Nikon D300 vs Canon EOS 5D?

[Ben-71]

[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]

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

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]

[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]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Tastes Great!!

 

[Village Idiot]

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]

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

 

[shivaswrath]

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]

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]

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.