d300 and 5d photo comparison?

BPerron

I have been looking over the internet for many, many many days trying to find some comparitive photos between these two cameras and the only one I can find is at Ken Rockwell and that was a 100% crop and at that magnification it would have been 43" wide...So I would like to see some other comparisons of photos with these cameras on more of a everyday aspect in terms of image quality, or even pics that are bigger in size to see if the naked eye can tell the difference...

If any body has any links that would be awesome...

LiquidAir

BPerron wrote:

I have been looking over the internet for many, many many days trying to find some comparitive photos between these two cameras and the only one I can find is at Ken Rockwell and that was a 100% crop and at that magnification it would have been 43" wide...So I would like to see some other comparisons of photos with these cameras on more of a everyday aspect in terms of image quality, or even pics that are bigger in size to see if the naked eye can tell the difference...

If any body has any links that would be awesome...

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a useful comparision between these two bodies. My guess is that the dominant factor in differences in the images will be due the lens chosen rather than the sensor. In particular it gets very dicey comparing crop bodies with full frame because you get into a number difficult lens questions: Same focal length or equivalent field of view? Same aperture or equivalent DoF? f/8 or wide open?

As a simple example, if you put a 50mm on on the 5D and a comperably priced 35mm on the D300, you'll find the 5D has an advantage over the D300 at the same aperture because 50mm lenses use a less radical retrofocus design and are almost universally sharper than 35mm lenses. If you compare them at f/8 that effect won't be very dramatic, but at f/2 it will be quite noticable. If you go to the further step of requiring equivalent DoF, then the D300 will be shooting 1.5 stops wider open than the 5D putting it at a severe disadvantage.

On the other end of the spectrum, if you put a 200/2.8 on the D300 and demand a comperably priced 300/2.8 on the 5D, you'll find your self completely out of luck. Sure a 5D will look great with a 300/2.8L IS, but is it really fair to compare a $800 lens with a $4000 lens?

Largely I consider sensor tests to be relatively useless for predicting real world performance of a camera system, particularly at low ISO, because under most conditions the lens has a larger impact on image quality than the sensor does.

BPerron

LiquidAir wrote:

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a useful comparision between these two bodies. My guess is that the dominant factor in differences in the images will be due the lens chosen rather than the sensor. In particular it gets very dicey comparing crop bodies with full frame because you get into a number difficult lens questions: Same focal length or equivalent field of view? Same aperture or equivalent DoF? f/8 or wide open?

As a simple example, if you put a 50mm on on the 5D and a comperably priced 35mm on the D300, you'll find the 5D has an advantage over the D300 at the same aperture because 50mm lenses use a less radical retrofocus design and are almost universally sharper than 35mm lenses. If you compare them at f/8 that effect won't be very dramatic, but at f/2 it will be quite noticable. If you go to the further step of requiring equivalent DoF, then the D300 will be shooting 1.5 stops wider open than the 5D putting it at a severe disadvantage.

On the other end of the spectrum, if you put a 200/2.8 on the D300 and demand a comperably priced 300/2.8 on the 5D, you'll find your self completely out of luck. Sure a 5D will look great with a 300/2.8L IS, but is it really fair to compare a $800 lens with a $4000 lens?

Largely I consider sensor tests to be relatively useless for predicting real world performance of a camera system, particularly at low ISO, because under most conditions the lens has a larger impact on image quality than the sensor does.

I agree with your last statement that is why I was wanting to see if there was some sort of photo comparison...but I get what you are saying with the whole lens issue and the two sensors.

I am almost dead set no getting both cameras at one point in time, but just not sure if I will be better off having both cameras...

I really want to shoot night photos on a tripod and then take other cool daytime photos hand held and use it for lots of different things...this is why I was consideirng having both cameras.

I know that the canon 5d is suppose to be superior at night with a tripod then the d300, but I just wonder if I will really be able to tell a difference and if it will be worth it to spend 2,400 on the 5d just for the tripod shots at night. I am going to have to buy a lens no matter what for my night/landcape shots, cause all I have now is the 18-200mm VR and the 105 micro...

And it seems if canon comes out with a new version of the 5d it will be in the price range of the d3 and that is way out of my budget. I would rather not buy two bodies if I am not really going to be able to tell the difference between the two...however if I will be able to tell the difference then it will be worth it to me...such a dilemma:cry

SavedByZero

I think you're over thinking the process of picking a camera to use.

Moogle Pepper

Well you can borrow those bodies at the vendors that frequent here: glass and gear and/or borrowlenses to try those bodies to see for yourself which one you would prefer. And check out the image quality yourself!

if you already have nikon gear.. why not stay? Unless you have some seriously compelling reasons to join us canonites.

LiquidAir

I take it you already have the D300 and you are considering a 5D for night photography. Comparing long exposure noise between cameras is a much easier task than an overall comparison between bodies.

What kind of exposure time are you thinking of? I have done a lot twilight work with the 5D in the 20-30 second range, but not much longer. If you have an idea of what kinds of exposure times you are interested in, I'll happily go out and shoot a few test shots with my 5D for you to look at.

LiquidAir

BTW, if you are looking for a lens for landscapes with a 5D, the 17-40/4L is fine lens and looks good into the corners when stopped down on a tripod (I usually shoot landscapes at f/11 which is the diffraction limit on a 5D).

Alternately I believe all Nikon full frame lenses can be mount adapted for use on a 5D if you can live without auto focus (which isn't really all that useful for night photography anyhow). You can mount adapt either the Nikon 17-35 or the beautiful new Nikon 14-28 to a 5D and have a lens you can use on both cameras. Check this out if you are interested in mount adapting Nikon lenses to a Canon body: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ Also, the 5D offers easily replaceable focusing screens and there are several options available if you want better manual focusing.

BPerron

SavedByZero wrote:

I think you're over thinking the process of picking a camera to use.

I do not quite understand how I am over thinking this...I considering drop 2-4k on a camera and that is not with out a 1-2k lens...So I would rather not throw darts and see what I come up with.

BPerron

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Well you can borrow those bodies at the vendors that frequent here: glass and gear and/or borrowlenses to try those bodies to see for yourself which one you would prefer. And check out the image quality yourself!

if you already have nikon gear.. why not stay? Unless you have some seriously compelling reasons to join us canonites.

I might give this idea a try...the only piece of nikon gear I own is a d40 body and a 18-200vr lens, which is not good for landscapes...so not to much nikon gear...

Also I think I was not clear in what I want...I am either considering getting both a 5d and a nikon d300 or just getting a d300 and calling it a day...

BPerron

LiquidAir wrote:

I take it you already have the D300 and you are considering a 5D for night photography. Comparing long exposure noise between cameras is a much easier task than an overall comparison between bodies.

What kind of exposure time are you thinking of? I have done a lot twilight work with the 5D in the 20-30 second range, but not much longer. If you have an idea of what kinds of exposure times you are interested in, I'll happily go out and shoot a few test shots with my 5D for you to look at.

No I do not have a d300...I want a much better camera for taking all the everyday stuff I take hand held and I also want a camera to take night landscape stuff...I will get a d300 no matter what, I am just wondering if I should get the 5d in addition to the d300 for a dedicated landscape night stuff...I am just wondering if I will be missing something with the 5d if I decide to only by the d300. And wondering which I would rather purchase first if I do decide to get both..I am sorry I do not make this very clear...

As for the kind of exposure no more then 20 second shots...

BPerron

LiquidAir wrote:

BTW, if you are looking for a lens for landscapes with a 5D, the 17-40/4L is fine lens and looks good into the corners when stopped down on a tripod (I usually shoot landscapes at f/11 which is the diffraction limit on a 5D).

Alternately I believe all Nikon full frame lenses can be mount adapted for use on a 5D if you can live without auto focus (which isn't really all that useful for night photography anyhow). You can mount adapt either the Nikon 17-35 or the beautiful new Nikon 14-28 to a 5D and have a lens you can use on both cameras. Check this out if you are interested in mount adapting Nikon lenses to a Canon body: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ Also, the 5D offers easily replaceable focusing screens and there are several options available if you want better manual focusing.

If I get both, I would rather get the specific lenses just to have auto-focus for what ever reason...

Moogle Pepper

BPerron wrote:

I might give this idea a try...the only piece of nikon gear I own is a d40 body and a 18-200vr lens, which is not good for landscapes...so not to much nikon gear...

Also I think I was not clear in what I want...I am either considering getting both a 5d and a nikon d300 or just getting a d300 and calling it a day...

Hey, if you have the disposable money... then why not?

Cause unless you are only going to stick with one, or two at the most, lenses per system body, I think it is more logical with sticking with one system. The D300, since you have the D40. You can use the D40 as a backup body.

LiquidAir

BPerron wrote:

If I get both, I would rather get the specific lenses just to have auto-focus for what ever reason...

One thing to consider is that the wide end of the 17-40 will likely look better on the 5D than any 11mm lens you can buy for the D300, so if you are into hyperwide landscapes I think you'll be happier with the 5D even in the daytime.

That said, after reading reviews of the Nikon 14-28, I buy it and mount adapt it to my 5D in a heartbeat if it was in my budget; however its an $1800 lens which is, to say the least, holding me back a bit.

SavedByZero

BPerron wrote:

I do not quite understand how I am over thinking this...I considering drop 2-4k on a camera and that is not with out a 1-2k lens...So I would rather not throw darts and see what I come up with.

Based on what you've posted you have pretty much stated you want the Canon 5D. So get it.

BPerron

SavedByZero wrote:

Based on what you've posted you have pretty much stated you want the Canon 5D. So get it.

I want it, if it will make sense and produce a much better picture, if it is arguable that it produces a much better photo, then i will not waste the money...

BPerron

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Hey, if you have the disposable money... then why not?

Cause unless you are only going to stick with one, or two at the most, lenses per system body, I think it is more logical with sticking with one system. The D300, since you have the D40. You can use the D40 as a backup body.

The money could go to other things, trust me I can find a way to spend 2,400 bucks , but again i am not deciding between the nikon and the 5d, I am deciding on if I should get the 5d or if the d300 will give me very similar photos to the 5d and if I want to spend an extra 2,100.00 on the 5d to have it in my aresnal....

BPerron

LiquidAir wrote:

One thing to consider is that the wide end of the 17-40 will likely look better on the 5D than any 11mm lens you can buy for the D300, so if you are into hyperwide landscapes I think you'll be happier with the 5D even in the daytime.

That said, after reading reviews of the Nikon 14-28, I buy it and mount adapt it to my 5D in a heartbeat if it was in my budget; however its an $1800 lens which is, to say the least, holding me back a bit.

Super wide is nice, but not a deal breaker...to me like having heated mirrors on my car...

What I care about most is a super sharp and clear picture...:-)

Tee Why

I read your original post and it seems like you already have a Nikon body with a 18-200VR and 105mm macro and are interested in doing tripod night shooting and some handheld daytime stuff.

You're wondering if you should get both a 5D and upgrade to a D300 for night time tripod shoot and handheld day time shooting, respectively.

Looking at your gallery, I see mainly abstract indoor shots and some tripod nighttime shots.

If you are shooting night time stuff on a tripod, I take it that you are shooting at ISO 100 or the lowest possible ISO? If so, if you shoot in RAW at lowest ISO possible, properly expose the shot, and properly process the shot, I'd seriously doubt you'd see any real difference in prints the size most would make. Same would be the case if you shoot outdoor in daytime handheld, especially if you can keep the ISO low with fast lenses.

Where the 5D would be better than the Nikon D300 is when shooting at high ISO such as over 400 IMO.

Rather than buying a $2000 5D and a $1800 D300 and a set of lenses for each, IMO you would be much better off getting a D300 (not sure if you even need to upgrade the body) a really good tripod (if you already don't have one), a really nice ultra wide angle lens, and maybe a fast lens or two.

I think great lens, leaning lighting, exposure, composition, and good processing skills will make a huge difference rather than 5D or a D300. This may not be the answer you are looking for but gear/body does not make that much of a difference as the shooter's skills and a proper lens. I would venture to say that any current dslr with a decent lens in the proper hands would produce top notch prints of at least 16x20 size.

BPerron

Tee Why wrote:

I read your original post and it seems like you already have a Nikon body with a 18-200VR and 105mm macro and are interested in doing tripod night shooting and some handheld daytime stuff.

You're wondering if you should get both a 5D and upgrade to a D300 for night time tripod shoot and handheld day time shooting, respectively.

Looking at your gallery, I see mainly abstract indoor shots and some tripod nighttime shots.

If you are shooting night time stuff on a tripod, I take it that you are shooting at ISO 100 or the lowest possible ISO? If so, if you shoot in RAW at lowest ISO possible, properly expose the shot, and properly process the shot, I'd seriously doubt you'd see any real difference in prints the size most would make. Same would be the case if you shoot outdoor in daytime handheld, especially if you can keep the ISO low with fast lenses.

Where the 5D would be better than the Nikon D300 is when shooting at high ISO such as over 400 IMO.

Rather than buying a $2000 5D and a $1800 D300 and a set of lenses for each, IMO you would be much better off getting a D300 (not sure if you even need to upgrade the body) a really good tripod (if you already don't have one), a really nice ultra wide angle lens, and maybe a fast lens or two.

I think great lens, leaning lighting, exposure, composition, and good processing skills will make a huge difference rather than 5D or a D300. This may not be the answer you are looking for but gear/body does not make that much of a difference as the shooter's skills and a proper lens. I would venture to say that any current dslr with a decent lens in the proper hands would produce top notch prints of at least 16x20 size.

You nailed everything on the head...

Yes I was shooting on a tripod at the lowest iso, which is 200 on my d40...

So you truly believe that if I invested in a a really good wide angle lens I can achieve the same results shooting on my d40 body shooting in RAW?

this is all very interesting...I just did not think it was possible to achieve results of that sort with my d40 body...I would love to hear further input on this...

Thanks to you and everyone who has responded to this thread...

Tee Why

Nikon D40 has a 6MP CCD sensor, which is very clean and relatively noise free.

If you are shooting at ISO 200 at night, I'd expect the noise level to be pretty darn low if the image is properly exposed.

Having said that, the D40 cannot AF with some Nikon lenses and at 6MP, you may stretch things to print at bigger than 8x12 at 300dpi or 11x14 at 200dpi.

If it was me, I'd get either a Nikon 12-24 or a Sigma 10-20 and see. Unless you are planning to print bigger, I'd say that an ultrawide is all you need. You don't need speed if you are doing landscape stuff, so you don't need superfast AF or 8fps or what not IMO. If you do intend to print at 16x20 or bigger, then I'd upgrade to a D300. For looking at images on an LCD monitor, 6MP is much more than enough. Save your money and put it towards a nice monitor calibrator and an inkjet printer and make some prints as well, if you aren't doing this already.

For day time stuff, I'd probably go with a nice fast prime or a zoom. What lens would depending on what you like to shoot.
And yes, I do think the D40 in the proper hands is more than capable of taking top notch landscape shots and other slower paced photography. I heard that National Geography made all it's photog shoot for an entire issue with entry level dslr and consumer grade lenses and they were all surprised by the quality of it's images.

I personally have shot with and owned Canon 300D, 350D, 400D, 30D, 1D Mark IIN, 5D (borrowed, not owned) and can honestly tell you that the biggest variable making the biggest difference was me and the lens.

BPerron

Tee Why wrote:

Nikon D40 has a 6MP CCD sensor, which is very clean and relatively noise free.

If you are shooting at ISO 200 at night, I'd expect the noise level to be pretty darn low if the image is properly exposed.

Having said that, the D40 cannot AF with some Nikon lenses and at 6MP, you may stretch things to print at bigger than 8x12 at 300dpi or 11x14 at 200dpi.

If it was me, I'd get either a Nikon 12-24 or a Sigma 10-20 and see. Unless you are planning to print bigger, I'd say that an ultrawide is all you need. You don't need speed if you are doing landscape stuff, so you don't need superfast AF or 8fps or what not IMO. If you do intend to print at 16x20 or bigger, then I'd upgrade to a D300. For looking at images on an LCD monitor, 6MP is much more than enough. Save your money and put it towards a nice monitor calibrator and an inkjet printer and make some prints as well, if you aren't doing this already.

For day time stuff, I'd probably go with a nice fast prime or a zoom. What lens would depending on what you like to shoot.
And yes, I do think the D40 in the proper hands is more than capable of taking top notch landscape shots and other slower paced photography. I heard that National Geography made all it's photog shoot for an entire issue with entry level dslr and consumer grade lenses and they were all surprised by the quality of it's images.

I personally have shot with and owned Canon 300D, 350D, 400D, 30D, 1D Mark IIN, 5D (borrowed, not owned) and can honestly tell you that the biggest variable making the biggest difference was me and the lens.

at this point I do not think I will be making prints above 8x10...looks like I will get the 12-24 and see where that takes me and then at some point upgrade to the d300...I really like the versatility of my 18-200mm, so I might just stick with that and get the 12-24 lens...

Thanks for you help...

Tee Why

Ultrawide is a great lens to get for city/landscapes. Go slow and work more on your composition and processing skills. Once you find that the gear is limiting you from getting a shot, upgrade, otherwise save your moeny toward lenses. I personally use a Sigma 10-20mm for that and Sigma 20mm f1.8 for handheld nightshots.

LiquidAir

TeeWhy is right that it all comes down to how large you want to print. You can chase down the "sharpest possible" rat hole as long as you want and never reach the bottom of it. You really have to decide how sharp is sharp enough and design your system to match. If you want to print 20x30 (and you are as picky as I am--not everyone is), you may need to worry about the differences between a 5D and a D300. If you think your largest print is going to be 12x18, then you won't be able to tell the difference.

LiquidAir

BPerron wrote:

at this point I do not think I will be making prints above 8x10...looks like I will get the 12-24 and see where that takes me and then at some point upgrade to the d300...I really like the versatility of my 18-200mm, so I might just stick with that and get the 12-24 lens...

Thanks for you help...

TeeWhy got me curious so I took a peek at your galleries. One suggestion I have for your night photography is stop down. Unless there is a specific DoF issue I need to deal with, I usually target f/11 when my camera is on a tripod; given the resolution and sensor size of the D40, that's a good target for you too. Exposure times end up being long, often in the 30-60 second range (which may require bulb mode on your camera), but with good technique and a sturdy tripod you can get excellent results this way under many conditions.

ziggy53

BPerron,

Tee Why and LiquidAir are giving you great advice. Practice and improve your technique first, adding lenses as you need. You might need to upgrade your body at some point, but I think there is still a considerable amount you can do with your existing camera.

zafar

Hi

I believe that the comparison between the two systems should not just be based on availability of lenses but also on a few more things. e.g. Color rendering, Focus performance, Metering performance, and ISO.

In my little expereicne D300 overexposed in Matrix mode, but does have +/- 5 stops of compensation (vs. +/- 2 stops in canon). D300 has more focus points but is slow in locking focus even with just the center point selected.

The color rendering (both jpeg and raw) could also be different between the two and you should make sure that you are getting the colors to match your style (in some cases it is very difficult to adjust the tone to your liking if you start from a wrong point). I think that Canon tends to redden/warm the images a little too much sometme destroying neutral tones (e.g. skin, rocks). I have not used Nikon enough to comment about this.

Although at low ISO both cameras have invisible noise, if you do significant post processing (specially manipulating levels), the images from 5D will turn out better because of ultra-low noise levels.

All else being equal one should also compare the usability and other features of camera in which D300 will win hands down.

NeilL

zafar wrote:

Hi

I believe that the comparison between the two systems should not just be based on availability of lenses but also on a few more things. e.g. Color rendering, Focus performance, Metering performance, and ISO.

In my little expereicne D300 overexposed in Matrix mode, but does have +/- 5 stops of compensation (vs. +/- 2 stops in canon). D300 has more focus points but is slow in locking focus even with just the center point selected.

The color rendering (both jpeg and raw) could also be different between the two and you should make sure that you are getting the colors to match your style (in some cases it is very difficult to adjust the tone to your liking if you start from a wrong point). I think that Canon tends to redden/warm the images a little too much sometme destroying neutral tones (e.g. skin, rocks). I have not used Nikon enough to comment about this.

Although at low ISO both cameras have invisible noise, if you do significant post processing (specially manipulating levels), the images from 5D will turn out better because of ultra-low noise levels.

All else being equal one should also compare the usability and other features of camera in which D300 will win hands down.

Good post. Thanks. (And I have been Canonised). I think there are enough differences between the two cameras to warrant the OP's question. And that question has been well answered in this thread. Which differences you go with is a matter of personal taste and/or the design-options which cater more to your needs and priorities. It could also make very good sense to use two brands of camera.

I have a 40D, and I am in the throes of understanding its personality. I suspect my particular camera might have issues - I seem to be finding anomalies in AF behavior, and there appears to be so much more noise in images than might be expected, below ISO 400. A friend has a 10D and I am constantly amazed by the cleanness of images at 100%, including long exposure night shots, it produces. But that is another story, and I might post to ask about these issues if on further testing they turn out to be real.

My choice goes to Canon for feel, efficiency of use, great body-lens system including stunning AF and IS, and images with good tone gradation. My Canon gear is teaching me a lot, including what I might like to do most in photography in the future. Ironically as my preferences develop in this process I might in the future find myself making another brand choice on the basis of those, if such a choice presents itself, instead of or alongside Canon.

Neil

LiquidAir

zafar wrote:

I believe that the comparison between the two systems should not just be based on availability of lenses but also on a few more things. e.g. Color rendering, Focus performance, Metering performance, and ISO.

I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss all the differences between the cameras. There's an abundance of that elsewhere. If you read a bit further into the thread, the OP was asking a very specific and interesting question about night photography. In particular, the 5D is known for having very low noise on long (minutes to hours) exposures. The question is do the lastest generation of Nikon sensors give comperable performance to the 5D for long exposures? For a person interested in tripod mounted night photography (as the OP is), the other issues you bring up are not particularly important.

I think the short term conclusion of this thread a new body is not required for the OPs immediate needs, but I do think this one question remains outstanding.

BPerron

LiquidAir wrote:

I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss all the differences between the cameras. There's an abundance of that elsewhere. If you read a bit further into the thread, the OP was asking a very specific and interesting question about night photography. In particular, the 5D is known for having very low noise on long (minutes to hours) exposures. The question is do the lastest generation of Nikon sensors give comperable performance to the 5D for long exposures? For a person interested in tripod mounted night photography (as the OP is), the other issues you bring up are not particularly important.

I think the short term conclusion of this thread a new body is not required for the OPs immediate needs, but I do think this one question remains outstanding.

This is exaclty correct...I would still really like to have my orginal question answered because there is going to come a time that I will upgrade and I will need to see what I think will be best for my needs...

So if someone could chime in that would awesome...

Mike02

BPerron wrote:

I have been looking over the internet for many, many many days trying to find some comparitive photos between these two cameras and the only one I can find is at Ken Rockwell and that was a 100% crop and at that magnification it would have been 43" wide...So I would like to see some other comparisons of photos with these cameras on more of a everyday aspect in terms of image quality, or even pics that are bigger in size to see if the naked eye can tell the difference...

If any body has any links that would be awesome...

Why do you even ask for a comparison for a full frame FX to digital DX sensor, doesnt common sense answer the question for you?

Whats the difference between 35mm and 4x5? They must be the same, since I havent seen them side by side ;P>

ivar

Mike02 wrote:

Why do you even ask for a comparison for a full frame FX to digital DX sensor, doesnt common sense answer the question for you?

Whats the difference between 35mm and 4x5? They must be the same, since I havent seen them side by side ;P>

Mike, a serious question was asked. If you can't answer seriously, please don't answer.