...I'd buy myself a Nikon 300s. I was so happy with my D50 until today. That thing is just amazing. Bravo Nikon.
Yeah, I know it's not about the camera you use...blah blah blah. I just want one 
(Disclaimer: Canon may or may not do something similar/better, but I know nothing about Canons).
Canon/Nikon/Olympus etc.
SRAM/Shimano/Campag etc.
Isn't it great to have such choice?
(Canon EOS user for the good stuff, Olympus for the point and shoot and an old skool Olympus OM10 for the arty film based goodness)
everyone knows canon is better
I'd buy the D90 and some lens(es) or save up and get the D700. And that's from a D300 owner. I bought 6 months too early
Canon/Nikon/Olympus etc....Isn't it great to have such choice?Yeah, if only they could all work together, just like SRAM/Shimano/Campag...oh no, wait a minute, I've got that wrong!
I bought 6 months too earlyIt'll be at least 6 months before I can afford to spend on a new camera so I'll wait and see what happens in the digital world. D90 was top of the list but now...
I like the idea behind the new D3000 too. Just not sure how well it'll be received and used by Mr. Joe Public.
Really do we need any more frigging range?! It just seems like Canon and Nikon are in a power competition to see how many similar camera's they can make.
I work in a well known camera shop (didnt say it was a good one mind) and I cant get over how quickly they move stuff on. It seems just a few months before they are renewing a new camera, yet the top end stuff dosent get changed for a few years. Id barely got my 40D when they released the 50D.
What does the D3000 do that that the D60 dosent? Other than the larger screen and 11 point autofocus system, it dosent appear any different. Even though I am a Canon man they are no better, so Im not just complaining about Nikon.
Happy D300 / D200 user here - but I'm looking at upgrading purely down to the dual memory slots. I've had a couple of CF cards corrupt on me after weddings and it's a terrifying experience. The backup would give a massive amount of peace of mind..........
A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.
Sharpness has never been an issue for me - I shoot with no 'on-board' sharpening and sharpen at the last stage before printing - can't imagine why a D300 would produce soft images unless it's the fault of the user.
"Better" is very subjective.
The D700 is THE camera in the Nikon range.
I have owned D200, D2H, D1, in the reverse order.
I have very little, if any, in-camera wizardry dialled-in, shoot RAW, and post produce in CS3.
The difference in the chip is that quantum leap you're looking for.
Better is subjective you think - the new chip is stunning and all my assistants agreed as soon as we bought them, it knocked the D200's straight onto eBay.
Failing that the Canon 5D Mk 11 as mentioned earlier; both at about the £2k price point.
I shoot maybe 2000 images on a wedding and have never had need for this 2nd slot.
"everyone knows canon is better"
everyone knows that if you are not any good at taking photos, spend £50 or £1500 and the results will be rubbish !
A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.
I too have taken soft images with my D300. Always has been my fault. Perhaps your friend should enrole in one of the photography courses that Nikon runs?
You should be aware that on some Nikon bodies there can be an issue with Back-focusing. Front-focussing too can cause just as many issues.
This is not an issue when used with wide lenses, moreover it becomes apparent only on a telephoto lens.
I noticed it on my 85mm f1.4, even at f2, some images were not as sharp as they should have been.
Send the body off to Fixation in London and have them fix it
Ti29er, regarding the back focusing/Front-focussing issue, was it a issue over all the focusing range or just on close up subjects?
I have had problems with bright prime lens in the past with close up photography when shooting wide open.
BTW, Just had a Eos 5D Mk 11 for a loaner over the weekend and was very impressed, the lenses feel sleekly smooth & that's coming from a life long Nikon user
If I had not already invested heavily into the Nikon system, then the 5D would be top of my list, if I could afford it, that is
These might be handy...
Focus Test Chart:
http://focustestchart.com/chart.html
Performing a Back Focus test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDN9muV-vcc
And yeah, the new D300s looks very nice indeed. But if I had £1,500 to spend on photography I'd probably buy a nice fast telephoto.
Any thoughts on the new 18-200 lens?
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1824/overview.html
RRP is reported to be £729.99
£1500 spare wouldn't tempt me to switch to Nikon, because then I'd have to replace £muchoK of canon lenses.
A photographer i regularly work with uses two D300's, and i always get to tweak the images afterwards. We both agreed that my Canon 5D is producing much sharper/better results. He will now be either getting 5D MK II or D700.
The inherent Sharpness of the 5D is both a blessing and a curse. The reason the 5D appears sharper then other Canon's and Nikon's (Aside from the Nikon D50 which has the same feature/issue) is it has a very weak Anti Aliasing filter, the result is you get shaper out of camera Raw files but if you shoot anything with a high frequency detail pattern (Pin stripes Bird Feathers and the like) you can get terrible moire patterns in the textures.
Nikon are known to use Less aggressive in camera sharpening than Canon but a similarly treated well shot RAW file should yield equivalent sharpness from both.
It's hard to buy a bad DSLR these day's, the biggest choice is good 3rd party accessory support and ergonomics.
I think if I had a spare £1700 I would opt for the D700. But as I have no "spare" money these things can wait.
I know a couple of D300 users and they've had no problems with back/front-focusing. Something to look out for I guess.
terrible moire patterns in the texturesI've noticed this from my D50, never knew why it happened though. Cheers!
Very unlikely to be switching to Canon. Too many Nikon bits to replace (and Nikon's are just better ).
Very unlikely to be switching to Canon. Too many Nikon bits to replace (and Nikon's are just better ).
I think the big players have it nailed on image quality across the board now. However I prefer Nikon's ergonomics and they fact that they apply mainly Chroma Noise reduction with little Luminance reduction at HI ISO. This may make the files a bit noisier than Canon's straight out of Camera, however there is more detail to work with in Post, and the nose that is left is more film grain like.
Mind you it's tiny difference only really noticeable in LARGE prints.
The ergonomics thought that's different entirely.
So does this mean there will be some D300 bargains to be had now ?.
Well, I'm still plugging along with my D200, thank you very much - I take bad shots - it doesn't! I am saving for a 70-200 f2.8VR and after that probably some radio triggers, then after that a non-pirated Photoshop(!) then and only then will I think about getting a newer body.
18-200 is great............ sort of, I leave it on virtually all the time when out n about with the kids, but, if I really want a nice shot I put on my lovely Nikkor 17-55 2.8 instead.
lovely Nikkor 17-55 2.8That really is a nice lens. Been saving for one for a while now. Unfortunately the savings seem to disappear...so was considering getting a 3rd party 17-55 2.8 as they're a bit cheaper.
So does this mean there will be some D300 bargains to be had now ?.Haven't seen many bargains on these. Better off getting a D90 though to be honest. A lot cheaper anyway and supercedes the D300 in many ways.
Haven't seen many bargains on these. Better off getting a D90 though to be honest. A lot cheaper anyway and supercedes the D300 in many ways.
Really? Aside from it's Bolted on Video function I'd love you to elaborate on this.
buy one. buy the best one you can afford and then buy another one a year later. buy every lens you want then get bored and take up fishing and decide to sell everything.
i like people who do this. been buying hardly used 5x4/hassleblad/canon gear from amateurs for years. without them a lot of camera equipment would be way overpriced.
what mrsmith says 
that's what i do except i don't sell the kit on.
by the way, for those looking at mid range zooms have a look at the tokina 16-50 f2.8
you can buy the 11-16, 16-50 and 50-135 all constant f2.8 for less than the price of the 70-200 f2.8 nikon. only downside is lack of VR but the 70-200 really is a bit over the top on an APSC chip
*1 7 fps Based on CIPA Guidelines. When shooting in Continuous-servo AF (C) using Shutter-Priority Auto [S] or Manual [M] exposure modes with a shutter speed of 1/ 250s or faster, and other settings at default. Continuous shooting speed for 14-bit NEF (RAW) is approx. 2.5 fps.
Is that corect? 7fps in jpeg and only 2.5fps in NEF (RAW) ??? That's daft if it's not a typo as surely anyone spending that much on a camera will be using RAW?
just don't bother with 14 bit NEF, 12 is plenty and the files are smaller too
if you are shooting that fast then the likelihood of needing to shoot RAW to boost low light shots is pretty slim, 7fps is only really an option in good light surely?
a lot of the pros i work with only shoot RAW if they know a lot of post is going to be necesary.
just my opinion though
(D300 owner)
The d300 has two types of raw, 12 and 14 bit
6 FPS for 12 bit RAW
2.5 FPS for 14 bit RAW
Have Nikon got two different standard of NEF then 12 / 14bit? So it will still do 12 bit NEF at 7fps?
My 40D would do 6.5 fps in 14 / 16 bit (I think) RAW, same speed as jpeg. Only thing that suffered was the buffer capacity.
if you are shooting that fast then the likelihood of needing to shoot RAW to boost low light shots is pretty slim, 7fps is only really an option in good light surely?
I love RAW as you can end up with exposure blending from a single RAW file, to get a correctly exposed sky and rider without bothering with bracketing or HDR. jpeg just doesn't offer that range of exposure adjustment.
I would frequently shoot at 6.5 fps even down to 1/40sec speed. It allows you to try panning shots with more chance of getting a sharp subject.
for example, a couple of shots where I had time to whip out the camera set on Av mode and catch a burst of RAW files. No time for metering / bracketing etc. Used the single best RAW file to expose for both sky and foreground / subject and then blend the two converted jpegs together to get a balanced exposure. No way I could have done that with a jpeg.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2685774567_904d813fc2_o.jpg
You can also play about with the white balance / saturation etc far more easily in RAW than in jpeg. Couple of snow shots below with totally blown skies that were rescued in RAW. Don't think i could have done it in jpeg.
"If I had a spare £1500".
I'd wait and save a little and buy the D700.
For me, it's a no-brainer, having switched over to them myself.
However, were I in the market from scratch, a little more £ and the Canon becomes a possibility.
The fact is there's not much between the two.
The prime Nikon lenses are a little bit slower, both to focus and in f stops partly as the motor's in the body, where as Canon's are in the lenses. On the long sports lenses, there's nothing in it now.
The low light abilities of the D700 / D3 are better than Canon's and the Nikon SB flash units are a dream to use.
The ergonomics are considered better on the Nikons.
Save your dosh, buy the D700 when you can.
The prime Nikon lenses are a little bit slower, both to focus and in f stops partly as the motor's in the body, where as Canon's are in the lenses.
Apart from the Nikon AF-S prime lenses where the motor is in the lens. 
I currently use an EOS 450D with mostly Olympus OM lenses via an adapter. I'd love a D700, but sadly there is no OM-Nikon adapter, so it'll have to be a 5DII when I can afford it...
Having borrowed one the other week, my 450D seems very inferior 
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
