50D or D300!!

B

BirderOzzie

Messages
410
Name
Oscar Dewhurst
Edit My Images
No
I am planning to upgrade my camera kit in maybe 8 months and it will almost certainly be one of the Canon EOS 50D or the Nikon D300. I know this is a bit early but I like to get things sorted in advance!:)

At the moment I have a Nikon D60 and a Sigma 50-500 lens, plus the Tamron 90mm MACRO lens. The lens I'm getting will hopefully be a Sigma 300mm f2.8 as I can't afford the Canon or Nikon versions. I know it makes sense to stick with Nikon as I know the layout and have the Macro, but I would like to know what poeples' opinions are about the difference between the 2 cameras. I knot that the Nikon has fantastic noise capabilities, but the 50D has 15.1 MP, compared with the D300's 12.1.

Also, if I was to get Nikon, I would need to stick with them for a while, but I prefer the Canon "pro" bodies and the lenses. Does anyone think I'm wrong? I'm really stuck here ::shake: and would really appreciate any help you have.

Cheers,

Oscar :D
 
yeah the megapixels are pretty moot.

what is it you like about the canon pro bodies in comparison to the nikon pro bodies?

i'm obviously going to say nikon because i think they're laid out a lot better but at the end of the day i doubt theres much between them
 
mega pixels arent allways a moot point, if your a birder then the cropability is handy, I love the way I can crop if I ever need to on my 50, don't use it that often


what do you like to shoot that would help us make an informed decision
 
4752 x 3168 pixels
4288 x 2848 pixels

it's hardly a phenomenal leap in image size between the two so in this case i'd say it was pretty moot :)
 
Like other members told you, resolution isn't everything, especially when the sensor isn't big enough.
In my opinion, the D300 is the best camera and the 50D a better deal for the price.

You can also consider the 40D, which produces cleaner files than the 50D.
 
In 8 months, you'll likely be looking at the D400/500 which will almost certainly have around 15+ MP, so I wouldn't worry about it. I never felt that my D300 lacked resolution. I 'upgraded' from a D300 with 12.3MP to a D700 with 12.1MP for the low light capability. I was never tempted by the 5D Mk2 with 21MP. Huge numbers of pixels are fine in theory, but do you have sufficient quality lenses to exploit them?
 
jimlizard said:
You can also consider the 40D, which produces cleaner files than the 50D.
Click to expand...

Is that from actual experience or hearsay?

OP, what do you shoot mainly? (Is the clue in your name?)
 
Thanks for the help. It would mainly to shoot wildlife and sport. I like the 10 fps of the EOS 1D Mk3 and I like their 500 f4, 400 f2.8, 300 f2.8 etc. lenses
 
OK, getting down to the real differences.

Currently, the 50D is IMO the best camera body on the market for shooting wildlife due to it's clean image and high resolution on a crop sensor.

However the autofocus on the D300 smokes it and would be far better for sport.
 
BirderOzzie said:
Thanks for the help. It would mainly to shoot wildlife and sport. I like the 10 fps of the EOS 1D Mk3 and I like their 500 f4, 400 f2.8, 300 f2.8 etc. lenses
Click to expand...
If you have that money to burn on glass, I am surprised you are in this dilemma. I would also dispute that the Pro Canon telephoto glass is streets ahead of its Nikon counterparts. If however the Pro stuff is a pipe dream, otherwise why would you be considering APS-C crop cameras, then currently Canon wins with its 300 f/4 & 400 f/5.6.
 
I would also be interested to know about the noise capabilities in both of them. The lens to go with it would be a Sigma 300mm f2.8
 
mastertrinity said:
werent it proved that theoretically have more pixels meant having more noise. sorry if this is stupid but i thought there was a discussion on TP here before.
Click to expand...

Important part highlighted in bold.

Real world use is quite different in my experience
 
Kryptix said:
Can you show me proof of this?
Click to expand...

I've also heard about this. Canon may have overcooked the MP's on the sensor. I'd rather that they had bumped it to 12Mp and made the ISO performance better and cleaner.
Striving for MP just gets quite daft at times.
anyway, from what I've seen I'm in no hurry to trade in my 40D for a 50D.

a D300 would be tempting though!
 
DizMatt said:
I've also heard about this. Canon may have overcooked the MP's on the sensor. I'd rather that they had bumped it to 12Mp and made the ISO performance better and cleaner.
Striving for MP just gets quite daft at times.
anyway, from what I've seen I'm in no hurry to trade in my 40D for a 50D.

a D300 would be tempting though!
Click to expand...

Have you actually studied the output from a 50D?

I know it seems like I am banging on about this but I am seeing a lot of folk on various threads who are slating the 50D ISO peformance without having actually tried it.
 
I think it was CT on these very forums that stated it is the best canon out there at the moment for what he does (birding).
 
Chillimonster said:
I think it was CT on these very forums that stated it is the best canon out there at the moment for what he does (birding).
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.
He also indicates ISO peformance is a full stop improvement on the 40D. Having tested it over the weekend I concur.
 
would love to get my hands on both to compare to be honest
it's partly subjectives, depending upon lens and other factors.
also for a good twitcher a higher resolution would be lovely
the best comparison I can find is here
http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/50d_vs_40d_resolution_and_noise
still it's hard to make things really scientific.

I'd like to see the high ISO performance against the 40D in the conditions I shoot quite often. low light, fast moving subjects, f2.8 tamron lens. I know the 40D can push to 3200 but I don't like it so I run at 1600ISO normally. Does the 50D perform well at 3200?
 
If it's 8 months away, I expect Nikon will have another prosumer model out (likely to be the D400) which will make anything said now moot. Canon will probably follow suit, though I can't really predict when.
 
DizMatt said:
Does the 50D perform well at 3200?
Click to expand...


I cannot comment on the 40d, but here is a 100pc snippet from my 50d from saturday night.

Exif.

ISO-3200
F3.5
10mm
1/8th shutter speed

Shot looks like this, but resized down to 800px
untitled1.png


Snippet at 100pc..
Untitled-1-2.png


Neither shot have been processed in any way, this is straight out of the RAW file, and changed to a .PND file so as there is ZERO sharpening.

I must add that this was hand held, and its pretty sharp for the shutter speed i was using. It was VERY dark that night. Taken about 10:00-10:30 saturday night.

This is just to show the noise of the image using ISO 3200. Obviously, at this shutter speed nothing is going to be that sharp, but that's due to no tripod!
 
not bad at 100% and very printable full sized.

might be interesting running some comparisons
however, very difficult with all the different lenses people have
I'd be happy with that shot at 3200ISO though...
looks a bit like a 1600 shot on my 40D.
 
DizMatt - you are local to Nottingham yes?
Sounds like an easy way for you to get an idea is have a squizz at mine sometime.
 
sometimes in notts mate
used to live there, 15 years I think at last count
moved to newcastle on behest of the missus
saw a 50D when I visited an ex recently, however, didn't get more than a quick click on it tbh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top