EOS 5D Vs Nikon D300....

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
There seems to be a photography bug of serious proportions going round my work lately, with every Tom, Dick & Harry asking me advice on what kit they should buy.

One of my mates is a serial traveller and visits the US several times a year on work (and play) and is contemplating buying gear over there due to the strong pound against the dollar.

Thing is, he's currently on a 30D with a selection of Sigma and Canon lenses (only one is an EF-S-type model and that's a 10-20mm Sigma which he doesn't like anyway) and is contemplating ditching the 30D for a 5D, or more dramaticlaly, ditching the lot and going for a Nikon D300 and starting afresh.

It got me thinking and I basically couldn't come up with a solid enough answer for him –*what do you guys think?

He's a wildlife and landscape lover so needs an all-round camera. I said the 5D is a great piece of kit because of the full-frame sensor and the somewhat 'legendary' tones it captures that landscape photographers seem to rave about. Plus, his 15-30mm Sigma will work and it will be a TRUE 15mm, rather than cropped like it is on his current 30D. However, his 70-300mm will lose the length that is has on the 30D but 85% of his kit will work with a 5D if he takes the plunge. He's seen the body in the US for a grand or so, and he's quite prepared to pay that.

However...

... he's read and read and read about the Nikon D300 being the best thing sliced bread and is very tempted by a change of brand after seeing my newly aquired D200 and his mate's D80.

Although the D300 isn't full-frame it does seem to have a serious amount of fans and he's very taken by the fact that Nikon kit lenses, the VR system and the number of long range zooms in the Nikon line-up all stack up to good value against Canon (if not better) and effectively create a brilliant camera system for very little extra. He fancies the D300 with a SB600 or SB800 flash, the 18-200 VR zoom (as an everyday lens) and then selling his current kit for what I reckon he'll get, which is about £1,200. That said, the money thing isn't his main priority (although it matters)*–*the RIGHT camera for him is the main thing and he's swaying toards Nikon but is about 65%.

I just can't seem to bring myself to convince him to go for Nikon though, and I have recently ditched all my Canon EOS gear to go Nikon so I should be bigging it up!! The D300 is a fantastic piece of kit and petty much futureproof (for at least a few seasons), whereas the 5D has a great full-frame sensor but is bound to be superceded by better technology late 2008/early 2009. It's still a brilliant piece of kit and I'd be more than happy to won one myself...

... so the big question is: what would you do?
 
Personally I think that the 5D trumps the D300 in PQ despite its age difference. The 5D is the only camera to compete the with D3 which is saying something. Having owned both cameras and now owning the D3 I think I can say that without sounding bombastic.

The 18-200 is a poor lens imo. I had one but swiftly moved it on as its a grainy lens that seems to create noise, but not ISO noise. However, to use a cliche, its a walkabout lens that works for some.

D.
 
The 5D trumps nearly everything for PQ, but its a one trick pony, if scapes/portraits is your thing exclusively, gotta be the 5D.
For everything else, and a few other considerations, D300.
I just don't see the hoohaa of that 18-200, its slug slow and the distortion is bonkers at the wide end, its what I'd expect from a lens trying to be all focal lengths.
This really is Canons problem, with a new 5D and your mates shooting preference, the choice would be much simpler, as it is, the D300 has much more going for it in every direction except fullframe and the good stuff that fullframe sensor brings.
I'd have the D300....but then I would....wouldn't I:shrug:
 
I don't think a 5d can compete in with the D3 which has been getting some of the best reviews around recently. I've seen a magazine (either professional photographer or amateur, i cant recall) stack up the d3 against the 1ds and still coming out trumps due to the close reviews but vast price difference!
 
What you've mentioned were the reasons I couldn't come up with a conclusion for him

The 5D is by all intents and purposes, the only camera out there under £2000 that can offer full-frame quality AND brilliant PQ. It'll accept the majority of his lenses but on the long end of zooms, you lsoe out to 'cropped' sensor models.

The D300 seems to be everything you need from a camera according to all the blurb in magazines but you need additional lenses to get real wide-angle coverage.

The 18-200mm is, from what i've heard, a brilliant walabout lens but there's no doubt small focal length zooms (and primes) are required to have a'complete' photographic kit.

My bet is he'll end up going for the 5D. If I had all Canon gear it'd be the option i think I'd opt for, if only because it's an eaiser jump from a 3oD
 
Personally I don't care what brand it is, you really can't compare a full frame 5D to anything other than another full frame camera. Apples and oranges.

The picture quality is superb and unless you need fast autofocus and fps then it is honestly the best there is.
 
AliB, we're not talking 'what brand is best' – that's not the purpose of this thread. The question is 'which of thse two cameras is best considering they both retail for around a grand'. Which would you go for if you were looking for a top-spec piece of kit?
 
Interesting that there's a general concensus that the 5D trumps the D300's IQ. The main reviews I've read say the opposite (including AP which I personally think carries more weight than most) I have a D300 and think that it's chuffin' great but then I've never had a 5D so could compare handling and IQ.

One thing to bear in mind though, the sensor in any DSLR is the most expesnive component. To be able to get a full frame sensor into the 5D Canon had to make concessions elsewhere in terms of feature set and build. That's not saying that it isn't a good camera, it clearly is, but having used the AF and 3" screen on a D300, both shared with the D3, only a D3 would tempt me away now.
 
NorthernNikon, I think you've hit on a good point there.

How many concessions have been made to produce the 5D at its price (I don't know what its original RRP was several years ago)? There has to be some concession, otherwise it would be a 1D (minus the super-fast frame rate).... or is it that anyway?

It's interesting to note that the 5D has such a following despite it being a very old camera in modern terms. Mind you, I can remember the old EOS 5 was a bit of a stalwart and lasted a long time until the EOS 3 came out.

The D300 deffo has the pundit's eye. Not only have they basically said "this is as good as a D3 (minus he FX sensor)" but they've said it's the most complete camera on the market and only the Sony 700 seems to have had anywhere near as many favourable reviews in the same price bracket.
 
I don't know enough about teh 5D to be able to lsit the concessions, but I remember reading a piece on it not that long ago, maybe in AP when they summarise their review. Basically, the D300 shares the AF, Expeed processor and 3" 9 million dot screen with the D3. The screen alone blows me away everytime I use it. The AF is stunning, 51 points seems like overkill but the way you can chose points around a central point in 9, 15 or 21 (Ithink they're the steps) point clusters is brilliant and the dynamic AF is superb.

You friend really needs to get to a shop, handle them both and see the difference in functionality. The only issue with that is you have to have a neutral and knowledable member of staff to assist you. There's no point being shown the cameras by a fan boy. People have been harking on about IQ but I think that it's the simple things that make all the difference. I remember someone on this foirum who's made the jump from Canon to Nikon saying howe much easier it is to delete photos on the Nikon, no scrolling required, I also find the joypad on the Nikon easier to use to scroll through images than Canon's scroll wheel on the back plate but having said that, now I've set the D300 to be able to scroll through in playback mode with the the main and sub control wheels it's so much easier. There will probably be things that Canon do which are more ergonomic than Nikon, but as it's over five years since I used a Canon DSLR I couldn't tell you what.
 
Having made the move to the darkside myself recently & traded in my 5D for a D300 I can honestly say that I am happy I changed.
The IQ from the D300 is excellent & I'd definitely say that it's not a world apart from the 5D anyway, I'm more than happy with mine (although it took me a while to get used to how much heavier & clunkier the Nikon mirror action is compared to the Canons!)

I do miss full frame but am working my way towards a D3 asap (very slowly it would seem :LOL:)
A lot of people told me that I shouldn't change brands when I was considering it but it's given my photography a major boost & was just what I needed - if the reasons for changing are good enough then it's something to consider - providing he/she's tested out the camera to make sure they actually like it.

Definitely easier to delete the multitudes of crap images with the two button press btw :LOL:
 
moomike said:
Having made the move to the darkside myself recently & traded in my 5D for a D300 I can honestly say that I am happy I changed.

I do miss full frame but am working my way towards a D3 asap (very slowly it would seem :LOL:)
Click to expand...

Glad you are happy and I was not intimating a brand war guys!

But there is your answer. "Miss full frame, working my way to a D3."
Compare full frame to full frame.

Yes the D3 will probably trump a 5D any day but then you are back to a price differential. As I said, compare apples with apples, not oranges.

You don't buy a 5D for a fast frame rate. It is not the world's best camera, it is not the most adaptable, you would not buy one to shoot motorsports. It's a bit of a niche product but it fills that niche superbly.
 
I dunno. There's a lot that doesn't stack up here, IMO.

If "your mate" (it's you really, isn't it? :D) has a selection of Canon lenses, then switching to the D300 means "he" would have to sell them and buy Nikon equivalents. There's a cost associated with that. You don't say how many lenses, so we don't know what that cost is, but it's something to factor into the equation.

Next, I'm not sure I'd rave about the Nikon 18-200 VR. I like the concept (I use a Sigma 18-200 as my "everyday" lens), but I've seen reviews that suggest the Nikon isn't really any better than the new Sigma 18-200 OS - which is available for Canon too. The availability of an 18-200 shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog here.

Next, I would certainly dispute the assertion that Nikon has a superior lens range. I know a little bit about this - check out my "equipment cupboard" here - and it seems the other way around to me. Yes, Nikon has some absolutely superb lenses that Canon doesn't, like the 200-400 f/4 VR and the 14-24 - but they're horrendously expensive. In the more affordable and mainsteam range, Nikon has nothing to equal Canon's 100-400, 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6, to name but three. For wildlife and birding I would always recommend Canon simply because of the existence of those three lenses (and especially the 100-400).

Finally, I'm sure you (and "your mate" :D) know that bodies come and go, but lenses last for ever. The D300 is certainly the bees-knees at the moment. But will it still be next year when the 5D Mk II or the 50D or whatever has hit the streets? And the year after that the D400 might be better still ... and so it goes. It really is quite pointless lusting after a new body, and basing your buying decision on that, without taking into account all the other features of the system of which the body is but one part.
 
AliB said:
Yes the D3 will probably trump a 5D any day but then you are back to a price differential. As I said, compare apples with apples, not oranges.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You don't compare cars purely on price, you compare hatchbacks with hatchbacks and 4x4's with 4x4's. Both the D3 and the 5D being full frame means that they are both competing for some of the same market and therefore comparisons are perfectly justifiable. This doesn't mean that the 5D and the D300 can't be compared, but buyers have different criteria and knowing the criteria will help dictate the parameters of any comparison.
 
Stewart R, it really is my mate – he's just too lazy to do any reading up on things and being the ‘geek’ I am, I like to do some digging on his behalf. Anyway, I'm more than happy with my D200 and I still owe £££s on it so can’t possibly think buying another body…

With regard to 'future-proofing' we all know cameras will be replaced at some point in time – it's enevitable, as that’s how business works – but you can't escape the fact that lenses on their own don't hold the same attraction as the latest body. We all know that good glass MAKES a system but it's the body to which you attach the lenses that the user sees and feels most and often bases the merit of their photography on. How many threads do we read about where the poster cites the quality of their photography on the camera and not the lens? More than those that that blame/praise the lens I think.

From my point of view, there’s are major flaws in Canon’s lens range but there are also flaws in Nikons, both in terms of what lenses are on offer and their prices. Nikon is definitely making more of an effort to provide for its DX format users whereas it seems that canon is quite happy to keep its established (and hugely popular) EF lenses and this points me to think they’ll bringing out a full-frame pro-sumer model to replace the 40D at some point. Either that or they’re bargaining on everyone moving to 5d and 1D bodies to get more from their existing wideangles. They (Canon) have fewer ‘wide’ lenses designed specifically for cropped sensor models, especially ones that have a wide focal range… BUT they have more high-end telephoto lenses than Nikon, which points to their love of providing sports/wildlife photographers with kit.

Although I see you’re pretty well-versed in lenses through your business, I disagree with the comment regarding the EF 100-400mm IS. Canon’s is approximately £1,050 whereas Nikon’s 80-400mm VR (with a greater focal range and the same apertures) is £100 less. Granted, Nikon don’t produce an f/4 300mm VR but if you’re looking at an f/2.8 version, Nikon and Canon sell one each at the same price. Anyway, an expensive telephoto ‘prime’ lens isn’t a consumer model, no matter how much you big it up, as zooms are just ingrained into the photography populous’ psyche and both have it covered. You may rent out a fair few Canon ‘prime’ telephotos but doesn’t that tell you that people see it as a lens that’s not essential and aren’t buying them per se?
 
NorthernNikon said:
I disagree. You don't compare cars purely on price,

This doesn't mean that the 5D and the D300 can't be compared, but buyers have different criteria and knowing the criteria will help dictate the parameters of any comparison.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is exactly how the car market operates! Firstly by genre i.e hatchback, then by price. Pick up a copy of autoexpress and it separates vehicles on exactly that basis. The company car market falls into two simple segments reps and execs. In other words, price.

By using your criteria then, we can compare a D300 with a 1Ds MkIII. After all, if you exclude price then it opens a whole can of worms!

By comparing a 5D to a D300 you are comparing a volvo estate to a lotus elise. The elise may be a very good car but no use if you want to shift a wardrobe. :)
 
AliB said:
Actually, that is exactly how the car market operates! Firstly by genre i.e hatchback, then by price. Pick up a copy of autoexpress and it separates vehicles on exactly that basis. The company car market falls into two simple segments reps and execs. In other words, price.

By using your criteria then, we can compare a D300 with a 1Ds MkIII. After all, if you exclude price then it opens a whole can of worms!

By comparing a 5D to a D300 you are comparing a volvo estate to a lotus elise. The elise may be a very good car but no use if you want to shift a wardrobe. :)
Click to expand...

Actually, that's how car magazines operate to provide info for the readers.
 
AliB said:
Actually, that is exactly how the car market operates! Firstly by genre i.e hatchback, then by price. Pick up a copy of autoexpress and it separates vehicles on exactly that basis. The company car market falls into two simple segments reps and execs. In other words, price.

By using your criteria then, we can compare a D300 with a 1Ds MkIII. After all, if you exclude price then it opens a whole can of worms!

By comparing a 5D to a D300 you are comparing a volvo estate to a lotus elise. The elise may be a very good car but no use if you want to shift a wardrobe. :)
Click to expand...

You've lost me, you're disagreeing by reiterating most of what I said.

Comparing a 5D with a D300 is not the same as comparing a Volvo Estate with a Lotus Elise, it's like comparing a petrol model with a deisel. The size of the sensor is akin to the engine type. If you know you want one or the other that will dictate your choice. If you're unsure which sensor/engine type you want then you take other factors into consideration. Price only comes into it once you've looked at your basic requirements. If some decides they want a full from DSLR but their budget is no more than £4000 then they will look atboth the 5D and the D3. If they want a DX format body, they will (or should) look at all available options that meet their other criteria within their budget.

Excluding pricing isn't opening up a can of worms at all. It's opening up options for them. Quite often, the best purchasing decision is not to buy at that time, but to wait until you can afford a higher spec.
 
No, that's why the car industry refers to the sub 20K market, the exec market etc. They don't refer to "The hatch market" or the "estate market" They do separate on price.

I'm not saying Nikon have not built a cracking camera with the D300, in fact if it had been on the market when I was making my choice it would have been very high on my list. But you do need to compare apples with apples. Full frame vs crop are two different markets or else why would Nikon make a D3? lol.
 
AliB said:
No, that's why the car industry refers to the sub 20K market, the exec market etc. They don't refer to "The hatch market" or the "estate market" They do separate on price.

I'm not saying Nikon have not built a cracking camera with the D300, in fact if it had been on the market when I was making my choice it would have been very high on my list. But you do need to compare apples with apples. Full frame vs crop are two different markets or else why would Nikon make a D3? lol.
Click to expand...

You're showing a clear lack of understanding of markets. Let's drop the car analogy because it's clearly just muddying the waters. Let's get one thing straight, there is no full frame market per se, and no cropped sensor market per se. Whether there is a four/thirds market is more debatable but in general the DSLR market is divided into three - the beginners' market, the enthusiast/semi-pro and the professional. That's how the manufacturers split the markets and how the press split the markets because that's how the market has split consumer wise. Now, some products are designed to sell across the markets, both the 5D and the D300 sit span the enthusiast market along with the pro one.

Generally someone in the market for either one of these cameras is looking for either a professional body or and enthusiast's body. You might get the odd one moving from film who is only interested in full frame, but they're not enough to justify a market in their own right and their requirements will simply push them into the pro market space. So, someone turns up with £1000 to spend on an enthusiast's DSLR. They have no system allegiance so they are free to choose whichever camera they want. Are you saying that because the 5D, the D300 and the Olympus E-3 all have different sensor sizes that they would be considered together as option? Of course they would. They'd look at the pro's and cons of each model in the enthusiasts segment and weigh them up. The fact that the prices of these three are broadly similar has more to do what an enthusiast is prepared to pay than there being a £1000 market for DSLRs. I certainly didn't go out thinking I want a sub-£1000 camera, I want a Semi-pro model and knew how much it would cost and whether the outlay was worth it to me.

It's not a case that the 5D and the D300 can be compared, more that they should be as they are both semi-pro/enthusiast level DSLRs.
 
The fact that the April 2008 issue of Which Digital Camera ran a test of top-of-the-range cameras clearly shows how the market is varied and isn’t dictated solely by price.

The test put the EOS 1D mkIII, Sigma SD14, Sony a700, Olympus E-3, Fuji S5 pro, and Nikon D3 against each other. The lowest priced is the Sigma at £770 and the most expensive the D3.

Okay, the Nikon won it with the Canon 2nd, Fuji 3rd, Olympus 4th, Sony 5th and Sigma 6th and you could level that its modern technology and FX sensor did the job but read into each review and it clearly states the pro, cons and typical buyer each model is aimed at.

Why put an S5 against a 1D for example? One is a super-fast sports photographer’s dream whereas the other is a 6MP portrait and landscape camera. Just because there’s a big gulf in price, each has their own key points that sells it to the photographer and that can be said for all six cameras tested.
 
Everyone will always have their favourites, but I have to say that with the 5D, I don't think I will ever feel the need to upgrade. It suits my style of togging, the IQ is a country mile better than any other SLR I have used (yes, including the D300).

It works for me, that's all I can say!

Cheers,
James
 
NorthernNikon said:
Generally someone in the market for either one of these cameras is looking for either a professional body or and enthusiast's body.
Click to expand...

Now that is where we are not agreeing!

Personally I don't care whether the 5D is rated as an enthusiast and or pro. I know what applications I want it for so I bought accordingly. Hence the analogy about volvos and wardrobes.

I look to see if the camera in question has the features that I want. I don't need all those autofocus points on the Nikon, heck I have my 5D set to one!

If this conversation has shown one thing it is that us buyers cannot be herded into such generic groups whether you choose to label them on price or enthusiast/pro. Because we cross over those particular boundaries more than the products themselves.
 
AliB said:
Now that is where we are not agreeing!

Personally I don't care whether the 5D is rated as an enthusiast and or pro. I know what applications I want it for so I bought accordingly. Hence the analogy about volvos and wardrobes.

I look to see if the camera in question has the features that I want. I don't need all those autofocus points on the Nikon, heck I have my 5D set to one!

If this conversation has shown one thing it is that us buyers cannot be herded into such generic groups whether you choose to label them on price or enthusiast/pro. Because we cross over those particular boundaries more than the products themselves.
Click to expand...

You might not care, but you've already been catagorised by the camera manufacturers because of the features you want. Buyers can be herded because as with all generalities the exceptions ore not significant to through the model. If they were they'd simply create another market to define them.
 
I reckon he shouldn't base a decision on a body.

I'm a Nikon user, but my thinking has always been based upon the glass, and the handling. If a body of Canon is better, Nikon will soon trump it, and vice-versa.

In some senses the D300 is the better body, in other ways it's the 5D. But if he has money in Canon lenses and is familiar with Canon handling, I'd suggest he should buy neither. Canon will soon release a body to trump the D300, which means he gets all the benefits, and can spend the saved money on lenses (or buying oil futures, or gold!)
 
I think what Canon lenses are already in stock is the main thing. Afterall if you switch systems that's a huge investment you'd need to replace with Nikon gear, hardly seems worth it to me. The fact that the 5D is full frame doesn't suit all people it all depends on what you're going to shoot. The 30D is a great camera and people get fixated by the whole megapixel thing. My advice would be to wait another few generations then replace the body if the need arises.
 
Moadib said:
I reckon he shouldn't base a decision on a body.

I'm a Nikon user, but my thinking has always been based upon the glass, and the handling.
Click to expand...

You've just contradicted yourself there. You can't base thinking on handling and not involve the camera body. Also, while it's true that camera longevity is relatively short, the higher end models tend to stay out longer, the 5D is a classic example, and there will invariably be continuity in the handling from one model to its replacement and so on. Canons and Nikons handle differently. I'll bet that the 5D's replacement will handle very similarly to the other high end Canons, just as the D3 and the D300 echo their predecesors.

Regarding the glass, there very little to choose between Nikon and Canon, certainly not enough for anyone to regret buying into one system over the other.
 
NorthernNikon said:
You might not care, but you've already been catagorised by the camera manufacturers because of the features you want. Buyers can be herded because as with all generalities the exceptions ore not significant to through the model. If they were they'd simply create another market to define them.
Click to expand...

Which is where I think Canon got it just right with the 5D. Yes it's a bit of a niche product (which is why I still can't see the sense in trying to compare it to something that does not exist, i.e 12mp full frame for £1000 with access to a full lens system)

I'd love to meet the git that herded me in the direction of a Mamiya 645 which was, in fact, my latest camera purchase. :clap:

I did read a brilliant column in Amateur Photographer fairly recently the gist of which was to ignore the bells and whistles, those are the things that the industry add to tempt us into thinking we will surely take better pics if only we had the latest gizmo, but to write down what it is that we photograph, put a list of features next to those and that is what camera you should buy. The one that actually matches your needs. Not your wants, but your needs.
 
NorthernNikon said:
You've just contradicted yourself there. You can't base thinking on handling and not involve the camera body.
Click to expand...

Why not?

He already has a Canon body, and so a new Canon body would involve absolutely minimal change in the handling. Moving to a Nikon body would be a complete relearning. Hence, base the decision on the glass (he owns Canon) and the handling (he knows Canon).

Also, while it's true that camera longevity is relatively short, the higher end models tend to stay out longer, the 5D is a classic example, and there will invariably be continuity in the handling from one model to its replacement and so on. Canons and Nikons handle differently. I'll bet that the 5D's replacement will handle very similarly to the other high end Canons, just as the D3 and the D300 echo their predecesors.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Although I believe the 5D has been out long enough that a replacement is due. Why buy into an older 5Dm when a newer one is likely to be along soon, which will be better than the current 5D, and probably also trump some of the "must have" features of the D300. Canon could do with a better auto-ISO for example.

Regarding the glass, there very little to choose between Nikon and Canon, certainly not enough for anyone to regret buying into one system over the other.
Click to expand...

Er....as I said.

:thinking: It seems we are in violent agreement :D
 
Moadib said:
Why not?

He already has a Canon body, and so a new Canon body would involve absolutely minimal change in the handling.
Click to expand...

Because you're making the assumption that he like the way Canons handle. There's no issue with relearning a camera system, the question of handling comes down to whether it's instinctive or not.
 
I used Canon's for nigh-on 12 years and switched to a D200 in january and now it feel like second nature.

My mate has used my camera and another guy's D80 and says it's a doddle to use them. As NN states, it's all about how instinctrive the camera is to use. At the end of he day, the shutter is still a little button on the top right....
 
NorthernNikon said:
Because you're making the assumption that he like the way Canons handle. There's no issue with relearning a camera system, the question of handling comes down to whether it's instinctive or not.
Click to expand...

That's not what I assumed. I'm saying he's accustomed to the way Canons handle, and would not need to relearn Nikon.

That said, since he's considering buying another Canon it would be a reasonable further step to consider that he doesn't hate the way Canons handle, but that wasn't the point I was making.

They key in a system is how it feels to use, the available lenses, and the money invested in those lenses. Decisions based upon the features of a camera body are, IMO, too transitory on which to base a change, and better to exercise patience.

All IMO.
 
I'm in exactly the same dilema at present - i started off wanting more wide angle lens ability than the current Sigma17-35 on my 30d. Both the Canon and Sigma 10-22(20)mm lenses are designed for small sensors, but they both get very mixed reviews.

Now i'm inclined to change the body to the 5d, get the enhanced PQ of the full frame, better software etc etc, and use the 17-35 in its true sense. I will lose out at the other end with my Sigma 80-400 OS lens, but when i reviewed the images i've shot with it its normally around the 150-250mm length anyway (or 240-400mm effective) so i wouldn't really lose any useful range. And if i can't later live with only 400mm true focal length then i can always add a convertor to bring me back where i was.

I ve got a deal of £1545 for the Canon 5d and 24-105 f4 IS L lens after cashback - VERY tempting at UK prices, never mind US ones !!
 
With all these new cameras coming out and this has this and that has that bla bla bla. If you take good photos with a Canon you will take good photos with a Nikon too. I would be drawn to the better PQ of the canon as I don't need the high speed shooting and feel the full frame is the better choice for me. Don't loose the fact that just because it says Canon or Nikon on the front you will get better images, I would be surprised if 2 images were put together you would be able to tell which took which. get down the shop and have a good handle of the 2 and decide what advantages and disadvantages there are between the 2 and make your choice. Sods law says it will be the wrong choice anyway :LOL: ;)
 
I'm struggling to buy into the lens range thing, I can't seem to find any disparity between the two, that posts in this thread suggest, maybe its because I don't know much about Canon:bonk:I dunno.
For somebody to change systems after already choosing and buying a range of lenses, doesn't make much sense to me, but the change or initial system choice can't be based on lens availability, surely.
Nikon have made an awful lot of glass over the years, some of it will be redundant on modern dslr's, some of it will be discontinued and only available on the 2nd hand market, but they have made...a lot.
To be competitive, the two sides have to cover each other, and cater for their customers.
So where are the holes that really make the choice between the two ?
Are they perceived holes through misinformation/competition bashing, or do they exist ?

maybe, nobody knows

maybe nobody cares........:LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top