Please only people who have used both reply to this. I've read enough "5D is like butter" and "D300 rocks" comments. If you've used both, can you tell me which you prefer, and what you like/dislike about both? Ultimately I will probably end up renting both and see which one I like better, I'm just doing some initial research and looking for opinions at the moment.

We own a D300 (my wife shoots it) and I have processed 5D files.

To me, the benefit of the 5D is that it is full frame. For whatever reason the camera companies have not developed lenses that exploit the cropped frame. Why they have not made the "smaller, lighter" lenses they promised in fast primes instead of slow zooms is a mystery to me.

I think D300 files are as good or better than 5D files. I could be wrong since my processing of 5D files is limited.

Word is that Nikon's wide zooms are better than Canon's. I know from experience that the 17-55/2.8 Nikon is excellent.

So, if you are happy with 2.8 zooms I say the D300 is the better camera. If you prefer fast primes the 5D is better because Canon has the 24 and 35 f1.4 and the 50 and 85 f1.2.

I recently switched from Nikon to a Canon 5D. The only thing I miss is Nikon's ergonomics.

It just made more sense when you needed to switch a setting quick, but once you get used to a Canon, "it's like buttah"

This may help : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...00&show=all

I have shot and owned both so I guess I can reply. Personally, I like the D300 better...here is why.

Better low-light focusing
Faster
- shutter speed response
- AF lock-on
Weather-sealing
LCD Screen

The 5D has the nice full frame sensor but to be honest, I think those that truly love the 5D have not had the opportunity to try a 1D series or even the newer cameras on the market. I would probably take a 40D over the 5D but that is just me. I felt that the 5D was a little slow to lock on, even in daylight. I find the D300 slow now after owning the 1D3 but back when I had the D300, speed was never an issue. However, the 40D is a tad faster in my opinion. So if I was to choose, I would go 40D or 1D because the main reason I sold my D300 was the poor ISO performance. I know Nikon was supposed to have this fixed this from the D200 but all they did was use noise reduction in the camera to smooth the noise. When turning NR off, its only slightly better than the D200.

Just one mans opinion and I am sure no one on here will agree with me!

I am going to partially agree with you!
having used and processed files from all 3 cameras. The 5D files almost always look much better sooc. There's magic in the 5D... yes it does focus poorly in low light, yes it is slow, but the files are just so dang smooth and pretty.

Its really up to your personal preference. The speed of the Mark III and D300 and all other cameras for that matter, just arent big enough pluses for me to give up using my 5D for the bulk of my work.

so how does the 5d focus compare with like the 30d or 20d? i'm trying to trade up to the 5d and I know the benefits of it, but is the AF really a deal breaker?

very similar to both the 20 and 30d, slower than the 40d. and no the AF in not a deal breaker.

I don't know. If you are planning on switching from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon, I think you should be looking at more than just whether the 5D or the D300 is more preferred...

In the under $5k market nothing beats the IQ from the 5D, period. I don't expect that to change until the next version of the 5D.

Mine focuses quite well in low light - much better than my old Mk2n and on par with my Mk3. I shoot a lot more now with the Mk3, but pixel for pixel the detail and color from the 5D is better.

Sorry that's not a direct comparison to the D300, but I did own a D200, D2h and D2x before switching, so I have some idea of the Nikon world. FWIW I think they make better cameras, just not better images.

Oh don't get me wrong, the 5D's files are sweet! My problem is that no other camera that I have ever owned has produced so many out of focus shots. My old 10D did better than the 5D. It isn't a problem with the 5D I had either, its just a problem with the 5D. If you ask most 5D shooters (at least from my experience) they will tell you that they shoot a boat load of images compared to what others shoot...is that because subconciously they know that there will be a good portion of OOF shots? I don't know.

I love the 5D, for most work it is amazing...that includes weddings. In my opinion some of the best wedding photographers in the world still use the 5D, its a sweet camera. For me, its just too slow and to inaccurate and that might be because I like to be fast and never had to shoot back in the days of manual focus only, so I rely heavily on AF.

Thanks for the input guys. It helps a lot. Right now I'm a Canon shooter, but honestly with the stuff that I've bought so far I'll have to buy it again regardless of whether I stick with Canon or switch to Nikon. I bought a Sigma lens, and a Quantaray flash, neither of which are acceptable to me long term. The only loss would be my 50mm 1.4 and I can sell that and not take a huge loss.

I think that given the feedback here it has confirmed my desire to switch. The ergonomics on Canon are a huge problem for me. The way I shoot I would take a slightly lower quality file straight out of the camera that's in focus (D300) over a higher quality potentially out of focus file (5D).

With Photokina coming up in September I plan to wait and see if there are any game-changing product announcements. In the mean time I'll probably rent the D300 to see how it performs first hand.

You will definitely like the D300, no doubt about it. But seriously, before you buy, crank up the ISO in low light (like 1600), shoot a person with a 200mm lens about 50-150' away and look at the file, you will probably puke! The person becomes mosaic looking because of the noise reduction...I never tried this when before I bought the D300, it would have saved me a ton of money. The reason I know this is because I was at a conference here in Orlando and there was a guy on stage for Adobe that I wanted a picture of. I took at picture with my 70-200 VR lens at 1600 ISO and I looked at the picture on screen and I thought, wow, that looks strange, so I took a few more shots and realized this problem. I turned NR off and it was very noisy.

Stick with Canon...shoot the 5D, its sweet or just spend a little more and get a 1D series camera. Heck, rent a 40D...you might be surprised. If you didn't already know, check out Ed Pingol, he uses a 40D. I know photography is all about the shooter and not the camera, but if you had his ability, you can get the same thing.

Hi Matt,

Do you shoot (or want to shoot) RAW or JPG? Not that it matters a whole lot because can easily set the D300 in jpg not to give the over NR look as Mike has described. But if RAW, it matters not at all.

I've shot both and neither is better than the other at everything. These are the things that are important to me and different between the two. For instance I do not shoot at a high frame rate so the D300 advantage over the 5D there to me is mute.

5D
less high iso noise
less DoF at same Aperture
noticable shutter lag

D300
more high iso noise
more DoF at same aperture
no perceivable shutter lag
customizable buttons - LOVE to be able to press and disable flash
better weather sealing

Things relative outside of the body itself

Canon
360 degree swivel on flash
better prime selection

Nikon
better zooms (24- 70, 14-24, 70-200)

I recently switched form Canon to Nikon. That being said I would not have done it to go from a 5D to a D300, I would have waited for the 5D Mk II. I switched because I just could not say no to the D3. My D300 pretty much has a 70-200 hanging off it most the day.

The D3 is my end goal, but if I could afford that this thread wouldn't exist. I need an upgrade... I'm not satisfied with what I'm able to deliver out of my 30D. Not that it's a bad camera, it just can't keep up with me on AF speed and occassionally even fps and buffering. I know that the 5D is slower fps and equivalent buffer, but if the AF was significantly better I could deal with that. What I'm gathering is the AF is only marginally better than the 30D, which makes it a downgrade in my book when factoring in the frames per second.

Sounds like you really ought to check out the 40D as well.

I haven't shot with a 30D (actually I have taken a few shots but not enough to make a solid comparison) but I don't know that the D300 AF speed is going to be enough better to make the difference between the two brands. I shot with D2X bodies before moving to D3s. I shot with a D3 and D300 for a while. The D300 AF was frustrating to me after using the D2X/D3 but my wife went to the D300 from D200 and says the AF and general operation is much faster.

You shouldn't have a problem with the D300 when it comes to buffer and FPS.

My experience with the D300 has been very different from that of Mike Richards. That just goes to show you that other people's opinions will only help you so far. Your best bet is to borrow a 5D and a D300 and shoot them both yourself.

My dad has a 40D. My opinion is it's a good camera because the 30D is a good camera, but offers no compelling reason for me to upgrade from a 30D.



I will (almost certainly) rent a camera before I buy it. The only exception is if Photokina brings a new camera that is so compelling that I buy it before it can be rented. If there's a full frame version of the D300 and no new 5D then this conversation is over as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Canon wil introduce a 5D replacement at Photokina. Unless you really need to upgrade at this moment, I would hold off till Canon (and Nikon) make their pre photokina announcements usually in August.

Back to the original subject, I've owned both camera's and have to say the image quality of the 5D is hard to beat. Yes, ergonomics of the D300 are a little better, but to me, the end result is most important and the 5D delivers that in spades.

Sounds like your mind was made up before you created this thread. I personally think you should shoot the models you are interested, compare the feel to you and compare the files...that should help you decide...not what everyone else thinks.

I did have a bias towards the D300, the opinions above have all but confirmed that it is the right camera for me, based on current availability. I will rent a D300 and put it through its paces before I buy it just to make sure, but I'm expecting based on the feedback here that there won't be any surprises.

Just remember, watch the Noise Reduction. Thankfully you can turn it off. I shoot in RAW so it doesn't matter what you shoot, NR is applied to the RAW files...that is why people into astrology photography are so upset with Nikon.

I would make sure you rent the lenses that you plan on using with the D300 and spend a few days shooting. Everyone is biased towards one way or another. Testing out the equipment yourself will give you the answers you need.

Astrology photography? Is someone taking images of my horoscope? Astronomy is the correct term.... Sorry but I just had to.

HAHAHA, thats what I meant to type...guess that whats you get when you are in a hurry! lol

Hi Matt,

I used to shoot with a 5D and when the D3/D300 was announced I got ready to sell off my Canon gear. (OSP'ers purchased that gear as well).

In brief here is a pro/con list of why I went with the D300

Pros
Feature set
Build quality
Controls
CLS flash
Fast
AF system
Noise levels comparable to the 5D
Weather sealing
The vertible grip is wonderful
It's a Nikon
Price!

Cons
It isn't Full Frame and the D3 was too much money
Shutter is a little louder, but not unbearable


Feel free to ask me anything more specific.

I have both still.

I use the 5D's for wide and fast glass and also for interior shooting (a la 24/1.4; 24tse) and as backups to the D300's.

I got a D3 and a D300 thinking I would use them together. I didn't like the weight of the d3, so I sold it and got more d300's.

I thought then I would use both but in practicality, I don't use the Canon's much now unless its for the shift glass or wide fast primes. D300 offers better everything except for the files appearance and the shallow DOF.

In summation of my experience, the D300s are being used by myself and a second for events regularly. I have started to be more careful of the number of shots I take as the keeper rates are way up. That alone has swayed my perspective.


I prefer the D300'sl and its now been around 6 months.

Matt...so after all my crap talk about the NR on the Nikon, I switched back this week. Don't really want to get into why, but I did and I am quite happy to be back with Nikon. I now have a D300, again! pfft

Did you end up getting one?

I'm a little late to this discussion but if you can afford it I would recommend considering the D700. I've been holding out upgrading and now really like to look of the D3 files. But, at $5,000 it's not a wise purchase right now. So, if the D700 files are as good as the D3 (they should be since it's the same sensor and focusing motor) then the D700 will be my next camera.

Now, this depends on how and what you shoot but what about a D700 / D300 combo?

What about the D700 Matt? That's what I would be going for if you can.

we are going to need a new thread so that the D700 and new 5D can fight it out. hahaha

Old post, D700 hadn't been announced yet. Right now there's no question I'd buy the D700. Can't wait to see the 5D replacement and then I'll make a decision.

rumour has it that the new replacement of the 5d wont be until january! just what id been told :s im eagerly awaiting to either get a mark 3 or the new 5d II. I loved my nikon build and control layout - so practical but hated their lenses, and thats why i changed to canon. I wish you could get a canon with a nikon build and layout, now that would be great.

Rob Galbraith has reported the 40D has focus problems not unlike the 1D Mk. III and IIIs, so check it out very carefully. Galbraith reports that after 14 months, several firmware updates and a hardware update, the 1D/Ds are better but still have some problems.

Just a clarification since this is a board primarily for wedding and portrait photographers.

The 'focus issues' with the 1D3 are limited to bright/hot daylight, AI-Servo tracking and big long lenses.

So... if you don't ever (or very rarely) use a 300mm f.2.8 or bigger lens to shoot moving subjects in broad daylight, then don't worry about it. Really.

Where did he mention 40D focus problems...anyone have a link?

Also, the OP seems to have already made up his mind but the 40D is FAR superior in autofocus than the 20D, 30D, or 5D, especially in low light. It's faster and more accurate. The 1 series is still better, but seriously--put it through it's paces if budget is an issue.

I'm sure the 5D update (if it ever materializes) will have this AF system, or a slightly improved version of it, as well.