Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon D300 Competition  (Read 7116 times)

Goodlistener

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.pbase.com/goodlistener
Nikon D300 Competition
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:31:25 pm »

OK, this is going to be a hard one.  What does Canon have to compete with the Nikon D300?  I have Canon but gosh, if I was starting out now, it would be the Nikon D300 for sure!

Anybody have firm information as to when Canon may leapfrog the Nikon D300?
(Please allow me the luxury of just one unchallenged assumption: That the Nikon D300 is a better camera than Canon EOS 40D)

Thanks
Logged

DonWeston

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2008, 07:59:19 am »

You know what they say about assuming......
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2008, 09:15:15 am »

Quote
OK, this is going to be a hard one.  What does Canon have to compete with the Nikon D300?  I have Canon but gosh, if I was starting out now, it would be the Nikon D300 for sure!

Anybody have firm information as to when Canon may leapfrog the Nikon D300?
(Please allow me the luxury of just one unchallenged assumption: That the Nikon D300 is a better camera than Canon EOS 40D)

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only canon knows.  What is the D300 (or 40D) missing that you need?
Logged

nexus6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2008, 09:09:57 pm »

Im hoping that the 5D replacement will match the d300 which is a very impressive camera. Full frame , 15-16Mp and hopefully at least 6 - 8 FPS would make the 5D mk11 pretty much the perfect camera for me. if i hadnt invested in canon gear id probably swap to nikon just for the d300. who knows if canon doesnt offer an alternative maybe i will
Logged

MarkWelsh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2008, 04:40:32 am »

Quote
OK, this is going to be a hard one.  What does Canon have to compete with the Nikon D300?  I have Canon but gosh, if I was starting out now, it would be the Nikon D300 for sure!

Anybody have firm information as to when Canon may leapfrog the Nikon D300?
(Please allow me the luxury of just one unchallenged assumption: That the Nikon D300 is a better camera than Canon EOS 40D)

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Luxury granted. In fact, that seems a pretty safe (and sage, as I miskeyed it the first time) assumption. One school of thought that says the similarly specced Sony A700 is most of the D300 at a much better price, with stellar AF Zeiss glass.

I've been shooting an A700 side by side with a 40D + 17-55/2.8 IS and it's an interesting comparison. The Sony has faster AF, no doubt, and resolves slightly better with the extra pixels, but only if you treat the post-production carefully. If you just open RAWs from both in ACR, the Canon looks equally as good. This says more about the quality of Adobe than the Sony. In C1, or better, RPP, the Sony files are better up to ISO800, but from ISO1000 up the cleaner, smaller 40D files are preferable.

They're both pretty well built; the Sony with the V grip feels nicer in the hand in landscape orientation, but very wrong in portrait mode. The Sony menu system is much slicker and easier to use, and in general the A700 feels quicker and more responsive. The IS in the 17-55/2.8 is maybe .5-1 stop better than the Sony system and the lens is a belter (apart from questionable wide angle, wide aperture performance). However, the Sony gives you IS with every lens, and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Zeiss 16-80mm are just as good as the Canon hi-spec zoom.

For my money, I took the Sony, but the decision was swayed more by the prospect of the forthcoming Flagship Alpha than any very significant differences between any of the better APS-C cameras out there, which are all very competent nowadays.

Comparing the D300 to the A700 (same sensor, natch), the Nikon has slightly better high ISO performance (maybe half a stop), better build (everything is rock solid), and the AF is smart and fast. But it doesn't have in-body IS, and Nikon flat out doesn't make a decent fast stabilised zoom for it. So nothing's perfect!
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 04:41:52 am by MarkWelsh »
Logged

Goodlistener

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.pbase.com/goodlistener
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 12:12:43 pm »

Its a  Fair question:  The better high ISO capability is the chief attraction.  Better dynamic range is the second reason. The reality of it is that I need to keep my mental focus on the art and the vision side of things and not let the photo hobby/passion become an equipment and specifications driven process.  Money  matters as well, it just irks me that after carefully considering which Company to buy into  and making the right decision (at the time) today's answer would be different.
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2008, 01:12:59 pm »

Quote
Its a  Fair question:  The better high ISO capability is the chief attraction.  Better dynamic range is the second reason. The reality of it is that I need to keep my mental focus on the art and the vision side of things and not let the photo hobby/passion become an equipment and specifications driven process.  Money  matters as well, it just irks me that after carefully considering which Company to buy into  and making the right decision (at the time) today's answer would be different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The difference in IQ between the two cameras is marginal.  Operationally the D300 has some additional features.  So if you didn't need the features I wouldn't sweat your decision.

Now if Nikon keeps improving at the rate they've been and canon doesn't pick up then I might question.

Have you considered the 1D Mk III?  Everything i've seen places it second only to the D3.
Logged

ruraltrekker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2008, 01:37:57 pm »

Quote
Its a  Fair question:  The better high ISO capability is the chief attraction.  Better dynamic range is the second reason. The reality of it is that I need to keep my mental focus on the art and the vision side of things and not let the photo hobby/passion become an equipment and specifications driven process.  Money  matters as well, it just irks me that after carefully considering which Company to buy into  and making the right decision (at the time) today's answer would be different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really don't get this kind of post. Why does your next camera have to equal or even surpass the camera system that you don't own? Are you thinking your pictures will be any better? Seriously....

Now, taking your points in particular: How many of your pictures are of "high ISO"? I would say for most shooters the percentage that are at base ISO (somewhere are 100) is very high. I know mine are. Yes, from time to time I need to shoot at 200, 400 and on a rare day at 800. I really can't remember making an image at 1600.

And for your other point: Learn how to shoot! In the good old days I never heard anyone cry for more dynamic range when shooting transparencies. Why the cry now (not pointing this at you - I hear this cry all the time - makes me laugh). Learn to shoot & process (amazing what the raw processor can allow) your images and just plain shoot pictures and stop fussing over the "carrot".

my 2c

Ken
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2008, 12:40:33 am »

To the OP:

Have you gone to the store and held both cameras in your hand, both the 5d and the D300?

They are very different cameras, and a full frame camera offers other advantages than just a larger sensor, a much better viewfinder, for example.

Don't rely on reviews for camera choice. There are so many opinions floating around, you might just take them as corpses. Get your own impressions, and see what fits.


To ruraltrekker: maybe you don't need high iso on your rural treks, but to think others have similar shooting circumstances is just blind. Your post is the kind of post that is incomprehensible. Why do you post such stuff? It's useless. If someone posts a question that is important to him and you don't like it, change to a different thread. Wanna-be moral attitudes don't look good.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 12:42:41 am by The View »
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2008, 12:59:01 am »

Quote
Please allow me the luxury of just one unchallenged assumption: That the Nikon D300 is a better camera than Canon EOS 40D

I have no problem with you assuming whatever you like to. However, some things need to be straightened for those, who don't start out with a baseless assumption.

I own a 40D, but I am rather a critic of Canon, not a fanboy. On the other hand, I have analyzed many images from many cameras, among those the D300 and the Sony A700.

1. The A700 does not come close to either the D300 or the 40D.

2. The larger dynamic range of the D300 (compared to the 40D) is plain nonsense.

3. The D300 has better high ISO than the A700, but not better the very least, than the 40D.

4. The D300 has some great features, like the high res LCD (the 40D's LCD in live view is not suitable to judge the focusing or the sharpness; the 450D is much better in this relation). The features may be decisive for someone, who does not own lenses yet.

Some ohotographers, who don't understand the world, prefer smaller raw files; thus, the 12bit option of the D300 may appear appealing. Some others prefer even the lossy compression; they do not deserve a decent camera anyway, so they should choose the A700.

5. Nikkors can be used on Canons but Canon lenses don't work with Nikon bodies.

6. I don't understand, why some are mixing 5D in this question.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:00:18 am by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2008, 01:07:09 am »

Quote
6. I don't understand, why some are mixing 5D in this question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gabor,
The 5D has similar pixel count to the D300, the 40D and the 450D. Comparisons are inevitable. At ISO 1600, the 5D delivers better results than the D300 and 40D, (and probably the 450D) does it not?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:35:58 am by Ray »
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2008, 01:10:30 am »

Ray,

the 5D's being a full frame camera puts it in a completely different class. Every comparison is obsolate IMO.
Logged
Gabor

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon D300 Competition
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2008, 01:40:56 am »

Quote
Ray,

the 5D's being a full frame camera puts it in a completely different class. Every comparison is obsolate IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 5D is a prosumer camera, a FF at a premium compared with cropped format, but still aimed at the prosumer market. The Nikon D2X was able to take on the 1Ds. Both had similar pixel counts.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up