Probably going to switch from Canon to Nikon...

Gordon Scott

Gordon Scott

Messages
794
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm going to upgrade to a new(er) camera very soon and had even decided on what I was going for Canon 50D + Tamron 17-50 F2.8. I take portrait, landscape and architectural photos mainly and dabble in Macro and sports photos too. However, I shoot a lot of HDR and one of the frustrations with my current Canon is the restriction to 3 shot Auto Exposure Bracketing. So I did a little search (found this link amongst others http://www.hdr-photography.com/aeb.html ) and discovered Nikon have the issue sorted with the D200 and D300 having up to 9 shot AEB.

Now I'm stumped - I know very little about Nikon...

1) It would be great if someone could confirm you can get a 9 RAW file AEB out of the Nikon - is the buffer big enough / fast enough?

2) What are the pro's and cons of switching? What do Nikon do better and worse than Canon? I'm think of comparing Canon 40D/50D with Nikon D200/D300 (I think!). I know I'll need to sell some kit... but only if it's worth the switch.
 
Yes a D300 will do a 9 shot bracket burst and its perfectly capable of that... just checked my D300 and in RAW lossless compression file format it reports it has 12 shots worth of buffer and I just fired 12 to check it would be as reported.

Pros of switching? The D300 is the equivalent of Canon's brand new 7D, only proven technology ;-)

Cons of switching? Some people complain that equivalent Nikon lenses to what they shoot on Canon aren't available. Most common in those moans are 100-400, 24-105 and that Nikon only make one 70-200 and not the 4 Canon do.
 
Take one shot in RAW and change the exposure in PP to convert to HDR. Saves all that messing about with AEB. :)
 
Gordon Scott said:
I'm going to upgrade to a new(er) camera very soon and had even decided on what I was going for Canon 50D + Tamron 17-50 F2.8. I take portrait, landscape and architectural photos mainly and dabble in Macro and sports photos too. However, I shoot a lot of HDR and one of the frustrations with my current Canon is the restriction to 3 shot Auto Exposure Bracketing. So I did a little search (found this link amongst others http://www.hdr-photography.com/aeb.html ) and discovered Nikon have the issue sorted with the D200 and D300 having up to 9 shot AEB.

Now I'm stumped - I know very little about Nikon...

1) It would be great if someone could confirm you can get a 9 RAW file AEB out of the Nikon - is the buffer big enough / fast enough?

2) What are the pro's and cons of switching? What do Nikon do better and worse than Canon? I'm think of comparing Canon 40D/50D with Nikon D200/D300 (I think!). I know I'll need to sell some kit... but only if it's worth the switch.
Click to expand...
Why do you think you need more than 3 shoots take on 2 stops under one as is and one 2 stops over how much more do you want?
 
9 brackets is fine for the buffer, works great in continuos high speed shooting,
especially when the clouds are getting a move on, steps of .3 .7 and 1 which ever you want....get a d300, there mint
 
Thanks desantnik and WillB; really appreciate the feedback from users with the camera...

Do you know how the image quality stacks up considering the Nikon 12.3 megapixel count vs the 7D 17.9 and 50D 15.1?

Also intrigued how ISO performance stacks up?

Considering the need for more than 3 exposures. I have been taking HDR for a while now and often take 2 sets of 3 AEB 2 stops apart (adjusting the shutter in the middle) to ensure I capture the full tonal range... don't always use them all; but it's a pain at the acquisition stage and my buffer fills up quickly. Especially when taking a panorama sequence!
 
Annoyingly the D300 can only bracket 1 stop apart, which means if you want only 3 shots e.g. +2,0,-2, you have to shoot 5 shots and discard 2 of them as you'd get +2,+1,0,-1,-2 !
 
Gordon Scott said:
Do you know how the image quality stacks up considering the Nikon 12.3 megapixel count vs the 7D 17.9 and 50D 15.1?

Also intrigued how ISO performance stacks up?
Click to expand...

Well, IQ is more of a function of your lens than the camera. The megapixels thing really isn't the be all and end all for me - I was happy enough with the resolution of my 30D I had before to be fair. Certainly pixel count wouldn't be something I'd use to decide my next camera.

ISO performance is something I'm really starting to think is a personal subjective issue. Noise exists in higher ISO shots in every DSLR, how bad it is and whether or not you think photoshop or noise ninja is capable of killing it is really up to you.

Personally I'd say my D300 rarely produces a shot that is so noisy I bin it just because of the noise.
 
The versatility of my D3 (12.2mp-ish) vastly outweighs the higher-quality on the D3x (24.4mp-ish)...though I'll use both for different jobs, the D3 gets used 90% of the time...

I was perfectly happy with the old D2Xs, to be honest - though it could have done with a better high-iso performance...but as Desantnik says - I rarely took an image that was completely unusable because of noise at high iso ratings...
 
Gordon Scott said:
Considering the need for more than 3 exposures. I have been taking HDR for a while now and often take 2 sets of 3 AEB 2 stops apart (adjusting the shutter in the middle) to ensure I capture the full tonal range... don't always use them all; but it's a pain at the acquisition stage and my buffer fills up quickly. Especially when taking a panorama sequence!
Click to expand...


That's a function of the poor old 300D though isn't it. Slow buffer write speed and small buffer. Mine used to really annoy me for sport.

On my 50D if I want lots then I just use manual exposure, set the bracketing, shoot 3 on rapid, change the shutter speed, shoot 3 more etc
 
At the end of the day get what you are happy with, it doesnot really matter what we as a forum think, if you were to get what we suggested but you were not happy with it you just would not get the photos you wanted from it. aving said all that I am over the moon with my D300, you need to get to a shop and have a look one asnd have aplay with the menu system on it and see if you can get on with it. I did look at canon when I got my first dslr, having had an eos 650 for years, I just did not find the menus easy to use in comparision to nikon. So nikon it was and nikon it still is. Hope that helps.
 
Thanks for the feedback on ISO / megapixels; my current camera is 6MP so all options represent a good jump in this area.

Cheng said:
Annoyingly the D300 can only bracket 1 stop apart, which means if you want only 3 shots e.g. +2,0,-2, you have to shoot 5 shots and discard 2 of them as you'd get +2,+1,0,-1,-2 !
Click to expand...

That's a bit annoying... my shutter count will go up even more!

Byker28i said:
That's a function of the poor old 300D though isn't it. Slow buffer write speed and small buffer. Mine used to really annoy me for sport. On my 50D if I want lots then I just use manual exposure, set the bracketing, shoot 3 on rapid, change the shutter speed, shoot 3 more etc
Click to expand...

Yes I guess that's the compromise I'll have to make if I stay with Canon.. rather than a one off button press.

Davec223 said:
At the end of the day get what you are happy with, it does not really matter what we as a forum think, if you were to get what we suggested but you were not happy with it you just would not get the photos you wanted from it.
Click to expand...

Yes... these questions are part of my research into what to do. I will now look at cost implications switching and have a play in shop. But I expect to become comfortable with the controls which ever way I go.

Thanks for the info and opinion everybody.. very helpful.
 
Gordon Scott said:
Do you know how the image quality stacks up considering the Nikon 12.3 megapixel count vs the 7D 17.9 and 50D 15.1?

Also intrigued how ISO performance stacks up?
Click to expand...
The two cameras are well compared in THIS REVIEW

They're so equal in every respect that matters that it's purely down to personal preference, but the 9 shot bracketing sequence looks like it could clinch the D300 for you.
 
Dave Stone said:
Take one shot in RAW and change the exposure in PP to convert to HDR. Saves all that messing about with AEB. :)
Click to expand...

That's not proper HDR. Using that method, you're never going to exceed the dynamic range of the camera sensor...
 
CT said:
They're so equal in every respect that matters that it's purely down to personal preference, but the 9 shot bracketing sequence looks like it could clinch the D300 for you.
Click to expand...


I would say the extra megapixels allowing a quite substantial crop difference over the Nikon would make a big differenct to those needing the extra reach. It's the reason I will buy a 7D over the D300s.
 
Mike.P said:
I would say the extra megapixels allowing a quite substantial crop difference over the Nikon would make a big differenct to those needing the extra reach. It's the reason I will buy a 7D over the D300s.
Click to expand...

No argumnent - that would make the camera the right choice for you, but Gordon placing so much emphasis on HDR to the extent that it's influencing his choice leads me to think (perhaps wrongly) that he's not into wildlife or it's not high on his lst of interests.
 
Mike.P said:
I would say the extra megapixels allowing a quite substantial crop difference over the Nikon would make a big differenct to those needing the extra reach. It's the reason I will buy a 7D over the D300s.
Click to expand...

Although I am looking for additional megapixels, I don't shoot wildlife which is where the extra reach is most needed IMHO (good call on my needs CT)

I'm not overly flush with cash at the moment, so price is a consideration as well... approximate prices...
second hand D200 £400
second hand D300 £750, new £1080
new 50D £700, second hand £550
new 7D £1240, second hand ???

Will need a lens or two; but am eyeing up the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for either.

Decisions decisions.... will need to sleep on it.
 
Noise is mint on, Only a mild issue over 1600 if truth be told, *** have some usable shot at 3200.. and if you really want to push it, 6400 though as you would expect with the high iso noise reduction on, they aint sharp..
 
Well after the storms yesterday (too scared to damage new kit) I took a couple of hours out this morning to test run the Nikon D300 and Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC. All worked like a dream. It was lovely not having to fiddle with the Canon restricted auto bracketing system and shooting 9 bracketed shots straight off. These are my 2 favourites from the morning; not brilliant, but nice all the same I hope.

9 shot HDR, 1 stop apart processed in Photomatix and finished in Photoshop CS4

View from a local pub back yard over a pond.



Inside of a local church before people arrived this morning.

 
I am sorry but I miss the point (apart from maybe the actual process of making HDR). I can't see how shot 1 is better from properly processed RAW let the composition alone. Shot 2 may need some blending, but not as much to distort all colours like this.

Gordon Scott said:
Well after the storms yesterday (too scared to damage new kit) I took a couple of hours out this morning to test run the Nikon D300 and Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC. All worked like a dream. It was lovely not having to fiddle with the Canon restricted auto bracketing system and shooting 9 bracketed shots straight off. These are my 2 favourites from the morning; not brilliant, but nice all the same I hope.

9 shot HDR, 1 stop apart processed in Photomatix and finished in Photoshop CS4

View from a local pub back yard over a pond.



Inside of a local church before people arrived this morning.

Click to expand...
 
Cheng said:
Annoyingly the D300 can only bracket 1 stop apart, which means if you want only 3 shots e.g. +2,0,-2, you have to shoot 5 shots and discard 2 of them as you'd get +2,+1,0,-1,-2 !
Click to expand...

It will bracket at whatever you want if you set it in the menu.

you then control the number of frames with one dial and the shift with the other from 0.3 to 2 stops
 
daugirdas said:
I am sorry but I miss the point (apart from maybe the actual process of making HDR). I can't see how shot 1 is better from properly processed RAW let the composition alone. Shot 2 may need some blending, but not as much to distort all colours like this.
Click to expand...

The RAW would not yield the definition across exposures that is in the first photo and the second is deliberately more arty processing, it's not supposed to look like a straight photo. I'm happy to accept neither of these photos are top notch and also that HDR is not everybody's cup of tea. Each to our own...

Monkey said:
It will bracket at whatever you want if you set it in the menu.

you then control the number of frames with one dial and the shift with the other from 0.3 to 2 stops
Click to expand...

I can only get it to go 0.3, 0.7 and 1.0. It would be useful to be able to get it to do 2 stops apart and would love for you to point me at the menu that allows that if you can find it. Cheers G.
 
you may be right at 1.0 stop, i made the post in response that it was fixed to 1.0 stop.

i no longer have a D300 as i moved to canon, but i feel you are probably correct on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top