Which Canon camera is at the same level roughly as the Nikon D300?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I mean i know the D300 is more expensive than the 40d but is that a fair comparison or should the 50d be compared to the D300? Or is it something entirely different?
 
None I don't think. If you are trying to decide on which is best suited to your photography then that will help narrow it down. When I was buying back in Sept last year it was on here that helped me decide that the D300 was best suited to me. I shoot with a D300 and 2 friends, each with a 40D. Images have very little difference track-side, but at higher ISO the D300 has the edge. I believe that the 50D higher ISO is trumped by the D300 but I've never used one. I found that the Nikon was easier for me to use, holds a bit more weight (which I like) and easier to navigate, but its horse for courses.

D300 all day long ;)
 
If i had the money to buy you one mate, i would buy another lens for ME !!!!
 
viper_biker said:
None I don't think. If you are trying to decide on which is best suited to your photography then that will help narrow it down. When I was buying back in Sept last year it was on here that helped me decide that the D300 was best suited to me. I shoot with a D300 and 2 friends, each with a 40D. Images have very little difference track-side, but at higher ISO the D300 has the edge. I believe that the 50D higher ISO is trumped by the D300 but I've never used one. I found that the Nikon was easier for me to use, holds a bit more weight (which I like) and easier to navigate, but its horse for courses.

D300 all day long ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I was using Canon but ended up with a D300. Suppose it came down to the ISO but also after spending a lot of time with the D300 of a friend I found it much more comfortable to work with. I'd tried loads of cameras in the shops but it took a long time using it and working with it for me to realise the Nikon felt better in my hands. But the Canon was a great camera all the same.
 
More MP's from the 50D, if that is your bag but a far superior AF system on the D300.

If Canon had taken their 1D AF system and put it into the 40D, then you would have the D300.
 
what he said ^.

pretty much the focusing is (IMHO) so so so much better in the d300 so would have to go upto the 1d series mk2/2n/3 to get anything near. depending on the rumours i've seen for the ?60D that could come close as to the focusing system could be similar to the 1d series.
if you're willing to spend the extra then don't hesitate with the d300, its well worth the dosh.
 
with the money you wil expend in a d300 I will go for a 5D MKI second hand (if you look hard you will find a mint for same price as a new D300) IMHO Focusing is not evething in a Camera.
 
ClickClocks said:
IMHO Focusing is not evething in a Camera.
Click to expand...

Depends what you are trying to shoot with it!

You'll notice from my sig, I shoot motorsport... and there yes, pretty much focus is everything!
 
I have to agree with that comment. The 5D is great for wedding and portrait work but would be utterly useless for motorsport. You don't need FF and you sure as heck need fast AF.

I've got a 5D and a 1DsII and the focusing on the 1Ds is streets ahead of anything on the 5Ds. 24 focus points vs 9. No contest really.

Sorry can't help with the comparison to Nikon. I openly admit I can't understand Nikon stuff at all. (I do have Canon, Mamiya, Hasselblad and Leica and I can work them all ok!) But Nikon is like trying to work something in a completely different language to me.

I suppose if someone shoved a D3 in my hand and told me to get on with it, I'd have to but it's not something I'd relish. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top