My wife wants to buy me a new digital camera but I cannot decide what to buy. She first wanted to get me a EOS-1Ds Mark III but I thought that was overkill. I have read good reviews about the Nikon D300 and I like the Canon 5D but it is getting to be an older model. Does anyone have either one and how do you like it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New DLSR (Canon 5D vs Nikon D300)
- Thread starter seattle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have 2 5D bodies and think they're great. But it suits my needs as I do prefer full frame for the wide angle lenses I have. Plus i've been using Canon since the early 90s. So the 5D was a logical choice for me.
It is an older body, but no one has a competing full frame body in same price bracket (probably why it's not been updated yet). I wouldn't expect an upgrade until September now. Still whenever you buy it's a great camera.
Best thing to do is try them out.
Out of interest what do you have now? You initially said your wife was looking to get you a 1D (what a nice wife you have!) so if you've already got a Canon system why the change? It'll get expensive if you want to replace your current lenses.
The D300 is also a superb camera, but since I know nothing about it I can't comment. Tbh there isn't a dud DSLR out there, some just do more than others.
It is an older body, but no one has a competing full frame body in same price bracket (probably why it's not been updated yet). I wouldn't expect an upgrade until September now. Still whenever you buy it's a great camera.
Best thing to do is try them out.
Out of interest what do you have now? You initially said your wife was looking to get you a 1D (what a nice wife you have!) so if you've already got a Canon system why the change? It'll get expensive if you want to replace your current lenses.
The D300 is also a superb camera, but since I know nothing about it I can't comment. Tbh there isn't a dud DSLR out there, some just do more than others.
The 5D is overdue for an update, although when it comes it will still cost quite a bit more than the D300.
The D300 is built better than the 5D, with vastly superior ergonomics. The 5D's successor may or may not be comparable in build quality/ergonomics to the 40D (one would expect it to be).
To it's credit 5D FF sensor reportedly yields the best image quality of any 35mm out there.
In the end it comes down to what system you want to buy into. I prefer Nikon by a mile. Nikon just feels much better in my hand and I love the older MF AIS lenses (modern Canons can't mount the older FD lenses).
The ideal situation, for me anyway, would be if Nikon put a FF sensor in a D300 body. This will happen....eventually; but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The D300 is built better than the 5D, with vastly superior ergonomics. The 5D's successor may or may not be comparable in build quality/ergonomics to the 40D (one would expect it to be).
To it's credit 5D FF sensor reportedly yields the best image quality of any 35mm out there.
In the end it comes down to what system you want to buy into. I prefer Nikon by a mile. Nikon just feels much better in my hand and I love the older MF AIS lenses (modern Canons can't mount the older FD lenses).
The ideal situation, for me anyway, would be if Nikon put a FF sensor in a D300 body. This will happen....eventually; but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The Nikon and Canon cameras fill in some of each other's presumed gaps, either in functionality or in the market that the companies are going for. All the cameras you mentioned are great. All have great ergonomics (Canon has a bad rep for the ergonomics of its Rebel line).
Look at both companies to see what kinds of lenses you might buy in the future, that is what should inform your purchase. This is not a hierarchy, but a breakdown of the target market. Each one fills a specific gap in the other's lineup.
Canon 1Ds mkIII - extremely hi-res studio camera
Nikon D3 <----> Canon 1D mkIII - sports
Canon 5D - full frame, non-sports
Nikon D300 - prosumer
Canon 40D - prosumer
Nikon D80/70 - prosumer
Canon 400D/450D/Rebel <----> Nikon D40/60 - consumer
Look at both companies to see what kinds of lenses you might buy in the future, that is what should inform your purchase. This is not a hierarchy, but a breakdown of the target market. Each one fills a specific gap in the other's lineup.
Canon 1Ds mkIII - extremely hi-res studio camera
Nikon D3 <----> Canon 1D mkIII - sports
Canon 5D - full frame, non-sports
Nikon D300 - prosumer
Canon 40D - prosumer
Nikon D80/70 - prosumer
Canon 400D/450D/Rebel <----> Nikon D40/60 - consumer
D300. It's a better camera and produces comparable photo quality.
Some of the added bonuses are a real plus as well, such as an Auto WB that actually works 90% of the time.
Some of the added bonuses are a real plus as well, such as an Auto WB that actually works 90% of the time.
honestly, if you have to ask, I'll assume your experience with cameras is limited. first, decide if you want a dSLR. P&S will cover most of what the average person wants in a much easier format.
if you want to shoot for art/portrait/sport... go dSLR and figure out what kind of photography you might be interested in.
the newest digital rebel is insanely cheap and matches the D300 on most features (please don't flame). that or the D300 would be great starting points from which to acquire new lenses and learn more.
I wouldn't start with high level cameras. by the time you figure out how to use it effectively, it will be somewhat obsolete. you'll pay for bleeding edge, but not be able to use it.
better to get something decent and play with it for a year or two, from then, with experience, you'll have a MUCH better idea of your needs and wants.
We shoot D300s and love them. Have no reservations about recommending them. That said, if Canon's 5D replacement was here tomorrow, we might pick up 2 of those as well. I prefer Nikon, but in the end, they're just tools. Whatever gets the job done for YOU. (though I will admit that the 5D is a better tool for me in portrait work)
if you want to shoot for art/portrait/sport... go dSLR and figure out what kind of photography you might be interested in.
the newest digital rebel is insanely cheap and matches the D300 on most features (please don't flame). that or the D300 would be great starting points from which to acquire new lenses and learn more.
I wouldn't start with high level cameras. by the time you figure out how to use it effectively, it will be somewhat obsolete. you'll pay for bleeding edge, but not be able to use it.
better to get something decent and play with it for a year or two, from then, with experience, you'll have a MUCH better idea of your needs and wants.
We shoot D300s and love them. Have no reservations about recommending them. That said, if Canon's 5D replacement was here tomorrow, we might pick up 2 of those as well. I prefer Nikon, but in the end, they're just tools. Whatever gets the job done for YOU. (though I will admit that the 5D is a better tool for me in portrait work)
Why not the 40D? You already have Canon lenses and if you get the 5D the Rebel kit lens won't work on it anyway. It will on the 40D though. Remember you need to buy lenses too. Why not get those instead of a body?
I think that the fact that the D300 isn't a full-sided sensor is something worth looking into. I'm sure that it rules in a lot of aspects, and I know that the D300 replacement is probably 18-24 months off, but I feel like the wait might bew worth it.
If it affects anything, Consider that for some reason, a (rather large) majority of professional photographers who shoot digital use Canon. And many jumped from Nikon to Canon when they went digital, but then again, it could have just been historical as perhaps early on, Canon's offerings were better. Just a theory.
That said, if you plan on being serious, I'd advise looking at the lenses each makes more than their bodies. There is more difference there.
This Canon-Nikon debate can sometimes get as heated as Apple-Mr. Softy!
That said, I'd personally go with Canon. YMMV- both are good choices.
That said, if you plan on being serious, I'd advise looking at the lenses each makes more than their bodies. There is more difference there.
This Canon-Nikon debate can sometimes get as heated as Apple-Mr. Softy!
That said, I'd personally go with Canon. YMMV- both are good choices.
Canon 5d is the best choice in this situation. Less noise, better image quality. Nikon is JUST now going digital full frame, for $5k. Canon has had full frame for so much longer, and even a camera like the Canon 5d which has been out since 05 is only $2k.
You'll be much happier with the Canon image quality, and that's my opinion as a commercial photographer.
That 1Ds Mark III is my main body, but I doubt you'd get much from something like that. The 5d is a beast of a camera, and I think you'll love it.
Have you considered a Hasselblad H3d-39?
You'll be much happier with the Canon image quality, and that's my opinion as a commercial photographer.
That 1Ds Mark III is my main body, but I doubt you'd get much from something like that. The 5d is a beast of a camera, and I think you'll love it.
Have you considered a Hasselblad H3d-39?
I think both cameras might be a bit too complex for a beginner. Even if you have your mind set on spending a certain amount, I would spend the money on glass and not such an expensive body. For most users, the Canon 40D has a better price/performance (more durable body, much, much faster operation). The $1000 you save (roughly) can be spent on goodies such as a flash (very, very important), a nice bag and a nice additional lens. Same goes for Nikon's D80 (which is what I have and very much enjoy, it's simply the best camera I've owned to date).
If this is your first dslr, I'd rather start small. Imagine your first car is a high-performance sports car: you won't be able to use it. Start with a smaller camera, a flash, a bag and two lenses.
If this is your first dslr, I'd rather start small. Imagine your first car is a high-performance sports car: you won't be able to use it. Start with a smaller camera, a flash, a bag and two lenses.
Read that somewhere?
In your opinion, some like the Canon handling some prefer Nikon.
So if the ergonomics and build of the 5D are bad why are the so good on the 40d?
None of your comments are actually helpful. More of a please buy a Nikon cos I have one.
Let me put it this way... If God were a photographer, he'd shoot Nikon. Think about it... Canon has all those L lenses
Why is it worth the wait when the image quality from the D300 is incredible today? What benefit is there to you?
I'd rather take photos with my amazing camera now.
Having used both, I'd say they're tied in the build quality department (except the D300 is weather-sealed). Too bad the ergonomics aren't equal. I think the D300 is better to use, but I can't stand the ISO button being where it is. The rest of the camera is sublime.
Get a 5D. If you say you already own a Canon at least then you wont go in blind using a 5D as you already know some of the controls etc.
IMO, the 5D has much better image quality than the D300. It's a full frame and has brilliant ISO performance. Only thing I will say to you is, if you plan on shooting fast sports perhaps the 5D might be a tad slow with 3fps compared to the D300 at 6fps (I think?)
As I'm a Canon guy I will obviously say Canon
So get the 5D
IMO, the 5D has much better image quality than the D300. It's a full frame and has brilliant ISO performance. Only thing I will say to you is, if you plan on shooting fast sports perhaps the 5D might be a tad slow with 3fps compared to the D300 at 6fps (I think?)
As I'm a Canon guy I will obviously say Canon
So get the 5D
What pictures can't you get with your XTi that a new body will get you? IMO, you'd be better off with a 70-200/2.8 or something similar.
What a load of fanboy cr@p! From portraits to fine art to insurance to product work, I've yet to have a client say "Oh, I don't like the image quality of your shots, you should have used a Canon![1]" The D300 produces commercially and aesthetically acceptable images (I don't own a D300, but I've evaluated full-resolutions images from several samples and I'd happily shoot one.)
Frankly, in terms of commercial work where you control the lighting, I doubt most if any people could tell the difference between shots from a 5D and a D300 in a catalog or advertisement because at that size you're simply not going to have enough image for major differentiation.
"Much happier?" Quantify that- in terms of the two bodies in question. While the full-frame sensor on the 5D will offer less noise, the D300 isn't a slouch by any stretch of the imagination. Without knowing what or how the OP shoots, it's difficult to say if the FF sensor is or isn't an advantage over the increased resolution at a smaller field of view. Without knowing if the OP shoots say their kid's sports, birds or landscapes it's rather specious to recommend one over the other as the appropriate tool for the job.
[1] Both my last product client and my last portrait client own and shoot Canon cameras themselves. The product client has some good 'L' series glass and at least two bodies- but I haven't had any IQ complaints about my Nikon's images- in fact their last photographer shot Canon, but the new shots are running in their ads just fine in most cases side-by-side with the old Canon shots- if there was "much" difference, that simply wouldn't be acceptable.
Way to completely misread the tone of my post. Peevishness such as your own is even less "helpful".
Perhaps you're sentimental about the 5D. That's all well and good, it's a lovely camera, but in my judgement, or opinion if you'd like, the ergonomics and build quality do come in far behind the D300.
So if I'm suggesting Nikon "cos I have one", well I have one because I think it's better.
DOn't look so much at the two camera bodies. Look at the overall systems. A camera system is a lens or maybe three of them and maybe a flash and a body. You'll keep the lenses "forever" while the bodies seem to be replaced or upgraded. So look at the bigger part of the "system" the optics. What company makes the leses you want to buy now and over the next ten years.
Next, if you have a finite budget. It don't matter what that budget is it could be $500 or $10,000. Either way it is a fixed sum and it pays to think about how to allocate the budget over the parts of the system. I'd say that you should look at spending (in the medium term) at least as much on lenses as on the body. So,.. if you can afford a $2,000 camera body you should be looking at spending that much on lenses. If the total is to high, drop down one body price point so you can afford a better pair of lenses.
Same goes for someone buying the $500 or $400 body. If the system is "unbalanced" it is a waste of money. So with your upcoming D300 you have some serious lens shopping to do. But don't buy everything at once.
Bottom line is that yu need to pay at least equal attention to what lenses yo want and decide on Canon v. Nikon based of who makes the ones you want.
Do you have friends with dSLRS? If so, what do they shoot? Having a shooting buddy with the same brand of camera as you have can be a lot of fun - you can coordinate lens purchases and get access to a wider variety of lenses faster than if you're purchasing alone.
There are Nikon fanboys and there are Canon fanboys (not to mention the Olympus/Pentax/Sony fanboys). The bottom line is - the quality of your photos is NOT likely to be affected by the camera brand you choose. Canon currently owns the pro portrait and sports markets, while Nikon currently is the choice of most pro landscape photographers - but those have been due to factors other than camera/image quality. Well, except maybe for portraiture; Canon so far is the only one selling a 21MP full-frame camera, although it's rumored Nikon will be jumping into that higher-end market soon.
As others have said, try holding both cameras and see how they feel. Then think about the type of shooting you're likely to do; since full-frame is advantageous in some circumstances, while DX is better for others.