# Canon 5D or Nikon D300?



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

I know, not another Canon vs Nikon thread.

I've always been a Canon guy (amateur). I started with the AE-1 about 20 years ago, then the Rebel EOS and now I have a D60. Lately I've been looking to upgrade. I've had my eye on the 5D for quite some time, because of the full frame sensor. I miss wide angle shots. My lenses are outdated also, so I was going to upgrade them too.

I had my mind made up to get the 5D, then it happened. I met a guy who happened to have a Nikon D200 with him. I took a brief look at it, and I was really impressed. I liked the way it felt, and how everything was laid out, much better then the 5D I looked at.

I started doing research on Nikon (not being familiar with their system), and came across their newest body, the D300. Though not yet released, I'm really considering jumping over to Nikon, and pre-ordering it. Also impressive is their 18-200mm lens. That and their 12-24mm, for the wide angle shots I've been missing, is all I need. Well those and the always fun 10.5mm Fisheye.

I have yet to push the button, so I thought I'd get some input from CPF'ers. Any Canon users that switched to Nikon? Anyone considering the D300? Also, anyone have a small sensor Nikon using the 12-24mm lens? I know it's not quite as wide as a full frame using a 14mm, but how does it compare quality wise? I wonder if Nikon will be coming out with a 10-22mm similar to Canon's. That would be equivalent to a 15mm on full frame. Then I'd be sold on Nikon in a heart beat.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## paulr (Oct 7, 2007)

The 5D is a full frame DSLR and as such is in a different class than the D300. The right comparison is probably D300 vs 40D. Canon has traditionally been ahead of Nikon in high tech features while Nikon has traditionally been ahead in ergonomics. Nikon has finally announced a full frame camera (the D3) which looks fantastic, but it's a pro level camera costing about 2x what a 5D costs (still less than a 1DS mk II though).

I have a D70 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a good combination. Nikon's 12-24 is good but not great and I decided to pay less and get extra width. Their 14-28 full frame is supposed to be fantastic, like other Nikon professional lenses such as the 17-35. With their midrange/amateur lenses (this seems to include all the DX lenses) they seem to mail it in.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

paulr said:


> The 5D is a full frame DSLR and as such is in a different class than the D300. The right comparison is probably D300 vs 40D. Canon has traditionally been ahead of Nikon in high tech features while Nikon has traditionally been ahead in ergonomics. Nikon has finally announced a full frame camera (the D3) which looks fantastic, but it's a pro level camera costing about 2x what a 5D costs (still less than a 1DS mk II though).


 
I know small frame sensors have a limit on the number of pixels (I don't know what that is though), and don't have as wide of field of view with the same lens. But, what advantages does a full frame have? e.g. Comparing a small frame 10mm lens to an 15mm full frame.



> I have a D70 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a good combination. Nikon's 12-24 is good but not great and I decided to pay less and get extra width. Their 14-28 full frame is supposed to be fantastic, like other Nikon professional lenses such as the 17-35. With their midrange/amateur lenses (this seems to include all the DX lenses) they seem to mail it in.


 
I'll have to look into the Sigma. I really want a wide lens. Too bad Nikon doesn't have a 9mm.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Pellidon (Oct 7, 2007)

My camera club fiends are either still die hard Nikon fans or switched to Cannon. Mostly those that are Pro or semi-pro have switched to Cannon. 

I have an ancient Nikon D-100. I got the upgrade bug but switched to Sony's A-100 and a 11-18 Tamron lens. Lighter camera and there are Zeiss lenses coming soon. I've used the larger Sony and Nikon Z-SLR cameras and found the color interpretation more to my tastes. That meant less tweaking. 

Wide angle angle of view like a full frame offers is the only reason I'd consider full frame. File sizes start to bloat and I've not noticed a gain from 7 MP to higher.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

Pellidon said:


> My camera club fiends are either still die hard Nikon fans or switched to Cannon. Mostly those that are Pro or semi-pro have switched to Cannon.
> 
> I have an ancient Nikon D-100. I got the upgrade bug but switched to Sony's A-100 and a 11-18 Tamron lens. Lighter camera and there are Zeiss lenses coming soon. I've used the larger Sony and Nikon Z-SLR cameras and found the color interpretation more to my tastes. That meant less tweaking.
> 
> Wide angle angle of view like a full frame offers is the only reason I'd consider full frame. File sizes start to bloat and I've not noticed a gain from 7 MP to higher.


 
I never thought about getting anything other then Canon. I always figured I can't go wrong with them, and they have everything I could ever need or want.

However, seeing the D200 in person, and reading about the D300, I want the D300. The only drawback I see is Nikon doesn't have a 10mm lens. If they come out with a 9mm someday, that would be the same as a 13.5mm full frame.


----------



## geepondy (Oct 7, 2007)

I've read that Nikon DSLR's have better exposure and based on my limited experience with my only DSLR, the Canon Rebel 300D, I would agree. I get frequent improperly exposed shots, particularly with flash.

I've also read that full frame sensors are much less forgiving with cheaper glass which makes sense as a non full frame sensor will only use the center part of the lens, if it is a traditional 35mm lens and not one designed specifically for the sensor such as Canon's EF-S lens.

Also aren't the kit lens generally of higher quality with the Nikons?


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

geepondy said:


> I've read that Nikon DSLR's have better exposure and based on my limited experience with my only DSLR, the Canon Rebel 300D, I would agree. I get frequent improperly exposed shots, particularly with flash.


 
I find the same problem my D60. Exposure is not very consistent either. I thought it was the same issue with all cameras. 



> I've also read that full frame sensors are much less forgiving with cheaper glass which makes sense as a non full frame sensor will only use the center part of the lens, if it is a traditional 35mm lens and not one designed specifically for the sensor such as Canon's EF-S lens.


 
Interesting. Full Frames are much less forgiving with cheap lenses? This won't be an issue for me though. I'll be using lenses designed for the smaller sensor.



> Also aren't the kit lens generally of higher quality with the Nikons?


 
I read that also, but again, that won't apply to me, I'll be getting the body only.


----------



## JetskiMark (Oct 7, 2007)

The D300 does look very interesting. Have you been to the forums at DPReview? They have a LOT of threads there discussing the D300. I would wait until it's in production and see what actual owners think of it.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 7, 2007)

The Canon 5D will be replaced in the early spring so I'd wait. If you want a full frame sensor camera, Canon is still the way to go since the 5D and it's replacement are a couple thousand less than Nikon's new top of the line camera, which comes out soon. If comparing the D300 with Canon's equivalent, the just released 40D, you'll find 2 extra megapixels for the Nikon, more focusing points, and another $500 in expense. In practical use, the slightly larger file size and extra focus points will not meaningfully effect your pictures.

Also,the 5D has no built in flash, the other cameras do, if that's important to you.

After more than 33 years as a Nikon user, I am switching to Canon.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

JetskiMark said:


> The D300 does look very interesting. Have you been to the forums at DPReview? They have a LOT of threads there discussing the D300. I would wait until it's in production and see what actual owners think of it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark


 
I'll check that site out, thanks. I'm most going on the fact it's a successor to the D200, so I can't see it being any worse. The 3" 640x480 LCD alone is worth the extra money to me. I'll have 30 days to check it out. If I don't like it, I'll just return it. Also, it's not expected to ship until Dec. That's already too long.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

onthebeam said:


> The Canon 5D will be replaced in the early spring so I'd wait. If you want a full frame sensor camera, Canon is still the way to go since the 5D and it's replacement are a couple thousand less than Nikon's new top of the line camera, which comes out soon. If comparing the D300 with Canon's equivalent, the just released 40D, you'll find 2 extra megapixels for the Nikon, more focusing points, and another $500 in expense. In practical use, the slightly larger file size and extra focus points will not meaningfully effect your pictures.
> 
> Also,the 5D has no built in flash, the other cameras do, if that's important to you.
> 
> After more than 33 years as a Nikon user, I am switching to Canon.


 
I guess my question is, why go with a Full Frame Sensor? It seems lenses are getting short enough to give Small Frame's the same wide angle.

Have you tried the D200? If so, how do you like it? 

Why are you switching to Canon?

Thanks.


----------



## nekomane (Oct 7, 2007)

Hello Nitro and all,

The D200 has good construction (they are made in Nikon's Thailand factory, no longer made in Japan), well laid out buttons and menus.
Images over ISO 800 get noisy.
I have only seen test shots of a Beta version D3, but if the D300 is close to its big brother, I would not hesitate to say that Nikon has finally got it right this time and gets sharp and low noise images comparable to (or some say better than) Canons.

A full size sensor gives the 5D the advantage of a very wide vision through the optical viefinder. No more cramped frame.

As you know, having a smaller sensor will multiply the focul length by 1.3-1.6 depending on camera, and will cut down on the heavy telephoto gear. But if you are mainly interested in wide angle lenses, having more option on the wide side may be more important.

The Nikon 12-24 produces sharp images, is a small, liteweight usefull zoom for the wide side.
Comparing it to the single length Canon 14/2.8 (excellent lens) may not be fair, but if the 18-200 is also of interest to you, the combination of the 2 lenses can cover a lot and will be about the same price of the single Canon 14mm.
The Sigma 10-20 paulr mentions may be a good option too.

Find further info regarding image distortion if you are going to be shooting architecture, though you should be able to correct it using the software bundled with the body. 

If you go with the 5D and are considering the 16-35/2.8, get the newer one (filter size 82mm). The light drops off around the corners on the old one (filter size 77mm). Of course, some people like that effect, but just to warn you, it really shows on a full frame 5D image. 

Since you were a long time Canon user, you may need to adjust operating the zoom and manual focus ring on the Nikons. They turn oppsite from Canon. I'm still zooming out when I want to shoot tighter 

I've been using Nikon (F3-5, F100-D200, D1-D2Hs etc) for over 20 years and just switched to Canon(MkIII, 40D) less than 6 months ago. Canon has excellent image quiality, but operation is cumbersome , speedlight is unreliable, and being unable to take total, full control (the camera thinks its smarter than you) is annoying. If only I had known the D3 was coming...

Hope this helps.


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 7, 2007)

Nitro said:


> I guess my question is, why go with a Full Frame Sensor? It seems lenses are getting short enough to give Small Frame's the same wide angle.
> 
> Have you tried the D200? If so, how do you like it?
> 
> ...



Mainly because the pro market was ignored by Nikon for far too long. Several of their cameras have had backfocusing problems and the Canon lenses, which were always better in the telephoto range, and top notch in the wide angles now too. 

As Nekomane pointed out, the D200 was quite noisy over EI 200. Their new sensor for the D300 and D3 models has supposed to get a handle on this. Pros like full frame sensors to get fast speed on very wide lenses, particularly being able to shoot in available light at f 2.8. 

You can buy a nice 17-55 f 2.8 Canon lens made only for the 1.6 sensor cameras but when you multiply 17 x 1.6 it's really not that wide. The image stabilization is nice though.

Pros love the 5D but it's not weather sealed well and isn't suited well to sports either. And, no built in flash, if that matters. I like to do fill flash with the little flash dialed down to put out less light.

The 40D is actually a better sports camera since it has a faster burst rate and the 1.6 multiplier is helpful in most sports situations. The viewfinders on the 1.5 multiplier Nikons and 1.6 Canons are getting better all the time--less tunnel vision. But, if you look at a 5D, you feel like you are back to a big crisp viewfinder like the film cameras we all used to love.

Still, even though the 5D has just dropped to $2300, wait for the 6D, 7D or whatever they'll call it. In the digital game, you don't want more than 2 year old technology.

Nekomane, I knew you were a flashlight engineering master, but didn't know you were also a long term Nikon shooter, too! Are you in Thailand or Hong Kong? What strobe problems are you experiencing? The 580 EX II should take care of that. . .


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

nekomane said:


> Hello Nitro and all,
> 
> The D200 has good construction (they are made in Nikon's Thailand factory, no longer made in Japan), well laid out buttons and menus.
> Images over ISO 800 get noisy.
> ...


 
Thanks for the info. Very informative.

However, why buy a Full Frame sensor? When lenses get shorter i.e. 9, 10mm, small frame's will be just as wide. Am I missing something?

Also, the D300's view finder has the same wide angle, 100% of the image.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 7, 2007)

onthebeam said:


> Mainly because the pro market was ignored by Nikon for far too long. Several of their cameras have had backfocusing problems and the Canon lenses, which were always better in the telephoto range, and top notch in the wide angles now too.
> 
> As Nekomane pointed out, the D200 was quite noisy over EI 200. Their new sensor for the D300 and D3 models has supposed to get a handle on this. Pros like full frame sensors to get fast speed on very wide lenses, particularly being able to shoot in available light at f 2.8.
> 
> ...


 
I can see pros wanting Canon's for the telephoto lenses. However, I'm not a pro, nor will I need a LARGE telephoto lens.

I hate to sound like a broken records but, will Full Frames eventually be replaced by Small Frames, after 9mm lenses come out?


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 7, 2007)

In my opinion, you'll be seeing more full frame sensors coming out. They are definitely not disappearing. In fact, Nikon has finally announced their first full frame camera, the D3.

The next will probably be Sony branded. I'd suggest playing with both the 40D and 5D, as well as a Nikon D200 and you may sense the advantages of the full frame sensor. Honestly, for most shooters, the 40D is all you need. It's far superior to the Nikon D200. 

It's possible the D300 may leapfrog the 40D slightly, for another $500 and with features you probably don't need, such as more focus points and a 12 megapixel sensor, as opposed to 10. Up until now the Canons have been superior at noise reduction. Rumor is that Nikon is finally catching up, thanks to Sony-built technology.


----------



## nekomane (Oct 7, 2007)

oops I did not know the D300 uses a full size sensor. I've been trying hard to ignore it since switching to Canon ;(
That means you will not be able to use the 12-24 which is designed for the smaller DX format. Sorry for the mistake.



Nitro said:


> However, why buy a Full Frame sensor? When lenses get shorter i.e. 9, 10mm, small frame's will be just as wide. Am I missing something?





Nitro said:


> ....... but, will Full Frames eventually be replaced by Small Frames, after 9mm lenses come out?



onthebeam explained it better than me.


onthebeam said:


> ...........
> The viewfinders on the 1.5 multiplier Nikons and 1.6 Canons are getting better all the time--less tunnel vision. But, if you look at a 5D, you feel like you are back to a big crisp viewfinder like the film cameras we all used to love.


You'll just see so much more through the view finder of a full size sensor camera. I don't know the details of how this is done, but if you have a chance to compare and look through the viewfinder of the 5D and a x1.3 or x1.6 camera, you should feel the difference (especially on a wide angle lens).

Other than that, as long as sensor manufacturing costs keep dropping, I cannot think of other reasons the camera makers need to stick to the smaller format.

Regarding the 9mm you are after, I think the Nikon 10.5 is the widest you will see.
I'm no expert on optical engineering, but is such an extreme wide lens possible, or are they really necessary? 

In the early years of digital cameras, full sized sensors were much more expensive and the camera manufacturers reorganized the lineup of lenses to accomodate the smaller format instead of making expensive bodies.
Thanks to this, there is now a vast option of wide angle lenses (especially zooms) you can choose from. Back in the film days, in my field, a 20mm lens was considered extremely wide and did not see general use.

If the full frame sensor becomes mainstream, I doubt the camera makers will need to introduce lenses other than what they already had in the 35mm era (24 20 18 16fisheye 8fisheye etc) or make such extreme lenses for the smaller format. 



onthebeam said:


> ............
> Are you in Thailand or Hong Kong? What strobe problems are you experiencing? The 580 EX II should take care of that. . .


Nice to see you around :wave: I'm in Tokyo.
The 580EX II is said to be better than the older one, but I still get inconstistent/underexposed images with distant subjects (around 20meters) using a 70-200. Charge is slow on Alkalines too. But this is all in comparison to the Nikon SBs I've used, and the highISO/low noise images do compensate for lack of artificial lighting.

EDIT 2009: The D300 was not as good as expected. Get the D700.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

I'm no expert, but I don't see why camera makers will go to Full Frames in the future. They're bigger, slower, more expensive, etc. It's like making computer chips larger instead of smaller. I see lenses getting wider instead, i.e. 9mm. But I could be wrong.

FYI, the D300 has a Small Frame Sensor (DX), but the viewfinder has 100% Frame Coverage, just like the Full Frame camera's. Also, I read on another forum, someone actually played with a Demo D300. He said based on his observations it was 1-1.3 stops better in noise over the D200. I don't know how accurate that is, but it sounds promising.


----------



## Yenster (Oct 8, 2007)

I have a 5D and really like it. I think smaller sensors can work well so long as there's lens that are designed for it...and there's a lot out there that are. However, there doesn't seem to be a good fisheye designed specifically for 1.6 cropped sensors. And most of the L telephoto lens are still designed for full 35mm frames. Also macros...hmm...I guess that's the main reason for full frame sensors...there're more lens designed for it.


----------



## paulr (Oct 8, 2007)

Older 1/1.6 cropped cameras had narrow viewfinders because they were adapted versions of 35mm film SLR's and the viewfinders were still set up for 24x36mm but masked off. More recent DSLR's including the D80/D200/D300 fix this problem. However, the cameras still use the same lens mount as the old 35mm film cameras, which in particular means the lenses are made for the same (larger) clearances between the mount and imaging plane as for the old cameras. That means to get the same angle of view as a full frame 50mm "normal" lens, you have to go to a 30mm or so focal length, apparently requiring a wideangle design even if you're covering just the smaller 1.6 sensor area. The flange-to-sensor distance was designed for 24x36mm and is mismatched to the smaller sensor, which puts some cramps into the possible lens choices. This wouldn't apply to (for example) the Olympus 4/3 system, where the whole mount has been designed from scratch so they can bring the lenses closer to the sensor. 

The full frame sensors also have the advantage of simply being bigger, so they can collect more total photons from the same exposure at the same f/number. That's why the 5D and D3 perform better at high ISO than small sensor cameras. This article explains the effect:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

Yenster said:


> I have a 5D and really like it. I think smaller sensors can work well so long as there's lens that are designed for it...and there's a lot out there that are. However, there doesn't seem to be a good fisheye designed specifically for 1.6 cropped sensors. And most of the L telephoto lens are still designed for full 35mm frames. Also macros...hmm...I guess that's the main reason for full frame sensors...there're more lens designed for it.


 
That makes sense. I just really think(hope) eventually there will be just as many Small Frame lenses with the same FL options as the Full Frame's.


----------



## nekomane (Oct 8, 2007)

One benefit of a larger sensor is that you can receive more light on the chip.
Comparing a DX size (23.6x15.8mm) 10MP sensor and a Full Size (36x24mm) sensor, each chip has the same pixels, but each pixel in the larger sensor is bigger and can receive more light, resulting in less noise at higher ISO levels.

A few years back when the Nikon D1 was introduced, Nikon sounded as if they would never go full size.
But a 'few years' in digital imaging is a very long time, and now the D3 is announced.

Perhaps both formats can co-exist. One for expensive top of the line models, and another cost effective smaller format. 



Nitro said:


> .......FYI, the D300 has a Small Frame Sensor (DX)...


I stand corrected, twice 

As onthebeam suggested, I hope you can compare the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. The price tag does differ but you will probably favor the tough build of the Nikon, and if image quality is as good as or close to the D3...


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

paulr said:


> Older 1/1.6 cropped cameras had narrow viewfinders because they were adapted versions of 35mm film SLR's and the viewfinders were still set up for 24x36mm but masked off. More recent DSLR's including the D80/D200/D300 fix this problem. However, the cameras still use the same lens mount as the old 35mm film cameras, which in particular means the lenses are made for the same (larger) clearances between the mount and imaging plane as for the old cameras. That means to get the same angle of view as a full frame 50mm "normal" lens, you have to go to a 30mm or so focal length, apparently requiring a wideangle design even if you're covering just the smaller 1.6 sensor area. The flange-to-sensor distance was designed for 24x36mm and is mismatched to the smaller sensor, which puts some cramps into the possible lens choices. This wouldn't apply to (for example) the Olympus 4/3 system, where the whole mount has been designed from scratch so they can bring the lenses closer to the sensor.
> 
> The full frame sensors also have the advantage of simply being bigger, so they can collect more total photons from the same exposure at the same f/number. That's why the 5D and D3 perform better at high ISO than small sensor cameras. This article explains the effect:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/


 
Interesting. So it's the mount causing the wide angle FL problem? That makes sense.

Will(can) sensors become more and more sensitive? If so, it really comes down to which size sensor the makers will make standard. Why did they make a smaller sensor to begin with?


----------



## paulr (Oct 8, 2007)

Nitro said:


> Will(can) sensors become more and more sensitive?


Not by much, they are really operating close to the quantum limits already (see the article I linked to). The only way left to get more sensitivity is by collecting more photons, i.e. faster lenses and bigger sensors.


> If so, it really comes down to which size sensor the makers will make standard. Why did they make a smaller sensor to begin with?


As with many things it comes down to cost. It's like LCD monitors, the technology needed to make very large ones wasn't available til recently, and the biggest ones are still waaaay more expensive than the next smaller size.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

paulr said:


> Not by much, they are really operating close to the quantum limits already (see the article I linked to). The only way left to get more sensitivity is by collecting more photons, i.e. faster lenses and bigger sensors. As with many things it comes down to cost. It's like LCD monitors, the technology needed to make very large ones wasn't available til recently, and the biggest ones are still waaaay more expensive than the next smaller size.


 
Interesting article. That clears things up a lot.

Another question though. Other size and cost, are there any other disadvantages to Large Sensor Camera's?


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

I just read on another forum (so I can't confirm) that a Nikon Rep said the Noise Level of the D300 @ ISO3200 is the same as the D3 @ ISO6400. That's not bad for a small sensor priced at $1800 compared to a full sensor at $5000, assuming it's true.

My problems is, if I buy lenses designed for Small Sensors, what if I decide to go Full Sensor in the future. Decisions Decisions :shakehead


----------



## paulr (Oct 8, 2007)

> Another question though. Other size and cost, are there any other disadvantages to Large Sensor Camera's?


 Hmm. Some small sensor cameras have finer pixel pitch than the 5D or D3 in order to bag bigger numbers in the mostly-bogus megapixel wars. This is a disadvantage for low light shooting, but in bright light it means you get more resolution in the central part of the picture, for example if you're using a long telephoto lens that you wish were even longer. But that's a farfetched issue for most shooters, I suspect.



Nitro said:


> I just read on another forum (so I can't confirm) that a Nikon Rep said the Noise Level of the D300 @ ISO3200 is the same as the D3 @ ISO6400. That's not bad for a small sensor priced at $1800 compared to a full sensor at $5000, assuming it's true.


i can believe that. The D3 sensor is 2x as big so it collects 2x as many photons, i.e. one extra stop. Don't forget though that full frame cameras make full use of your wideangle lenses. Think of the fast primes (Canon 24/1.4 or whatever) that were never made in the small format.



> My problems is, if I buy lenses designed for Small Sensors, what if I decide to go Full Sensor in the future. Decisions Decisions :shakehead


 Ebay...


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

paulr said:


> i can believe that. The D3 sensor is 2x as big so it collects 2x as many photons, i.e. one extra stop. Don't forget though that full frame cameras make full use of your wideangle lenses. Think of the fast primes (Canon 24/1.4 or whatever) that were never made in the small format.


 
Isn't the difference between ISO3200 and ISO6400 one f-stop?



> Ebay...


:laughing: Yup, the answer to all our mistakes.

I'm really liking the Nikon design, but the Full Frame D3 is out of my price range. Unless, I skip the lenses and buy them next year. 

I may just bite the bullet and per-order the D300. If I don't like it, I can always return it. Something tells me I'll like it though.


----------



## paulr (Oct 8, 2007)

Nitro said:


> Isn't the difference between ISO3200 and ISO6400 one f-stop?


Yes, that's the point, the D3 collects 2x the photons so it's one stop more sensitive. 



> I may just bite the bullet and per-order the D300. If I don't like it, I can always return it. Something tells me I'll like it though.


 I'm not sure what the D300 really gains compared with the D200 or even the D80, but I haven't looked into it carefully. I figure there will be a lower cost version (D90 or whatever) of the d300 pretty soon. But in my case I think I might hold out for a full frame camera in the D200/D300 price range. The Canon 5D had a $500 rebate about a year ago so everyone thought a replacement was due, but none appeared and the rebate dried up. If the successor is coming next spring I suspect it will be under $2K which will be just a few hundred $ above the d300, and Nikon will have to introduce a full frame D400 not too long afterwards. If I were buying a Nikon now and didn't need MF lenses, I'd probably buy a D50 or D80 while holding out for the "D400". As it is, I think I mentioned I have a D70--it's comparatively obsolete but still definitely functional. I wouldn't see a fancier 1.6x camera as that big an improvement. But a full frame replacement would be basically the last camera--there's not much left to improve within the basic system framework. Large sensor hi-def video is going to send all this DSLR stuff to the junk heap starting in around 5 years anyway, just like digital did to film.


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 8, 2007)

The Nikon D70 is a wonderful camera as is the D80. Honestly, it's important to spend a bit less time on the technical details and more on making wonderful, pleasing pix. Although I'm a longtime pro, I'm only in the camera store very occasionally. The camera is just a tool, but I know that's hard to communicate to tool obsessed flashaholics. And I'm a confirmed one of those!

If budget is tight, it's always better to invest less in a camera body and more on top rate lenses.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

paulr said:


> Yes, that's the point, the D3 collects 2x the photons so it's one stop more sensitive.
> 
> I'm not sure what the D300 really gains compared with the D200 or even the D80, but I haven't looked into it carefully. I figure there will be a lower cost version (D90 or whatever) of the d300 pretty soon. But in my case I think I might hold out for a full frame camera in the D200/D300 price range. The Canon 5D had a $500 rebate about a year ago so everyone thought a replacement was due, but none appeared and the rebate dried up. If the successor is coming next spring I suspect it will be under $2K which will be just a few hundred $ above the d300, and Nikon will have to introduce a full frame D400 not too long afterwards. If I were buying a Nikon now and didn't need MF lenses, I'd probably buy a D50 or D80 while holding out for the "D400". As it is, I think I mentioned I have a D70--it's comparatively obsolete but still definitely functional. I wouldn't see a fancier 1.6x camera as that big an improvement. But a full frame replacement would be basically the last camera--there's not much left to improve within the basic system framework. Large sensor hi-def video is going to send all this DSLR stuff to the junk heap starting in around 5 years anyway, just like digital did to film.


 
According to someone that handled a Demo D300, it as 1 f-stop less noise then the D200. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as a Full Frame D400, I'd hold out for it if I knew it was coming out soon. However, I plan on taking a couple trips, and I'd like to take a new camera. I guess I'll just get the D300 for now (in ~5 weeks), and sell it if/when the D400 comes out in the future.


----------



## Norm (Oct 8, 2007)

Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
Norm


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

onthebeam said:


> The Nikon D70 is a wonderful camera as is the D80. Honestly, it's important to spend a bit less time on the technical details and more on making wonderful, pleasing pix. Although I'm a longtime pro, I'm only in the camera store very occasionally. The camera is just a tool, but I know that's hard to communicate to tool obsessed flashaholics. And I'm a confirmed one of those!


I know what you're saying. I only spend this much time researching specs before I buy. After I buy, I forget about all the tech specs and have fun shooting.



> If budget is tight, it's always better to invest less in a camera body and more on top rate lenses.


I don't have a problem spending money on quality lenses, as long as I believe they will last me awhile. My problem is deciding which System, Format to go with. If I go Small Frame, I'll want to get SF lenses. But if in the future I decide to go with a Large Frame, I'll I have to buy a new set of lenses.

If I want to go with Nikon, and I if want a camera soon, I have no choice but to go with a Small Frame. I figure I'll get the D300, and a couple lens. Then if/when I decide to upgrade to Full Frame, I'll sell it off as a kit. Hopefully the lenses will retain some value. I'm really liking the D300 though. I'm sold on the 3" 640x480 LCD alone.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

Norm said:


> Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
> Norm


 
I'm having enough trouble deciding between TWO camera makers. If I start looking at others, I'll never make a decision. 

It was easy for me in the past, I always assumed Canon was the best. Now that I handled a Nikon, I'm liking them better.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 8, 2007)

That D3 is looking mighty interesting. If I keep reading about camera's, I may have to start selling off my lights. :shakehead


----------



## Yenster (Oct 8, 2007)

Norm said:


> Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
> Norm


 
I almost got one of the Panasonics as a bridge camera but they seem to have too much noise. I liked the features, but just like the Leica cameras, they use the same sensor and engine, and both have their share of problems with sensor noise. I finally got a Fujifilm S9100, which isn't bad for a bridge camera, but it's not near the level of true DSLR cameras.

So stick with DSLRs. Nikon and Canon are the market leaders and they're pretty much the same caliber and are very capable tools.


----------



## paulr (Oct 8, 2007)

> According to someone that handled a Demo D300, it as 1 f-stop less noise then the D200.


I suspect the sensor performance is similar and that the lower noise comes from noise reduction software built into the camera. that does make the image look nicer but it actually loses information in the fine details.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 18, 2007)

paulr said:


> I suspect the sensor performance is similar and that the lower noise comes from noise reduction software built into the camera. that does make the image look nicer but it actually loses information in the fine details.


 
I bit the bullet and pre-ordered the D300. After reading more people's opinion of Demo versions of the D300, and seeing example images comparing it to the D200, I'm convinced the D300 has less noise then the D200 by 1-2 stops.

Comparing the above examples clearly shows the D300 has less noise at 6400 ISO then the D200 has at 3200 ISO. Also, I read the D200 applies some NR even with it disabled, but the D300 does not. So comparing the two with NR turned off is not a fair comparison, in favor of the D200.

Also, I read opinions that the D3 has less noise then the D300 by 1-2 stops. That's 3-4 stops over the D200. So from what I'm reading it's not only the size of the sensor, it's the sensitivity of it also.


----------



## nekomane (Oct 20, 2007)

Funny I see your decision the day I decided to go back to Nikon after a few months flirting with Canon.

Nitro, as far as I know, the D200 uses a CCD (which IMHO Nikon messed up big time from the D2), 
while the D300 uses an outsourced CMOS.

They should be completely different and I hope to see the results.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 20, 2007)

nekomane said:


> Funny I see your decision the day I decided to go back to Nikon after a few months flirting with Canon.


Are you getting a D300 also?



> Nitro, as far as I know, the D200 uses a CCD (which IMHO Nikon messed up big time from the D2),
> while the D300 uses an outsourced CMOS.
> 
> They should be completely different and I hope to see the results.


Is the D300's CCD made by Sony? I thought I read that somewhere. 

That D3 looks pretty awesome. I just can't justify spending 5K on a body for non-pro use. However, considering I'm upgrading from a Canon D60, the D300 should be a major step up.


----------



## paulr (Oct 20, 2007)

I hope you'll post when your D300 arrives and I'll be interested to know for sure that it doesn't apply NR to RAW images. I know some astrophotography folks are upset that quite a few cameras do that. Seems they take pictures of stars and the NR thinks the stars are hot pixels and edits them out...


----------



## Nitro (Oct 20, 2007)

paulr said:


> I hope you'll post when your D300 arrives and I'll be interested to know for sure that it doesn't apply NR to RAW images. I know some astrophotography folks are upset that quite a few cameras do that. Seems they take pictures of stars and the NR thinks the stars are hot pixels and edits them out...


 
Will do. As a matter of fact, I'll be taking some astrophotos with my Celestron 11". I should be able to see if it does anything funky.


----------



## nekomane (Oct 20, 2007)

Nitro said:


> Are you getting a D300 also?
> Is the D300's CCD made by Sony? I thought I read that somewhere.
> That D3 looks pretty awesome. I just can't justify spending 5K on a body for non-pro use. However, considering I'm upgrading from a Canon D60, the D300 should be a major step up.



I will get the D3 first, and will be using a D200 along with it for the meantime. 
A D3 and D300 sounds like the ideal setup for me.

If these were not tools of trade for me, the D300 would be much more than what I need.

The new CMOS sensor is advertised to be built by Nikon, but there must have been cooperation from 
somewhere else? 
I have no further info and really don't care as long as it produces good results!

paulr, according to previews from dpreview,
D300: Noise Reduction is set at 'OFF' when shipped from the factory.
D200: Turning NR Off is possible, but is set at 'normal' when shipped from the fatory.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page10.asp

Does this sound promising or am I reading too much into it? 

Problems with astrology photos must also be due to the Long Exposure NR, which of course 
can be set to 'Off' on both cameras.


----------



## onthebeam (Oct 23, 2007)

nekomane said:


> Funny I see your decision the day I decided to go back to Nikon after a few months flirting with Canon.



Funny, I have just begun my flirtation with Canon after YEARS, decades really, with Nikon. Have done initial shooting with the 40D and find it be a very capable and user friendly camera indeed. I don't think I'll be switching back unless Nikon can put a full frame model on the market for thousands less than the D3.

The Canon 5D is suddenly going for about $2100 worldwide, an extraordinarily good price for a full frame body. That means its replacement is obviously just around the corner.


----------



## cdosrun (Oct 23, 2007)

I would also really love to know what the D300 is like. I finally bit the bullet about three weeks ago and moved from film SLRs to digital (still Nikon) with the D200+MB-D200; I would love to have bought the D300 but there is no way it is going to be within my budget in the near future (the D200 is far more than I should have bought!). Still, they are a lot more fun than the film variety.


As for the Canon vs Nikon, I have also handled both and always preferred the 'feel' of the Nikon, the controls and display just seemed better to me.

Good luck, I hope the camera is what you are after.

Andrew


----------



## paulr (Oct 23, 2007)

I think the 5D price drop is at least partly a response to the D3 announcement.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 24, 2007)

cdosrun said:


> I would also really love to know what the D300 is like. I finally bit the bullet about three weeks ago and moved from film SLRs to digital (still Nikon) with the D200+MB-D200; I would love to have bought the D300 but there is no way it is going to be within my budget in the near future (the D200 is far more than I should have bought!). Still, they are a lot more fun than the film variety.
> 
> 
> As for the Canon vs Nikon, I have also handled both and always preferred the 'feel' of the Nikon, the controls and display just seemed better to me.
> ...


 
It's only $300 more for the D300.


----------



## KevinL (Oct 25, 2007)

Nitro said:


> I guess my question is, why go with a Full Frame Sensor? It seems lenses are getting short enough to give Small Frame's the same wide angle.
> 
> Have you tried the D200? If so, how do you like it?
> 
> ...



I married into the Canon system, but I'm not one of those who relentlessly knock Nikon for the sake of doing so. 

I'll speak in general, my thoughts about full frame. Yes, you have a new generation of lenses (DX, EF-S) on both sides that provide equivalent fields of view for the small sensors. HOWEVER, you also have a very strong legacy of lenses that take on new fields of view (FOVs) on a small sensor. In particular, prime lenses. A wide angle 28mm will suddenly present a much reduced FOV on a small sensor vs full frame. 

Now if you are only going to shoot with a new generation of reduced-frame zooms, that's quite OK, but if you want to tap the strength of a system of lenses that already came to exist before that, full frame is the way to go. Nikon has some superb prime lenses as well, 85/1.4 and MicroNikkor 60 come to mind. Also, this has a much bigger implication on wide primes than on tele primes. Many get by with an 85mm lens presenting a similar FOV to 135mm or thereabouts, but if you wanted a 28mm FOV, it's much harder to find a prime to do that. 

Also, to frame the subject the same way, you need a shorter focal length and consequently have less DOF. For example if I wanted to photograph a scene on full frame with a 50mm lens, and if I wanted to get exactly that same photo on a crop camera I would need roughly a ~30mm lens. Depth of field is tied to physical focal length. You do lose some DOF. (www.dofmaster.com for the calculations)

Historically (pre-D300, D3), Canon's high ISO performance has been significantly better. With the current announcements Nikon seems to have caught up (and that's not a bad thing) but I want to see production cameras before I can comment on the ISO war. 

Full frame sensors also have larger physical pixels, which increase light gathering power. They are just one part of a complex equation (including amplifiers, microlenses, processing pipeline) but they do offer such an advantage. They also offer physically larger, and consequently brighter viewfinders. The 5D utterly blew away every one of Canon's APS-C cameras that I've worked with. The crop cameras have caught up using better viewfinder optics, but think about it: the 5DMk2 will incorporate optical improvements AND larger physical size - and thus again come out ahead. 

Also think about the system you are buying into and its relative strengths and weaknesses. I know it's a lot to ask for from a new buyer, but once you get 'married', divorce is possible: it's just very expensive.. 


Disclaimer: I use and love digital full frame  if I was on the Nikon side of things, I would be *EXTREMELY* interested in the D3's announcement. 9fps 12MP FF.. sounds like a dream come true! (except the price tag)


----------



## Nitro (Nov 21, 2007)

Well, my D300 shipped, and I should be getting it Friday. 

From what I've seen (sample pics) and read, the D300 is in fact 1 stop better in noise performance then the D200. And with all the other improvments, it should be a worthy upgrade.


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 2, 2009)

I don't know anything about the Cannon line beyond hearsay and the perception that they have been ahead of the game in DSLR's. I commited to Nikon a few years back by virtue of the glass acquisitions and have felt that the D70's I have were more than adequate for my needs and in many ways beyond my abilities. For reasons not worth trying to explain, I ended up biting the bullet and buying a D300 for this last whale season over here. Simply put, it allowed me shots I couldn't get with the D70's by virtue of the quality of image at higher ISO. I met a guy at the beach one day who lives in Alaska and owns a camera store as well as does professional UW photography. He had a big housing with one of the top end Cannon's in it. He saw my Subal housing with D300 and said that it was the rig he would prefer over any others at present. He claimed that Nikon with the D300 and D3 had finally caught up and in some considerations exceeded Cannon. This was just his opinion but I respected the fact that he know a lot more about the gear than I ever plan to know! He was staying with a pro photographer friend who shoots for National Geography and is a whale photographer with permits. He told me his friend shoots the D300 and 1500 ISO is his standard.

I guess my point is that I think the D300 is an awesome camera in its own right and whether it is better than some other camera is moot as it has real merit on its own!! I ended up buying a second one for back up as well as land use and now the D70 will only see use next whale season when I go out with two rigs in two housings.

I think you are going to be happy with your camera!! :thumbsup:


----------



## jch79 (Jul 2, 2009)

Leave it to Don to dig up a thread this old!  :nana: Ok, I bet it just got moved to this forum, so it looks like it's new.

Old thread set aside, asking if you should get a Nikon or Canon is the same as asking someone if you should get a Mac or a PC - chances are, they'll recommend whatever they use! (Canon and Mac are obviously best BTW :laughing: :devil But in the end, it's more up to what you create with the tools you're given, not the tool itself (to a point). :shrug:

And I hope we can avoid battles like this, which this thread managed to do.  Until I chimed in. 

:duck: john


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 2, 2009)

Boy do I feel stupid!! 

I failed to look at the date and figured this was just a thread I missed (kind of easy to do these days).

My bad! My bad but I blame Nitro! He is getting his D300 on Friday and of course he will post on receipt and tell us what he thinks! :nana:


----------



## nekomane (Jul 2, 2009)

McGizmo, 
When DSLRs get better and better every 6 months (like personal computers in the 90s), 
it is good to know that you are still happy with the D300.

For low light situations though, the camera did not meet my high hopes of being the D3's little brother. 
The original 5D still beats the D300.

The D700 is what I was expecting from the D300, and can be highly recommended if you are thinking of 
upgrading the Nikon body.

Like jch79 says, no need to make a fuss between the manufacturers. 
Each camera has their weakness and strength. I use Nikon mainly because it just happened to 
be the system I got used to first. 
I am personally very excited with the upcomming Olympus E-P1


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 2, 2009)

nekomane said:


> McGizmo,
> .....
> 
> The D700 is what I was expecting from the D300, and can be highly recommended if you are thinking of
> ...



I have over $6k in Subal housings that are only good with the D70 and D300 so I can't consider staying at the top of the curve. If the D700 has the same exterior geometry and button location as the D300 cool. I doubt that is the case though.

My entry into digital photography was via Olympus and I had a number of their digital cameras until I decided to make the leap into DSLR. Shutter lag caused me to miss so many once in a life time shots that I made the move to DSLR as soon as I felt I could afford to make the switch which again included a UW housing which is the largest expense. I had hoped to go with Olympus but at the time, Nikon had them beat from what I could gather coupled with the fact I could get a good Subal for the D70. Most of my film photography way back when was with an Olympus OM1 and I have always liked the Olympus line. the E-P1 is a pretty cool package and if the video is good, very cool! If they make one of their inexpensive plastic UW housing for it, I will definitely be paying attention!!


----------



## smokinbasser (Jul 3, 2009)

boy is this thread timely I just got a chunk of cash from uncle sam for my service connected disability and am lusting for a DSLR and it is tween a Nikon and a Canon. I am seriously leaning towards the Canon EOS with the 15.2 mpxl. up to now I have been a Fuji P&S camera and just got the S1000 10 mpxl model and its resolution is astounding.


----------



## nekomane (Jul 4, 2009)

Just in case, I did not mean to imply that the D300 is not a good camera. 
Since this thread was a bit old (the D300 was not even released when most of the posts were made), just to say that there are other options for anyone reading it now.

McGizmo, with your skills, have you ever considered making an UW housing yourself, or modifying an existing one to fit your needs?
... with built-in lighting of course  

Fitting it with a GPS recorder may be of use when out at sea too (not under water but great for those whale shots).
Nikon now offers a turn key accessory, but here is a home brew unit fitted on the D300 made by following instructions found here.
The Ultimate Nikon MC-35 GPS cord hack by Stockholmviews.com


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 5, 2009)

nekomane said:


> ......
> 
> McGizmo, with your skills, have you ever considered making an UW housing yourself, or modifying an existing one to fit your needs?
> ... with built-in lighting of course
> ...



I have considered it a couple times over the years and immediately gave up on the idea! These cameras have so many switches and knobs and levers that a good ergonomic housing for them is so far beyond my resources and abilities it makes my head swim!! If anything, one of these days I would like to come up with a dive light; much simpler!!

The GPS data could be fantastic for research photos or one vacationing and traveling all over the place. Having location as well as time and camera settings recorded with the image is a cool concept to be sure. As to the necessity of this information, well that depends.....

I would add that the additional weight and bulk for a data logger is not welcome in my applications where as often as not, I am holding the housing out of the water and supporting all of its weight, waiting for the shot or a quick dunking over the side of my ski.


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Oct 16, 2009)

I've gone from the AE-1 to the XT, to the 1D to the 5D. I'm very pleased with the 5D... do it.:twothumbs


----------



## TheMediocrePirate (Feb 20, 2010)

Personally i'm a Nikon guy; but i suggest going to your local camera store, of find some other way of physically handling the cameras and get a feel for the layout of the buttons and functions. Its always a pain in the arse when you buy a camera and can't stand how its built. 

It took me a long time to decide between different cameras, and until i held them and fooled around with them i could not decide. 

hope this helps!


----------



## paulr (Feb 21, 2010)

Hi Pirate, welcome to CPF! You just responded to a 2+ year old thread, and the original poster has long since bought a D300. It was cool to look over the old posts again though. Me, I'm planning to buy a D700 one of these years broke and am skipping over the D300 generation, but in the DX format the D300 appears to be a great camera and my skepticism that it wasn't a big improvement over the D200 looks to have been unfounded.


----------



## andromeda.73 (Feb 21, 2010)

Nitro said:


> I know, not another Canon vs Nikon thread.
> 
> I've always been a Canon guy (amateur). I started with the AE-1 about 20 years ago, then the Rebel EOS and now I have a D60. Lately I've been looking to upgrade. I've had my eye on the 5D for quite some time, because of the full frame sensor. I miss wide angle shots. My lenses are outdated also, so I was going to upgrade them too.
> 
> ...



compare and learn! Take the new Nikon D3S and takes your mind forever.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101403nikond3shandson.asp


----------



## Nitro (Aug 16, 2010)

Wow, what an old thread! Actually I've been off the forum for quite some time now. I'm just now starting to get caught up.

Anyway, to give you guys an update, I did purchase the D300 and kept it for a couple years. Then I sold it on ebay. It was a great camera, and I'd have probably kept it forever if it weren't for the D700 (my next camera).

I like to do a lot of night (low light) photoagraphy, so the D700 will fit my needs perfectly. It's the same body as the D300 with the same sensor as the D3. What more could you want? I'm not sure it can be improved upon other than Bells and Whistles. I've checked both the top Canon and Nikon bodies, and I like the Nikon best. Hopefully the D700 will be the last DSLR body I buy (ya right... lol).


----------



## Erich1B (Aug 17, 2010)

Nitro said:


> Wow, what an old thread! Actually I've been off the forum for quite some time now. I'm just now starting to get caught up.
> 
> Anyway, to give you guys an update, I did purchase the D300 and kept it for a couple years. Then I sold it on ebay. It was a great camera, and I'd have probably kept it forever if it weren't for the D700 (my next camera).
> 
> I like to do a lot of night (low light) photoagraphy, so the D700 will fit my needs perfectly. It's the same body as the D300 with the same sensor as the D3. What more could you want? I'm not sure it can be improved upon other than Bells and Whistles. I've checked both the top Canon and Nikon bodies, and I like the Nikon best. Hopefully the D700 will be the last DSLR body I buy (ya right... lol).


 
If you wait a bit, both Nikon and Canon should offer updates to both the D700, and Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

I'm in the market for a full frame DSLR, and I'm going to hold off for now until after September when hopefully Nikon and Canon will release some new cameras.


----------



## X Racer (Aug 17, 2010)

Erich1B said:


> If you wait a bit, both Nikon and Canon should offer updates to both the D700, and Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
> 
> I'm in the market for a full frame DSLR, and I'm going to hold off for now until after September when hopefully Nikon and Canon will release some new cameras.



It isn't looking like the D700 replacement will come this year...


----------



## Erich1B (Aug 17, 2010)

X Racer said:


> It isn't looking like the D700 replacement will come this year...


 
Perhaps not. 

It will be interesting to see what Nikon and Canon unveil at the 2010 Photokina Fair this coming September 21 to 26.

Since I'm in no rush to get a full frame DSLR, if Nikon doesn't release the update to the D700 until next year It won't hurt my feelings.

What I'm really hoping for is Canon's update to the EOS 5D Mark II, as I'm leaning towards a Canon at the moment. But, I don't think someone could go wrong with either a Nikon or Canon.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 17, 2010)

I haven't done much research on Camera's lately. Anyone know what improvements Nikon will have in the D700 replacement?


----------



## Erich1B (Aug 17, 2010)

Nitro said:


> I haven't done much research on Camera's lately. Anyone know what improvements Nikon will have in the D700 replacement?


 
Just internet rumors so take them for that, but more megapixels (currently 12.1) and video capability are two of the rumors that I've read about.


----------



## Nitro (Aug 17, 2010)

Erich1B said:


> Just internet rumors so take them for that, but more megapixels (currently 12.1) and video capability are two of the rumors that I've read about.


 
Neither of which are important to me. Adding more Pixels is like slicing the same pie more times. You still end up with the same amount of pie. As far as video in a camera made for stills, no thanks. If I want video, I'll use a video camera.

Like I said before, there's not much they could do to improve the D700 other than Bells & Whistles. When I'm ready to buy, I'll still prolly buy the D700, even if the new version is out. I think the only reason I might buy a new version is if it didn't have an Infrared filter. Then I could then take some cool astro shots. But who knows, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------

