as I'm concerned, even the D90 has a better AF and metering system than the Canon 50D. I didn't need more MP (12 is plenty for me). More megapixels simply means more CF cards and more hard drives and can possibly show lens defects that might go otherwise unnoticed (or so I've read). The the difference between the D90 and the D300 is that the D300 will record a 14-bit Raw file and the D90 will only do a 12-bit (the 50D will do a 14-bit file). The D90 has video, the D300 doesn't. The D90 will have a good grip but can't use the bigger single battery. The D90 will have the little dial for "Creative Modes" (just like the 50D), you lose that on the D300 in favor of more controls on the outside of the camera. The D90 has 11 AF points. The D300 has 51. I love having 51 points to choose from- but that's me. Alright, I'm done.... but I could keep right one going!</p>

<p>All of that said, you really should check out each camera yourself and see what you think. I might even suggest renting all 3: D90, D300 and 50D. I say the D90 because to be fair, it is a closer match to the 50D and less money! In the end, either system will serve you well.</p>

[will_akandou]

<p>Thanks for your answer!<br>

Now i'm hesitating between D90 and D300 (note that i would like to make wedding photography my main activity) i compared both images on imageressources (and 50D too) i found D90 and D300 giving more detailed images than the 50D + i found on many review that 50D AF is a bit slow... which can be a real problem for weddings when you haver to be as reactive as you can :/</p>

<p>I prefer the feel of Nikon, but prefer the gear of canon (and they have lot of real lights lenses while it's harder with ikon to find something under f/2.0 at reasonable price)</p>

<p>Im' interesting in full frame but it's cleary too expensive for me for now (maybe when i'll have earn enough money with my weddings) but i'm not sure the difference of price worth it to have full frame and i waas much more interested in 5D mark II than D700 (because twice the megapixels, 12.7megapixels can be short if i wzant to do a big big print no? like A2 and more (but not my main concern for now and not even sure i'll do more than A4 or A3 one day)<br>

About renting them, like i said, i can't, too much money. Camera + gear will be a big investment for me, i can't afford to rent them all even for a day but i already tried them at my resseller (but hard to see all the pro and cons in these conditions)</p>

<p>As far as i'll order the camera in Hong Kong and can have the D300 for only 150$ more than the D90 it will be a better choice right?<br>

Do you think that, except my photographer skills, the D300 image quality and performance are enough for the future clients? i don't want them to be disapointed by image quality still not talking about how i take pictures but only the "inside" D300 (or D90) image quality? I want something</p>

<p>Thanks for your answer :)</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>In terms of image quality, any of the three will produce excellent results. In that regard it really boils down to your skill with any camera and the lens you put in front of it. I am a Raw shooter and I prefer the D300's 14-bit Raw file over the D90's 12-bit file- but that is splitting hairs. I prefer the build/grip/battery/ergonomics of the D300. From what I understand, the D90 may produce a better in camera JPEG than the D300 since it uses new processing algorithms. But again, splitting hairs. As far as big prints go- back when 6MP cameras were as big as they got, we printed 16x24" prints without a problem. So today's 12MP cameras are plenty for me (and wedding photography). I actually prefer the Nikon gear over the Canon. It's the little things like the gel on the SB900 flash. However, if there is a lens you know you want to use, then maybe that will make the choice for you. All else being equal, I would want an expensive lens and a cheap camera. Both Nikon & Canon have a couple versions of the 85mm (f/1.8 & f/1.4) as well as the 50mm and those are the two "big" staples. Most third party lens manufacturers make both Canon and Nikon mounts. Canon does have a nice 35mm f/1.4 On the other hand, Nikon has the 105mm and 135mm f/2.0 DC lenses. For wedding photography, I usually recommend covering the trifecta first: the 14-24 (16-35), the 24-70 (or 15-55 on a cropped sensor) and the 70-200 all of which are great lenses on either system. </p>

<p>The best thing you can do is just start shooting. Study light. Learn lighting. That will take you a great deal farther than any possible difference between the D90/D300/50D.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>You can't make a mistake with any of the choices you are considering.</p>

<p>Think of the decision in a long term manner. Study each system with an eye toward the future and what type of photography appeals to you ... them select accordingly. You are swapping systems from Pentax to Canon or Nikon, and ideally you wouldn't want to do that again very soon.</p>

<p>I also think there is an obsession with purchasing new gear when a better used unit, carefully bought from a trusted source, would be the same or lower price. A good example of that is the Canon 5D: which is a premiere 12 meg, full frame sensor camera that's proven for wedding work ... and can be had for about the same or less than the new crop frame cameras you are considering. This can delay the compulsion to "upgrade" every 15 minutes at substantual cost, and leaves more working capital for the more important stuff like ... lenses.</p>

<p>Manufactures hype about "improvements" or new features from one model to the next usually proves to be marginally incremental, and of less value than many proponents advocate ... often because it is the camera they bought. Go handle the cameras under consideration. Quite often how a camera feels in your hand, how the view through the finder seems, is an important indicator of how you'll get along with the system longer term. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>There's nothing inherently limiting with the image quality of the D300. 12 Mp is plenty for most wedding work.</p>

<p>Far more important is the AF system, since you don't want to miss shots or have them slightly out of focus. This is why I'd take the D300 over the D90 and the 50D. There's no point worrying about megapixels if you've already missed the shot :-)</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The D300 is a "semi-pro" body - meaning it is built out of metal as opposed to the D90 which is a pure consumer body - made of plastic. End of debate in my book.</p>

<p>D300 and don't look back.<br>

Dave</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Before settling on the Nikon D300 based on the 51-AF point capability, be sure to do some research and, especially, try the camera first. Some users have reported that while the 51-point AF is very good for action oriented photography they've experienced some difficulties in other situations requiring very selective focusing because the AF points are too tightly packed together. (BTW, I'm a happy Nikon user, but my D2H has only 11 points and does everything I could want from an AF system.) Some D300 owners report using a single AF sensor option to solve that problem.</p>

<p>I wouldn't consider that a significant hindrance because I'm comfortable with manual focusing when necessary. But it's always best to get the full perspective and hands on experience before committing to a new camera or, in your case, an entirely new camera system.</p>

<p>My main reason for choosing Nikon for wedding and events would be for the excellent CLS flash system. It's revolutionized my use of flash. I used to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. Now I use bounce and fill flash extensively. But be sure to check with users of Canon's current TTL flash system for opinions - I haven't tried any Canon TTL flash in 5 years so my experience is out of date.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Also there are still some D200s around at sites like BestBuy.com and they were at very good prices.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Good point, Dave. For a serious wedding or event photographer starting from scratch a pair of D200's at the current steep discount might be a better choice than spending the same money on just one D300 or other comparable dSLR.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Respectively, I wouldn't choose a D200 for wedding work. The high ISO performance of either the D90 or the D300 (or even the 50D) (all CMOS chips) will be substantially better than the CCD chip of the D200. But that's me, your milage may vary.</p>

[jennifer_s3]

<p>i would forgo the d300 and step a bit higher for wedding work. the iso capability is lacking in the d300- i'd go d700 at minimum.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Short of preferring one camera over another in terms of handling, your priorities will determine the best camera for you--YOUR priorities, not someone else's. Asking a question like you have in a forum like this will get you no concensus and no where, fast.</p>

<p>MY opinion? I'd go with a used 5D over a cropped sensor camera, as Marc suggested, given your money concerns. Add a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 zoom, a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8, and you can photograph most any wedding. Later, add a 135mm f2L, if you can afford it, or the more than decent 135mm f2.8 SF (a sleeper lens), which is darned sharp without the SF.</p>

[will_akandou]

<p>DoThe few AF points of a 5D or even a 5D mark II compared to the D300 and D700 51 AF points enough to allow to "never" miss a focus?</p>

<p>That's really hard decision choosing between Nikon and Canon<br>

After one more day of reading etc.. i get to the conclusion that i don't want the 40D or 50D and so that it will be between Nikon D90, D300, D700 and Canon 5D mark I and canon 5D mark II (no matter what i need two bodies and it will be 2 FF or 2 APS-C ...if canon full frame maybe 5D used + new 5D mark II.</p>

<p>The problem is that each one of them has pro and cons.<br>

The D90 seems to give an image quality very close to D300 and seems to be better than D300 in many points<br>

The D300 has a more solid build the 51pts AF...but like as Mike told me, it can be a problem.<br>

The D700 is a D300 in full frame and seems to manage noise very very well... but is it better than the 5D II? That's the question :/ And it lose its 100% viewer whereas it s FF</p>

<p>Generally about Nikon, i prefer the feel in my hands + the Flash system seems to be better than canons' has we told me</p>

<p>About 5D and 5D mark II they seem very nice but what scare me is the lot less AF points that make that i'm afraid to maybe miss a focus because of that and so miss my shot.<br>

Except that, the feel in my hand is not as good as nikon but i can get used to it very easily, that is really not a big concern for me.<br>

Generally, Canon has a big big thing for itself > it has plenty of prime lenses, and they are cheaper...</p>

<p><strong>Well, reading all i just wrote, i guess it would be better to ask a question that will determine my choice between canon and Nikon, is: Does the Canon 5D mark I and mark II autofocus system (limited to 11 pts vs 51 pts for D300 and D700) are enough for wedding photography to don't miss pictures because of lazy / slow / "less points" autofocus? (i'm not talking about my skills only about inner autofocus performance in every conditions we can meet during wedding (church, very poor church light, very poor recpetion light, wedding at night etc.)</strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>Thank you for all those answers, hope you'll give me too this answer about AF :)</strong></p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Generally speaking, Nikon seems to have 'better', surer autofocus. I have a 5D, however, and do not have a lot of problems acquiring correct focus. It isn't the fastest, though. Whether a D90 or D300 has better, surer autofocus than a 5D, I don't know. 'Most' people who have used both a D700 and 5D, for instance, feel the D700 has faster, surer autofocus. Again--you must consider how this fits with YOU.</p>

<p>It is also 'generally' thought that Nikon's D3 and D700 edge out Canon's 5DII in the noise/high ISO department, but not by much--maybe a stop at the most, and probably less.</p>

<p>Canon's advantage is it's line of fast primes. If I were you, I'd sit down and make a list of priorities and rate each camera against the list. It's always helped me make an unemotional decision, and business equipment decisions should be made without emotion.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I would go play with them both then decide. Take a card to see the images you get and do some looking at those too before deciding.</p>

<p>On another note, Sony are coming along nicely and would be a consideration for me if I were starting from scratch. I believe they will conquer the high ISO battle (to be comparable to Nikon/Canon) in the next round of bodies or there abouts. They offer all lenses stabilized (body) and a great set (and growing) of glass.</p>

<p>Having said that, I like Nikon more than Sony from an ergonomic standpoint and Canon are great too.</p>

<p> </p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Oh yeah, the AF. On the 5D, its a bit hit and miss in lower light/no flash AF assist. From the D300 to the 40D, I find Nikons better in terms of consistency, but not a lot faster than the 40D (never got a 50D). The AF on the 5D2 was great but a bit slower than my D300/700 nikons, and a lot slower than the D3, FYI.</p>

 

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Will - Both systems have been used for almost a decade now to photograph weddings very successfully. I shoot with a D300 and love the camera but I hate that Nikon refuses to produce the type of primes that Canon does. However, I hate that Canon bodies use more "press button and turn dials" to change settings than levers, like the D300 but the Canon, in my opinion has better skin tones. After a wedding, I do not see enough out of focus shots to warrant my wife giving up her 30D, if anything, my D300 produces the softer images. I think when you start asking the types of questions you are, it's a matter of splitting hairs. The sad part is since you've analyzed this thing to death, no matter which route you take, you'll always think you made the wrong decision....I know, because I do the same thing.</p>

<p>"make your decision, then make it work" - Mike Colon</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I've never used the D300 or D700, but I can say I've never missed a properly executed shot from lazy, or inaccurate AF on the 50D, I'm sure it helps that I put decent glass on it. Using proper lenses will make a huge difference in AF performance (and generally more so as you go up the ladder of bodies, regardless of the system).</p>

<p>No doubt that how comfortable you are, with whatever your chosen system is, is going be far more important than any differences between the two. Either system is capable of producing nearly identical images... if a professional's behind the 'finder. "Professional" meaning more than just getting paid.</p>