I've been reading a lot of people comparing the D300 and 5D. In my opinion the IQ between these two cameras is like night and day. I'm not sure what people look at when they say IQ but I look Sharpness, Details, color tone...etc. I hate when people say, they are very close when it comes to High Noise @ ISO800 and above. The most important thing when it comes to high noise is not only how much noise you see but mainly how sharp and detailed it's when it does that. So to me Canon 5D is a full frame and because of that fact the 5D is much, MUCH better when it comes to "IQ". The D300 is a great camera but just NOT in the same league. D300 IQ is compared to 40D and they are pretty much the same in "IQ". I'm waiting to get my D3, which I believe will be in the same league as 5D but much better with newer technology.
Here is a link from Ken Rockwell. I know lot of people don't like him, but when he compares cameras...he does a fair job. In this comparison the D300 VS 5D shows that you can't even compare them at ISO100. The detail with 5D is amazing. Just Look for your self. By the way I'm a Nikon shooter.
I think Ken Rockwell may have used something like the 28-105G lens for that comparison.... after all, it does the same thing as other lenses, for less money.
Neil McDonald wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but surely people who need ISO 3200+ should have the D3 anyway?
average people would need 3200+. i sure need it when i'm shooting my nephew's Tae Kwon Do tounaments, where using a flash would be distracting. the gym lighting is horrible. also for those using the D300 as a backup to the D3 would need high ISO as well.
i let a friend shoot my D300 and asked him what he thought about the images. he said that they were nice. then i told him that the ISO was 3200 and he was amazed.
I know what the problem with Kens test was, he used a tripod and a self timer. He should have used his own advice, and taken the photo's handheld. Still, maybe Ken is right. The D300 is a blur-o-rama at low iso's.
But sometimes you know when you're about to read a great thread like this one.
Moe G. wrote:
IThe D300 is a great camera but just NOT in the same league.
You're right - the D300 is (thankfully) NOT in the same league as the 5D. That's why I was happy to sell my 5D and move up to the higher resolution and superior image quality of the D300.
molson wrote:
You're right - the D300 is (thankfully) NOT in the same league as the 5D. That's why I was happy to sell my 5D and move up to the higher resolution and superior image quality of the D300.
Not to mention build quality... The 5D feels like a toy compared to the happy solidness of the D300. 5D in good hands take great photos. It just feels toyish.
What a joke KR 's test was . I read it like everyone else did , and then promptly shot a similar test on my own . I used the 70 -200VR , 28-70AF-s , and the 200mmVRf2 . My results looked NOTHING like his . Noise levels at ISO3200 and ISO6400 were VERY impressive ! "Loss of detail" simply did not happen like he said that it did . Period . I shoot ISO3200 all the time ( hockey ) and the D300 is simply the best DX camera I've ever used ( D1X , D200 , D2Hs ) . I just delivered 2 8 x 10 prints to a customer that were shot in arena lighting ( bad ) at ISO3200 f2 , and the customer was BLOWN AWAY with the quality ! That's all that matters to me .
Is it better or worse than the 5D ? I think that it would take someone that OWNS both cameras, to be able to comment with any credibility .
In the end , who the heck cares ? Both cameras work great .
Let's see, the D300 has been out for what - a week - and it is already getting slammed for IQ? Well, I suppose that isn't surprising. I think we need to wait and see when people get the time to learn this new camera with its new sensor and adjust appropriately. I haven't seen anything that either turns me on or off about its IQ, so maybe Moe has a point. But then, how long has the 5D been out?
I don't really see the D300 as a competitor to the 5D, so it doesn't really bother me that some don't think it compares. Compare the 5D to the D3, and the 40D to the D300 - that seems like a closer match. Yes, the D3 is a pro body and the 5D is not, but Nikon only makes one FX sensor camera so far. If they later release an FX sensor in a smaller and cheaper package, then we have something to talk about.
I never thought that the complaints about the D200 had to do with IQ - it was more about high ISO noise. That seems to be where Nikon focused their attention, and apparently did a fine job. You have to realize, if you insist on comparing to the 5D, that the D300 is a newer design, though with a smaller sensor. It also has a better build quality - I personally didn't find the 5D to be bad, but that the D300 is better - better auto-focus, higher fps, automatic sensor cleaning, live view, etc. The D300 simply gives you a lot more for less money.
But then there is that stunning 5D IQ - I've always been a fan of it - for some that's enough. After all, that really is why we take photographs. When I see that I applaud Canon for producing that camera, but I'm certainly not embarrassed by what Nikon has put out - in fact I'm very proud of it. I am ecstatic about what is out there now, and look forward to what we will see in the next round of releases.
"I hate when people say, they are very close when it comes to High Noise @ ISO800 and above."
Wow, Moe G., you shouldn't get angry over what people write. For one reason, there is no accountability here. People can write anything they want so most people are a little wary of any claims without evidence. I would even go as far to say people get enjoyment over making spurious claims. There are people that create accounts on forums just so they can stir it up. I've had the 20D, 5D, 1D MKII with my current set-up being the 1D MKIII and D300. I don't do specific tests comparing cameras but I know looking at my pictures what I like. I have yet to find a universal definition of image quality but most of the time it is noise and DR. 5D is damn good. 1D MKIII is damn good too. D300 is pretty good and maybe further use will allow me to give it a damn good. If not, I'm not going to get upset if my fellow Canon users start to bash the D300. The D300 does blow away my 1D MKIII and my past Canon dSLRs in ergonomics. D300, on-board flash commander. Amazing. D300 LCD. Amazing. Menus. Amazing. And so on. I have yet to find a camera that does everything right. I won't make the claim the D300 sensor competes with the 5D or my 1D MKIII and neither will Nikon. If it was a pure IQ issue I would have just gotten another 5D rather than the D300.
Moe, I used to get angry over what people write but in the end there are far more important things to get upset over. My favorite Buddhism saying is "we create our own suffering". As long as you know the deal then don't worry about what people write. There is a lot of bad info out there.
Edited by White, Jack on Dec 04, 2007 at 11:36 AM GMT (Reason: verbage)
Well to me the D300 and 5D are not the same. For the simple reason that a 1Ds III is not the same as a Hasselblad system. But, never ever discount a camera till you see the IQ. And IMHO, the D300 has very good IQ.
I like reading his articles they are great.