Nikon D300 vs Canon EOS 5D?

[kundalini]

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]

Fixed.

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

Ah-ha, thanks for that VI!

 

[Ejazzle]

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]

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.]

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?

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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

Wrong - auto ISO rocks. Fact.

 

[shivaswrath]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

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. . .

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]

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???