Moe G. wrote:
Guys, Once again wakeup and accept the fact.
Mo,
Why do you care what people think about the 300D and D5? Even if you think they are delusional, so what? 5D is a nice camera, which Canon has discontinued. Its replacement will be a very nice camera. I'm certain Canon shooter will drool over it and make outlandish comparisons, overlooking its flaws and exaggerating its pros.
And I must say, I'm not bothered that you are using KR as a reference; but, I am bothered that you read KR's site.
Moe G., no offense but how are you qualified to so strongly compare the D300 against the 5D? Ken Rockwell's tests are hardly empirical evidence.
We have a guy here, Film_Ruled, that is very well published and was seemingly reluctant to give up his 5D to go back to Nikon. However, since he got his D300 he has written very glowing reviews -- and even claims superior output with it.
I am not making an opinion here. I am just wondering how it is you feel so strongly that the D300 is that far inferior to the 5D.
Disclaimer: this is just about image quality, the D300 build and ergonomics aren't really up for debate IMO.
Dec 04, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Thanks, I’ve been wanting this link for some time but refuse to go onto KR’s site to find it. (I would fall ill in short order).
This is why I find KR so despicable. With the exception of this “disclaimer” he makes his site appear to be legitimate and places himself as an authority. However, by his own admission you never know when he is going to pull one over on you.
I suspect the vast majority of people do not know about KR’s little disclaimer. I do know many people are mislead by him. Anyone who knowing misleads people is not worth listening too; KR is at the top of the list.
Regards,
Andre
****************************
MOE,
Do yourself a favor and NEVER go to KR’s site again. His test may well be a gag or a poorly done test. Who knows other than him and he’s not telling. The rest of your post is hyperbole with no proof other than to the much discredited link to KR.
Outoffilm wrote:
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 .
I sold my 5D as well. While I currently own a D300, I will refrain from a compare and contrast. Each can produce amazing images... decide for yourself what is most important.
Andre Labonte wrote:
I say we ban anyone who make a referance to KR unless it is in a negative light.
Negative light? Well, negative light is no better than any other kind of light, really. You're better off with an older type of light, like flourescent, for 99% of the things you'd want light for. I have never had a dark room that negative light would have made a difference in that anyone would even notice.
I have never tried negative light, but I'm sure it's just the same as flourescent light, with a different shade. If you HAVE to have negative light, though, I'd get it HERE or HERE.
dj dunzie wrote:
Negative light? Well, negative light is no better than any other kind of light, really. You're better off with an older type of light, like flourescent, for 99% of the things you'd want light for. I have never had a dark room that negative light would have made a difference in that anyone would even notice.
I have never tried negative light, but I'm sure it's just the same as flourescent light, with a different shade. If you HAVE to have negative light, though, I'd get it HERE or HERE.
dj, you're quite wrong in your assessment of negative light. It was once thought that negative light was found only in black holes, but 'dark side' shooters have found that if they turn their lenses around backwards, negative light is transmitted through it. I wouldn't do this when looking at the sun though, instead of burning your retina it will freeze it. Be careful with negative light
From Analysis: "The Canon 5D is clearly superior to anything else here because it doesn't get blurry at the highest ISOs. It has The Full-Frame Advantage.".
If I remember right, a few years ago KR did the apology of the DX sensor. Clearly, at that time, he was anti-Canon. Now he is more objective.
Moe is officially brand new to FredMiranda. Is there any possibility that he's a troll? I don't like calling people that, but every board I visit are inundated with Canon trolls right now. KR seems to be the favorite one to link to for all of them.
I saw KR D300 gallery. He's blowing his red channel & this is the man who considers the 18-200 the ultimate Nikon lens. That alone should disqualify him. The 18-200 is a nice lens - - but it's hardly the ultimate lens.
Moe G. wrote:
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.
The guy shot in jpeg and left it on default in camera sharpening. No credibility in my eyes based on that alone. Any informed reviewer will shoot in raw to get the best out of any file/sensor output and sharpen equally in post as every camera has a different level on default in camera sharpening.
Easy for uninformed end users to read these type of reviews and take if for face value without factoring in many of the variables.
He also uses one of Canon's best teles in the 70-200L and compares it to a compact zoom micro Nikon claiming that at f10 all lens difference are a non-factor...BS. If he wants to claim that using a micro lens actually benefits the Nikon then use a respectable one because all lenses are NOT equal by simply stopping down when you are pixel peeping at 100%. He should know that if he were a legitamate reviewer.
I purchased my D300 out of curiosity. I have 2 5Ds and a MK!! and have been using Canon for many years now. What I see after shooting two hundred frames at last weekend's wedding is a new Nikon camera that is a shot directly into the bow of Canon. I shot two scenarios with the 50 f/1.4: available light at the salon and a hundred or so party shots with the SB800 at the end of the reception--that was all I was willing to "count on" for a new camera. I am not in a position to make any claims either way because as someone pointed out the D300 has only been out for a very short time and there's lots of situations I have not used the D300 in yet. But I can make the following conclusion after using the camera and viewing the images in CS3: The D300 is an excellent camera that handles well and captures excellent high quality and correctly exposed images consistently. I am exceedingly pleased with its performance and results. I didn't treat ISO setting any differently than I normally do with my Canon cameras; that is, I try never to exceed 800 and frankly rarely ever have to--even in the darkest churches, but you need fast glass and there's no substitute for that--and I am not talking about f/2.8.
