# Nikon D300 vs Canon EOS 5D?



## bisp21 (Jun 2, 2008)

I know most people out there are either partial to Canon or Nikon, but I am wanting to get an unbiased positions on what a person preference would be if they had no ties to either camera (mean no lenses, etc) and was given the choice to take either camera.  Starting from scratch with nothing... 

Your purpose in getting either camera is to have an all around camera allowing you the option to shoot still images, action shots, nature, landscapes, architechtural, weddings, etc. (basically anything and everything camera)

Nikon D300 or Canon EOS 5D

What would you choose and why?


----------



## CWA_JGEISINGER (Jun 2, 2008)

deffinatly tagging along


----------



## Socrates (Jun 2, 2008)

bisp21 said:


> I know most people out there are either partial to Canon or Nikon, but I am wanting to get an unbiased positions on what a person preference would be if they had no ties to either camera (mean no lenses, etc) and was given the choice to take either camera.  Starting from scratch with nothing...
> 
> Your purpose in getting either camera is to have an all around camera allowing you the option to shoot still images, action shots, nature, landscapes, architechtural, weddings, etc. (basically anything and everything camera)
> 
> ...



Well...
As far as photography is concerned, you can't go wrong with either brand.  However, it's an established fact that owning a Nikon will improve your sex life.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 2, 2008)

bisp21 said:


> Nikon D300 or Canon EOS 5D
> 
> What would you choose and why?



This is almost impossible to answer, since all of us usually only own one of those cameras, so nobody is really in the position to compare both.

My advice, first decide if you want full frame, or a smaller format.


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 2, 2008)

bisp21 said:


> I know most people out there are either partial to Canon or Nikon, but I am wanting to get an unbiased positions on what a person preference would be if they had no ties to either camera (mean no lenses, etc) and was given the choice to take either camera.  Starting from scratch with nothing...
> 
> Your purpose in getting either camera is to have an all around camera allowing you the option to shoot still images, action shots, nature, landscapes, architechtural, weddings, etc. (basically anything and everything camera)
> 
> ...



Stupid question if you want to know which one is a better camera. There are pros with D300's and ones with 5D's, there 2 different cameras. Everyone has difference aspects of a camera they appreciate the most and thus that decides which one to get.

For an example. If i was a professional sports photographer i would be all over the D300. If all i did all day was work in a studio i would probably chose the 5D.


----------



## Phazan (Jun 2, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well...
> As far as photography is concerned, you can't go wrong with either brand. However, it's an established fact that owning a Nikon will improve your sex life.


 
He is forgetting to add that the 5D can do that, AND can do your homework also.

Go with the 5D


----------



## Early (Jun 2, 2008)

Wait!  Isn't the 5D a professional camera and the D300 more or less built for advanced amateurs?


----------



## JimmyO (Jun 2, 2008)

Early said:


> Wait!  Isn't the 5D a professional camera and the D300 more or less built for advanced amateurs?



The 1d and D3 are professional cameras

Both the 5D and D300 are just a step bellow. What makes the difference in pro cameras is the body's ruggedness and its more user friendly to professionals. But these cameras will all take around the same looking pics


----------



## royalWITHcheese2 (Jun 2, 2008)

Early said:


> Wait!  Isn't the 5D a professional camera and the D300 more or less built for advanced amateurs?



Doubt it, I'm sure there are pros out there using D300's as backups.

If price isn't a concern, there is probably going to be a replacement for a 5D soon, at least I know a lot of people are hoping that, but either way, both are great.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 2, 2008)

Early said:


> Wait!  Isn't the 5D a professional camera and the D300 more or less built for advanced amateurs?



No the EOS-1 series (1D MIII, 1Ds MIII) is Canon's pro line. The 5D is a full frame top end prosumer camera.


----------



## cszakolczai (Jun 2, 2008)

Owning my D200, the sex life is much improved, and... I can now fly.  But out of all honesty, I am a Nikon fan, always have been, cannons don't feel right to me.  My mother has been shooting with Nikon's for a while so I kept with them.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 2, 2008)

Phazan said:


> He is forgetting to add that the 5D can do that, AND can do your homework also.
> 
> Go with the 5D


Oh c'mon.  Be serious.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 2, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well...
> As far as photography is concerned, you can't go wrong with either brand. However, it's an established fact that owning a Nikon will improve your sex life.


 
:lmao: 'course the sad thing is its SO true... I bought my Nikon and the very next day my wife ravaged me.  She said if I had bought the Canon she would have divorced me.  True story.  <chuckle>

I've had Nikons for a while now (5 years).  When I went to go buy my first one, I did a lot of research and ultimately determined that the Nikon and Canon offerings were nearly the same overall.  I wouldn't be surprised if you found a similar situation now.  Obviously, do your research.  I have not a clue.  I'm a Nikon person now and that's where I'll stay.

I can say that the two cam makers do make different feeling cameras... you should definitely try both and see which feels better to you.

In the end, I ultimately decided to go Nikon because a buddy of mine had one (and so did his dad), and so not only would we be able to share equipment, but there is this lens hand-me-down chain going on between us that keeps me in fresh glass all the time. lol

I do personally feel the Nikons feel better.  I also like the way the cameras feel like they are very no-nonsense.  Feels like a tool, not a gadget.  Totally personal opinion though.

I use my D300 for pro work, FYI.  As many people will tell you, really any cam can be used for pro work... it's a matter of how you use it and what the type of work requires.  (just so happens my work requires very high resolution, so a D40 wouldn't work for me... but that's just me).

So consider what your friends have, consider what you need, consider how they feel, and then make a decision.  Good luck.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2008)

I'm a nikon fan, I own the D300, but in reality, this is nothing more than the old Ford/Chevy debate; overall, both cameras are very similar, and it's matter of weighing the pros and cons to decide which is "righter" for you.  That's really something only you can do.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 3, 2008)

I would choose a D300 because it would be silly for me to buy a Canon since none of my thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of Nikon lenses would fit on it.

But that is me


----------



## Nein-reis (Jun 3, 2008)

I've been shooting with both of these cameras for a week now.  (well D300 for a week, canon 5D for over a year)

And they both live in different words.  The D300 is a stronger built and faster camera.  The 5D is a full frame monster thats very at home in a studio or controlled light setting.  They both do well in higher ISO levels, although the 5D's RAW files are alot nicer in my opinion (maybe its the higher megapixel 12.7)  

One thing to remember, the 5D is a picky camera, it likes L glass.... thats about it.  So prepare to spend more in lenses with it.  The D300 seems pretty happy with any lens attached.


----------



## tim.bennett (Jun 3, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well...
> As far as photography is concerned, you can't go wrong with either brand.  However, it's an established fact that owning a Nikon will improve your sex life.



Tim will be looking at switching today ;-)

Seriously though. If your not invested into a pile of glass. The full frame sensor is defo worth looking at. But i would be suprised if you either wouldn't fit your needs. The full frame sensor would probably clinch it for me.


----------



## Mystwalker (Jun 3, 2008)

Can I vote 5DmkII?
But then the D400 will probably be FF and trump 5DmkII.

Very soon Sony will also get into this with their FF.

More the merrier.  Keeps everyone on their toes - consumers are the winner.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 3, 2008)

cszakolczai said:


> Owning my D200, the sex life is much improved, and... I can now fly.




LMAO!!!  Oh by the way... I can now fly... love it!

To me, both of these cameras are way beyond my level so both would be great.  The problem with asking for advice on such an advanced camera is that they are both so capable, you really have to know your personal likes and dislikes whenever deciding, or it won't really matter.

I would probably go with the 5d.  I like Nikons, but I have a fetish for full-frame sensors.  And people are saying they'll come out with a new 5d.  I really find that irrelevant if you're happy with the current model.  Then again, it might sting a little when they release the new one a few months afterwards, and you could have bought it for 500 less.  But with the discounts Canon is currently offering, and the fact they've released absolutely nothing on the alleged "5D Mk-II," I'd say you have nothing to worry about.

Do realize this is a wonderful conundrum to have.  I mean, deciding between two beautiful cameras most people on here would love to be able to afford...  Remember to have fun with your decision! 



tirediron said:


> this is nothing more than the old Ford/Chevy debate; overall, both cameras are very similar



And then the Mopar guy (Sony) shows up, and says his two cents... And everyone else ignores him...


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 3, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *bisp21*
> Nikon D300 or Canon EOS 5D
> 
> What would you choose and why?





Alex_B said:


> This is almost impossible to answer, since all of us usually only own one of those cameras, so nobody is really in the position to compare both.



"All of us"? "Nobody"?
Imo you're all too easily dismissing and ignoring the majority of (wannabe) photographers &#8211; _millions_! &#8211; that don't have either brand, Alex.
They are much better 'qualified' to comment on the OP's question than a most probably biased owner, like yourself.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 3, 2008)

Alfred D. said:


> "All of us"? "Nobody"?
> Imo you're all too easily dismissing and ignoring the majority of (wannabe) photographers  _millions_!  that don't have either brand, Alex.
> They are much better 'qualified' to comment on the OP's question than a most probably biased owner, like yourself.



To really judge a camera you have to have used it for a while.

To compare two cameras, you have to have used both of them for quite a while.

Also, this is not about  brands but about specific cameras of different brands.


----------



## usayit (Jun 3, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> To really judge a camera you have to have used it for a while.
> 
> To compare two cameras, you have to have used both of them for quite a while.



Which is why asking for "unbiased" opinions between the two is almost a hopeless cause... rarely does a single person have that much experience with both the D300 and 5D.

When I think professional Canon bodies, I'm thinking 1d, 1ds, and 5d.  The 5D is a bit strange sibling in that it is VERY popular with the professional market and does well.  I'm very hesitant to call that camera "prosumer".  My 1d MarkII was one of two from a former national geographic photographer who went with a couple 5Ds.  I see TONs of wedding photographers using the 5D.  I see TONs of journalists using the 5D as well.


----------



## Renair (Jun 3, 2008)

Ok, well now that the can of worms have been opened here are my two cents.  I have used both Canon and Nikon in my time, now exclusively Nikon.  Both are excellent camera's and both work well in diferent situations.  

What you need to do it rent both for yourself over a week and feel and test the camera's on which your prefer comfortably.  No point in going, I own a sh*t hot camera but I hate how it feels in my hands.  Also check the different prices on the lens your going to eventually need.  Finally, decide for yourself, you will hear lots of pros and cons on each... at the end of the day, your the one going to use it and enjoy it, so might the right decision on your opinion.  *cough cough, get a Nikon!*


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 4, 2008)

The 5d, hands down. It's a nearly 3 year old camera that still competes with tech that other manufactures are putting out today. It might not have all the features of the newer camera, but you can't beat the FF sensor and the fact that you can shoot at 3200 ISO on a regular basis and not be bothered by noise.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 4, 2008)

Just get a 40D instead.


----------



## SuziPhoto (Jun 4, 2008)

I use the 5D for work in the studio and it does a great job. However, for my personal home studio, I may be getting the D300. To me they are both great cameras but there are a few things that my be less important to others but are deal breakers at least for me... 

pro of the 5D is that it comes with software (EOS DPP)that will allow you to hook directly up to the computer and fire from the computer. The con would be that it's more expensive.

Pro of D300 - live view finder! Less costly than 5D. Con would be that they charge you $$$ for the camera capture software.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 4, 2008)

I'd get the Nikon!  Why? Because the name just says Awesome, Chick-magnet, ritzy, and was in songs by The Oak Ridge Boys, Paul Simon, The Core, and Dire Straits. Canon sounds like a office printer, or something that projects huge heavy balls at far away enemies, or a set of rules you have to follow in church. Hehe...

But all seriousness aside the 5D was a good camera. Currently I'm about to look into the differences between the D300 and the D3 and figure out which one I want to try. I haven't looked yet but I thought the D3 was a FF CMOS and that the D300 had the same sensor. It sounds like people are saying the D300 isn't a full-frame sensor camera - do I have my wires crossed?


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 4, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Chick-magnet



I never met any girl which felt attracted to any camera brand whatsoever


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 4, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I never met any girl which felt attracted to any camera brand whatsoever



You're holding it in the wrong place.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 4, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> But all seriousness aside the 5D *is* good camera.


 
Fixed.

The D300 is not FF. The D3 is Nikon's first FF sensor camera.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 4, 2008)

SuziPhoto said:


> Pro of D300 - live view finder! Less costly than 5D. Con would be that they charge you $$$ for the camera capture software.


The D300 comes with Capture NX.  Downloadable from Nikon website with provided access code.

I was about 98% sure I was going to buy a Canon until I held a Nikon in my hand.  

It also forced me to wear boxers instead of briefs.  *some of you might get that*


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 4, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Fixed.
> 
> The D300 is not FF. The D3 is Nikon's first FF sensor camera.



Ah-ha, thanks for that VI!


----------



## Ejazzle (Jun 5, 2008)

i love my D300. i was stuck in this same bind. i couldnt decide b/t a d300 and a 5D for the longest time. so what made me choose the D300 is what i am going to be shooting,, SPORTS. i heard the 5D was a really good camera FF etc, but then i started really reading up on the D300 and realized how much it was designed to shoot sports. I really like having the 8 fps, and almost NO noise. the D300 is an amazing camera and i love it. 


so basically it all comes down to what youre gonna be shooting. 

if i was going to be shooting in a studio or just portraits i would have definatly gotten the 5D 


but if you are looking into shooting sports i highly recommend the D300!!


----------



## Antithesis (Jun 6, 2008)

I had the option to go either way. I chose the 5D over the D300 and have no regrets. The noise handling is pretty good, though not as spectacular as eveyone made it out to be. I'm sure that's the case with the D300 as well. When it comes right down to it, it's a camera. It takes pictures that you decide to take, and I really doubt you'd ever notice the difference between images taken with the two besides subtleties in WB, etc. Both are good, both are capable of extended professional use, and neither of them will get you laid.

Edit: one huge benefit of a FF camera is the absolutely enormous viewfinder. Coming from a DX camera (and still owning a crop sensor camera), the FF camera does allow for less "looking down a hallway" and more "oh my gosh, I can actually see what I'm composing". That's really the biggest benefit. Oh, and F1.2 glass as an option.


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 6, 2008)

bisp21 said:


> I know most people out there are either partial to Canon or Nikon, but I am wanting to get an unbiased positions on what a person preference would be if they had no ties to either camera (mean no lenses, etc) and was given the choice to take either camera.  Starting from scratch with nothing...
> 
> Your purpose in getting either camera is to have an all around camera allowing you the option to shoot still images, action shots, nature, landscapes, architechtural, weddings, etc. (basically anything and everything camera)
> 
> ...



I'm not yet totally sure I would choose it, but I would certainly include the 14 megapixel Sony DSLR-A350 very seriously in this consideration! The available lens range exceeds Nikon's (includes all Minolta A-mount lenses) and the cost comparison, with both, is _sweet_.

But, TBH, I'm waiting for the rumoured 20 to 24 megapixel full-frame pro dSLR Sony is thought to be announcing this year.
Sony is going to attack Nikon's no. 2 position, and I think they will succeed.


----------



## shivaswrath (Jun 6, 2008)

I am currently at the same cross-roads, and it's very difficult. 

But to break down my thoughts,
5D:
-FF advantage over cropped sensor is huge.
-EF mount lenses only, can't use pre-existing EF-S lenses (correct me here gang, since I'm a Nikonian)
-Not great at high ISO's
-No AUTO ISO feature
-IMO, a crappy menu layout
D300
-DX cropped (1.5 or 1.6x factor)
-You have the freedom of using FX and DX lenses, so you can eventually upgrade to a FF Nikon body and use all the lenses you have in your arsenal
-Great high ISO (little noise), but the technology is newer so that is expected
-AUTO ISO and AUTO WB, which for me is a HUGE plus when I am walking around and don't have the time to compose an "on-the-fly" shot; or if I give the camera to someone else to shoot me and my wife in a uber-touristy location 

So, I have decided to wait for the 5D MK2 to come out.  I thought about switching to Canon (the 1D Mark III with the 1.3x cropped sensor is getting cheap now, and closes the gap on the disadvantages stated above), but $4000 is getting close to D3 territory and I would have to buy really nice Canon glass leaving my lightweight D40 useless (I would still use my D40x when I travel since my wife enjoys it so much and it still takes AMAZING shots despite it's shortcominggs).

So I shall wait for the fall or Olympics, when Canon will release the 5D MK II and Nikon will hopefully release a FF prosumer camera in response (D350 or D400?).  I would suggest to wait and rent your equipment from borrowlenses.com until then (great weekly rates on f/2.8 lenses and bodies!)


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 6, 2008)

shivaswrath said:


> I am currently at the same cross-roads, and it's very difficult.
> 
> But to break down my thoughts,
> 5D:
> ...


 
What are you smoking? The 5D is amazing at high ISO. It's one of the main reasons people love that camera. Plus Canon has like 6 EF-S lenses out of about 80 total lenses in their lineup.

....and....auto ISO sucks.


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 6, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> ....and....auto ISO sucks.



Wrong - auto ISO rocks. Fact.


----------



## shivaswrath (Jun 6, 2008)

What are you smoking? The 5D is amazing at high ISO. It's one of the main reasons people love that camera. Plus Canon has like 6 EF-S lenses out of about 80 total lenses in their lineup.

....and....auto ISO sucks.[/quote]

And I quote from Nikonusa.com:
*Low-Noise ISO from 200-3200: *The D300s DX-format CMOS sensor with a high signal-to-noise ratio empowers photographers to select from a broad range of ISOs from 200-3200 with exceptional performance at low-noise high ISO settings. Included is an expanded range of options with Lo-1 (ISO 50 equivalent) and Hi-1 (ISO 6400 equivalent).

And I quote from Canonusa.com:
                                                                             ISO Speed Range
*                                                                              Equivalent to ISO 100-1600* (in 1/3-stop increments), ISO speed can be expanded to ISO 50 and 3200

Judging from your myopic and inflammatory comments, I indeed do think your judgments are qualified by your screen name; but those comments aside, if a cropped camera's ISO ratings are comfortable between 200-3200, and a FF ISO ratings are rated between 100-1600, my vote for low-noise would be to the cropped sensor (ie D300). I have also seen the low-light performance of a 5D and it was, at best, as good as my D40x when both were at 1600, which is why I questioned the purchase.

I have not experienced the D300 at high iso's, however, but can extrapolate based on Nikon DX sensor evolution that it would be better than my existing D40x.

I still, however, as mentioned above, am considering a Canon for an advanced amateur, prosumer next jump since it has such an amazing CMOS sensor.

Hope this doesn't start a Canon vs. Nikon pissing match since I'm on the fence despite OWNING a Nikon, but. . .


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 6, 2008)

Though I had used 35mm Nikon, when it was time to change to digital, 
much of my system became useless. Lenses didn't have, or didn't 
support, new functions.

As digital was a new technology, I wasn't going to spend thousands of $ 
on new equipment in the next few years, just because I used 35mm Nikons
before.
I also wondered if selling a lot of consumer cameras didn't make Nikon 
'ease it' at the top of the line.

I thoroughly compared between brands, down to the last detail.
I made a large comparison table between brands then, narrowed it to
Canon and Nikon.


I tried each for a few days.
There were quite a few new buttons... Nikon's ergonomics felt more natural
in my hands.
I also thought that the in-camera image processing was a bit better.
Both felt solid and well made.


Nikon seemed to have more pluses & fewer minuses than Canon, so that's
what I bought.
I now use a D300, and am very happy with it.​


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 6, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Wrong - auto ISO rocks. Fact.


 
I rarely take my camera off of manual mode though, so I have no use for it. Plus I don't think I'd like the camera changing the ISO around on me so half my shots are grainy and half aren't.


----------



## bigalbest (Jun 6, 2008)

While at PMA2008 earlier this year I had a chance to test the Nikon D3 side by side with my Canon 5D with very similar lenses and settings. While I was somewhat blown away by the D3 the Canon still suits my needs a little better, and in all honesty I am now planning on owning both systems. I haven't looked at the D300, but I would bet it's low light high ISO performance is close to that of the D3. Any one of these cameras is a fine choice while none of them will magically transform you into a great photographer (or make you more attractive).


----------



## bigalbest (Jun 6, 2008)

Larger version at http://www.flickr.com/photos/22790325@N04/2555825117/sizes/o/


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 6, 2008)

shivaswrath said:


> What are you smoking? The 5D is amazing at high ISO. It's one of the main reasons people love that camera. Plus Canon has like 6 EF-S lenses out of about 80 total lenses in their lineup.
> 
> ....and....auto ISO sucks.
> 
> ...


 
Even the comparison by this Nikon lover shows how much better the 5d is than the d40 at high ISO's as well as being about equal to the D300, with slightly better detail in the high ISO ranges.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm

Who ever was using the 5D didn't know what they were doing. Any camera will produce noisy pics if the photo is under exposed.

And good one...you're smart enough to try and make fun of my screen name :er:


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 6, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> I rarely take my camera off of manual mode though, so I have no use for it. Plus I don't think I'd like the camera changing the ISO around on me so half my shots are grainy and half aren't.



"I don't use it" does in no way equal "it sucks". Besides, that's is not how it works, you tell the camera how high or low ISO you want it to go on its own, if at all. You can still use it with manual mode, it is just another parameter. You can always turn it off. Just like "auto shutter" and "auto aperture", it is optional, it can be a great asset, and there are no disadvantages to it at all.


...did you just compare the 5D to the D40???


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 6, 2008)

[Antithesis]
....I chose the 5D over the D300 and have no regrets. 
The noise handling is pretty good, though not as spectacular 
as eveyone made it out to be. 
I'm sure that's the case with the D300 as well.​Believe it. The D300 is spectacularely noise-free, second only 
to the larger pixel size (pixel size, not pixel count) of the D3, 
and that only from about 3200 ISO.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 6, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> ...did you just compare the 5D to the D40???


 


shivaswrath said:


> I have also seen the low-light performance of a 5D and it was, at best, as good as my D40x when both were at 1600, which is why I questioned the purchase.


 
message


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 6, 2008)

[shivaswrath]
I am currently at the same cross-roads, and it's very difficult. 

But to break down my thoughts,
5D:
-FF advantage over cropped sensor is huge.
​*Not at all, unless you make real large enlargements.*
*Check what print size you get with RAW, at 100%.*
-EF mount lenses only, can't use pre-existing EF-S lenses 
(correct me here gang, since I'm a Nikonian)
​*Nikon kept their commitment to already-users by *
*engineering **modularity. *
*They have no peers in that respect.*
-Not great at high ISO's
-No AUTO ISO feature
-IMO, a crappy menu layout
​*For me, those are serious limitations.*
D300
-DX cropped (1.5 or 1.6x factor)
-You have the freedom of using FX and DX lenses, so you can
eventually upgrade to a FF Nikon body and use all the lenses you
have in your arsenal
-Great high ISO (little noise), but the technology is newer so that 
is expected
​*Expected or not, it is here to enjoy now, with over-all *
*quality that can comfortably keep me until the D500 or *
*D5 come.*
-AUTO ISO and AUTO WB, which for me is a HUGE plus when I am
walking around and don't have the time to compose an "on-the-fly"
shot; or if I give the camera to someone else to shoot me and my
wife in a uber-touristy location 
​*Indeed, it is a rather quick camera to use.*


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 6, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> *Even at this low res., small format, the D3 shines.*
> 
> *And yes, at up to 50x60cm enlargements or so, one has **to *
> *look hard **to see any difference, if at all, between a D300 *
> *and a D3 (at up to ~3200 ISO).*


----------



## passerby (Jun 6, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> ....and....auto ISO sucks.


 

....and....*manual ISO setting is preferable*.
Sound better?

I personally use manual ISO, ever since I noticed few pictures were taken with 3200 on auto when the lighting was "dim" according to camera's computer. I don't mind at all with ISO 1600, buit not the d40 3200, grainy.


----------



## passerby (Jun 6, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Even the comparison by this Nikon lover shows how much better the 5d is than the d40 at high ISO's as well as being about equal to the D300, with slightly better detail in the high ISO ranges.
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm
> 
> Who ever was using the 5D didn't know what they were doing. Any camera will produce noisy pics if the photo is under exposed.


 
I have question regarding the sample shots at KR review at above particular subject.

The teddy bear as the object there that was sitting on the mattress, what camera was used to take that shot? I asked this because the D300, D200 and D40 seem produced almost identical colours reproduction.


----------



## passerby (Jun 6, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> While at PMA2008 earlier this year I had a chance to test the Nikon D3 side by side with my Canon 5D with very similar lenses and settings.


 
You were the sole person who can relate to us as to which one is better in this situation. We don't know the original colours of those musical instruments, but by right you do. Those two set of photos above have different colours that reproduced by two different cameras. One of those cameras has produced false colours.

Good camera is the one that produces the scene the way the photographer sees it, no more and no less.


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 6, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> message



Ok, i didn't read the above post. You're still avoiding to reply, reinforcing both my point and his.

@passerby: colour is mostly a post processing issue. Resolution, noise, sharpness are things to compare. They are dependent on the sensor way more than colour is (and still affected by development).


----------



## bigalbest (Jun 6, 2008)

passerby said:


> You were the sole person who can relate to us as to which one is better in this situation. We don't know the original colours of those musical instruments, but by right you do. Those two set of photos above have different colours that reproduced by two different cameras. One of those cameras has produced false colours.
> 
> Good camera is the one that produces the scene the way the photographer sees it, no more and no less.



The colors are fairly accurate in both pictures, the D3 just produces brighter images in this lighting situation. Isn't the Nikonite mantra less noise? I really didn't notice a giant gap in image noise reduction performance myself although the D3 does have an edge in this department. I think the main advantage is shutter speed, although Canon's real shutter speed king is the 1d MkIII so we're not really comparing apples to apples here. And like I stated earlier I think these are all fine cameras it's all in what you're using them for.


----------



## Mav (Jun 7, 2008)

Tastes Great!!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 7, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Ok, i didn't read the above post. You're still avoiding to reply, reinforcing both my point and his.
> 
> @passerby: colour is mostly a post processing issue. Resolution, noise, sharpness are things to compare. They are dependent on the sensor way more than colour is (and still affected by development).


 
avoiding what question? I didn't compare the 5d to the 40d, the person I quoted did. Clear enough?


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 7, 2008)

Ok i see, you are ignoring the auto ISO thing entirely, fair enough.


----------



## shivaswrath (Jun 7, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> avoiding what question? I didn't compare the 5d to the 40d, the person I quoted did. Clear enough?



I think I was comparing it to my a D40 at 1600 ISO, both of which (5D and D40) I have shot with in the same dark environment with the less than flattering noise.

Regardless, the AUTO ISO feature is not useless, it's actually a huge benefit, something the above poster mentioned you aren't addressing. 

None of this is neither here nor there.  

I personally feel the 5D has poor low-light capabilities, and I still assert that the D300 would have better low-light capabilities since I feel that my lower-on-the-sensor-evolution-pole D40 has comparable abilities as the 5D.

But I might be wrong, it might be the glass I was shooting with on both when I tried them.

The conclusion is still the same to the OP, wait for the fall, if you can, and see better price reductions on the 5D since the 5D MK II should be out, which might lend to better reductions on the D300, all around Q4 time-frame (read: Christmas sales!)

Happy shopping to the OP. . .


----------



## Joves (Jun 7, 2008)

I find Auto ISO useless myself, much like Auto WB. I like to control what I am shooting personally. Since I am a Nikonian I will have to weigh in on the D300 side, a camera which I have and, love. But secretly Im lusting after a D3.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 7, 2008)

Joves said:


> I find Auto ISO useless myself, much like Auto WB. I like to control what I am shooting personally. Since I am a Nikonian I will have to weigh in on the D300 side, a camera which I have and, love. But secretly Im lusting after a D3.


I have set mine (D300) to Auto ISO on ocassion, but usually set it myself.  I want to control that.  I do use Auto WB, figuring adjustments can be made post processing.

I've had nocturnal emissions about the D3, similar to those of Rachel Welsh in earlier days.


----------



## themaze76 (Jun 8, 2008)

IMO...go for the D300, I am a recent Nikon convert.  I shot Canon for a very long time and loved them, but I bought a D80 about a year ago and traded up to a D300 last month. I have never had a camera that was so easy to get the results I was looking for. I truly believe that I have just opened a creative can of worms. Plus...you cannot beat Nikon glass.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 8, 2008)

shivaswrath said:


> I think I was comparing it to my a D40 at 1600 ISO, both of which (5D and D40) I have shot with in the same dark environment with the less than flattering noise.
> 
> Regardless, the AUTO ISO feature is not useless, it's actually a huge benefit, something the above poster mentioned you aren't addressing.
> 
> ...


 
It's probably how you were shooting with the 5D. Search low light and 5D and you'll find a ton of praise for it's high ISO abilities. If you bothered to check the Ken Rockwell link, you'll see how the d40 looks like ass in comparison to the 5d and even the d300 doesn't retain as much detail at the higher iso.


----------



## Mav (Jun 8, 2008)

Mav said:


> Tastes Great!!


Less Filling!


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2008)

*FULL FRAME VS. NOT*

Just an important thing to consider when buying any Nikon partial-frame camera. (D100, D200, D300, D70, D80, I assume the D40/50/60s also)

There is one non-religious thing here, and that is quite simply that the full frame allows you to get a wider shot.

For SOME people (i.e. me, who interestingly has a Nikon D300 and should probably be running Canon) this is absolutely critical... and I'm not talking about "omg I wish I could get more of this beautiful landscape" critical... I'm talking about "Crap, I can't get even 1/2 of this hotel room in this shot" critical.

Just something to keep in mind.

BTW, I'm not poo-pooing the D300. I love my cam, it's just this is a clear technical limitation of the partial sensor cams.


----------



## Mav (Jun 8, 2008)

Chris, that may have been true several years ago about being able to get wider shots on full-frame, but today there's a full fleet of ultra-wide and even fisheye lenses available for crop body DSLRs.  Canon EF-S 10-22, and Sigma 10-20 HSM lenses are about the widest they go.  Sigma also has a 10mm fisheye in both Canon and Nikon mounts, and Nikon was the first to introduce a fisheye for crop bodies back several years ago.  I just picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 fisheye for DX Nikons and have had the 10.5mm Nikon fisheye and they're both outstanding lenses.

I think full-frame cameras and the full-frame lenses will probably be a tad sharper at the edges than a crop body ultra-wide since it has to get squeezed down more, but there are plenty of ultra-wide options for 1.5/1.6x DSLRs nowadays.  Even Olympus has some nutty 7-14mm lens I think for their 2.0x DSLRs if you have about $2k USD to spend.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2008)

Mav said:


> Chris, that may have been true several years ago about being able to get wider shots on full-frame, but today there's a full fleet of ultra-wide and even fisheye lenses available for crop body DSLRs. Canon EF-S 10-22, and Sigma 10-20 HSM lenses are about the widest they go. Sigma also has a 10mm fisheye in both Canon and Nikon mounts, and Nikon was the first to introduce a fisheye for crop bodies back several years ago. I just picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 fisheye for DX Nikons and have had the 10.5mm Nikon fisheye and they're both outstanding lenses.
> 
> I think full-frame cameras and the full-frame lenses will probably be a tad sharper at the edges than a crop body ultra-wide since it has to get squeezed down more, but there are plenty of ultra-wide options for 1.5/1.6x DSLRs nowadays. Even Olympus has some nutty 7-14mm lens I think for their 2.0x DSLRs if you have about $2k USD to spend.


 
Yeah, you're absolutely right that there are a lot of options out now that really make this a lot less painful than it was.  I just picked up the Sigma 10-20mm to replace my Nikon 18mm 2.8.  There is no question a huge difference in usability for the wide shots... _but_ the fact is I could still get more out of a lens like that if it was full frame.  Not this particular lens, of course, but I assume you see what I mean... if I didn't have the partial frame, a 10mm lens would be... a 10mm lens!  Vs. the 13-15 that it winds up being.  Is 3-5mm a lot?  Seems like not, but then with what I do every little bit really makes a difference.

Again, not a concern for everyone, but definitely something to evaluate when you're in the middle of deciding just what camera to buy.

Great points though, thank you for making them.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 10, 2008)

Mav said:


> Chris, that may have been true several years ago about being able to get wider shots on full-frame, but today there's a full fleet of ultra-wide and even fisheye lenses available for crop body DSLRs. Canon EF-S 10-22, and Sigma 10-20 HSM lenses are about the widest they go. Sigma also has a 10mm fisheye in both Canon and Nikon mounts, and Nikon was the first to introduce a fisheye for crop bodies back several years ago. I just picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 fisheye for DX Nikons and have had the 10.5mm Nikon fisheye and they're both outstanding lenses.
> 
> I think full-frame cameras and the full-frame lenses will probably be a tad sharper at the edges than a crop body ultra-wide since it has to get squeezed down more, but there are plenty of ultra-wide options for 1.5/1.6x DSLRs nowadays. Even Olympus has some nutty 7-14mm lens I think for their 2.0x DSLRs if you have about $2k USD to spend.


 
All I have to say to justify UWA on a 5d. 16-35 f/2.8L. Great lens.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 14, 2008)

Socrates said:


> However, it's an established fact that owning a Nikon will improve your sex life.



Kinda like prison...every time you need another accessory...just make sure you have plenty of KY.


----------



## peterbj7 (Jun 14, 2008)

shivaswrath said:


> I personally feel the 5D has poor low-light capabilities


Have you looked at www.cambridgeincolour.com?


----------

