I don't know if a switch is in your best interest.
You say you're looking for better high ISOs. In my opinion, the D3 is WAY ahead of the D300 in that area. I don't shoot my D300 over 800 ISO - and I like to keep it at 500 or less. I won't hesitate to push my D3 to 1600 / 2000. I don't like it much above that, but I have used 3200 in a pinch. All depends on how picky you are. I have to believe that the 50D is probably in the same league as the D300.
As for AF, my D3 outdoes my D300 period. Most who own both will tell you the same. Nikon can say it's the same af system, but the "power" behind it (even with a grip on the D300), just isn't the same. The D3 focuses more aggressively. Now, maybe the D300 is faster than the D50, that I don't know. If you're expecting D3 like performance from the D300 AF you'll be disappointed.
If you could, it would be great to borrow /rent a D300 and try it first. You may find your 50D is all you need. A D700 would be a step up, but I think a D300 is a lateral move.
Yeah, the D300 is a much more capable camera in general than the 40D/50D, but if you're considering switching primarily for high ISO performance, you'll be disappointed. The D3/D700 are the high ISO monsters, the D300 isn't nearly as good in that department. The big advantage you'd see over the 40D/50D is that it doesn't suffer as much from banding when pushed hard.
RalphJ wrote:
But don't the D700 and the D3 have the same AF system? If so, then it seems fair to compare Nikon's flagship to Canon's (the result of which comparison usually makes the Canon look fairly overpriced!).
Yes and no, to your question, according to my research. The d3, d300 and d700 apparently all use the same AF module, CAM3500, but the d3 supposedly has more processing power than the d300/d700, which makes it slightly faster and more reliable. How much difference there is between the d3 and d300, dunno. Nobody has ever actually measured it, AFAIK. But, it does make sense. The d3 is the flagship, much more expensive and has to compete with the 1d series. My understanding of the 1d series AF is that there is a lot of processing power for it as well.
I think a distinction should be made between the D3/D700 and the D300 when the subject is high-ISO noise. The OP, for example, was attracted to Nikon by the low-noise performance of the D3 but then I think he said he'd be getting a D300, which from what I've seen doesn't perform noticeably better at 1600 or 3200 than the Canon counterpart (40D).
There are plenty of good reasons to switch, but to me with both the D700 and the D300, those reasons involve feature sets, design, and build quality, not significantly better performance at high ISOs than Canon offers.
I'd guess this is probably true, assuming you're comparing 40d to d300 and d700 to 5d. The d700 is apparently about a stop better at high ISO than the d300. Those that live in the dark, would likely appreciate that difference.
Kerry is correct. Everything I have heard from users of all three Nikons is that the same Multi-CAM 3500 module performs differently in each camera. Think of the D3/D700 as Papa and Moma bear, and the D300 as baby bear. The difference between the D3/D700 is less than the difference between the D700/D300.
Thanx all for your input. I guess the kick is going to be to find a Nikon D700 that I can rent with glass for a day of shooting. Right now it's not as big a deal 'cause most of my shooting is daytime during playoffs. Basketball starts soon and I'll be indoors in not-so-great light again.
The banding I'm getting at higher ISO's is driving me crazy!
Rob001 wrote:
The banding I'm getting at higher ISO's is driving me crazy!
Yeah, it really shows where Canon's head is at right now that they're advertising cameras like the 50D as being capable of shooting at ISO 12,800 when even properly-exposed photos at 1600 exhibit banding. This was sort of the last straw with me an Canon. This has been a problem with their cameras for years, and they're still unable to fix it. Amazing.
This was sort of the last straw with me an Canon. This has been a problem with their cameras for years, and they're still unable to fix it. Amazing.