Canon 5D or Nikon D300?

[Nitro]

I know, not another Canon vs Nikon thread.

I've always been a Canon guy (amateur). I started with the AE-1 about 20 years ago, then the Rebel EOS and now I have a D60. Lately I've been looking to upgrade. I've had my eye on the 5D for quite some time, because of the full frame sensor. I miss wide angle shots. My lenses are outdated also, so I was going to upgrade them too.

I had my mind made up to get the 5D, then it happened. I met a guy who happened to have a Nikon D200 with him. I took a brief look at it, and I was really impressed. I liked the way it felt, and how everything was laid out, much better then the 5D I looked at.

I started doing research on Nikon (not being familiar with their system), and came across their newest body, the D300. Though not yet released, I'm really considering jumping over to Nikon, and pre-ordering it. Also impressive is their 18-200mm lens. That and their 12-24mm, for the wide angle shots I've been missing, is all I need. Well those and the always fun 10.5mm Fisheye.

I have yet to push the button, so I thought I'd get some input from CPF'ers. Any Canon users that switched to Nikon? Anyone considering the D300? Also, anyone have a small sensor Nikon using the 12-24mm lens? I know it's not quite as wide as a full frame using a 14mm, but how does it compare quality wise? I wonder if Nikon will be coming out with a 10-22mm similar to Canon's. That would be equivalent to a 15mm on full frame. Then I'd be sold on Nikon in a heart beat.

Thanks in advance.

[paulr]

The 5D is a full frame DSLR and as such is in a different class than the D300. The right comparison is probably D300 vs 40D. Canon has traditionally been ahead of Nikon in high tech features while Nikon has traditionally been ahead in ergonomics. Nikon has finally announced a full frame camera (the D3) which looks fantastic, but it's a pro level camera costing about 2x what a 5D costs (still less than a 1DS mk II though).

I have a D70 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a good combination. Nikon's 12-24 is good but not great and I decided to pay less and get extra width. Their 14-28 full frame is supposed to be fantastic, like other Nikon professional lenses such as the 17-35. With their midrange/amateur lenses (this seems to include all the DX lenses) they seem to mail it in.

[Nitro]

The 5D is a full frame DSLR and as such is in a different class than the D300. The right comparison is probably D300 vs 40D. Canon has traditionally been ahead of Nikon in high tech features while Nikon has traditionally been ahead in ergonomics. Nikon has finally announced a full frame camera (the D3) which looks fantastic, but it's a pro level camera costing about 2x what a 5D costs (still less than a 1DS mk II though).

I know small frame sensors have a limit on the number of pixels (I don't know what that is though), and don't have as wide of field of view with the same lens. But, what advantages does a full frame have? e.g. Comparing a small frame 10mm lens to an 15mm full frame.

I have a D70 with a Sigma 10-20mm, a good combination. Nikon's 12-24 is good but not great and I decided to pay less and get extra width. Their 14-28 full frame is supposed to be fantastic, like other Nikon professional lenses such as the 17-35. With their midrange/amateur lenses (this seems to include all the DX lenses) they seem to mail it in.

I'll have to look into the Sigma. I really want a wide lens. Too bad Nikon doesn't have a 9mm.

Thanks for the reply.

[Pellidon]

My camera club fiends are either still die hard Nikon fans or switched to Cannon. Mostly those that are Pro or semi-pro have switched to Cannon.

I have an ancient Nikon D-100. I got the upgrade bug but switched to Sony's A-100 and a 11-18 Tamron lens. Lighter camera and there are Zeiss lenses coming soon. I've used the larger Sony and Nikon Z-SLR cameras and found the color interpretation more to my tastes. That meant less tweaking.

Wide angle angle of view like a full frame offers is the only reason I'd consider full frame. File sizes start to bloat and I've not noticed a gain from 7 MP to higher.

[Nitro]

My camera club fiends are either still die hard Nikon fans or switched to Cannon. Mostly those that are Pro or semi-pro have switched to Cannon.

I have an ancient Nikon D-100. I got the upgrade bug but switched to Sony's A-100 and a 11-18 Tamron lens. Lighter camera and there are Zeiss lenses coming soon. I've used the larger Sony and Nikon Z-SLR cameras and found the color interpretation more to my tastes. That meant less tweaking.

Wide angle angle of view like a full frame offers is the only reason I'd consider full frame. File sizes start to bloat and I've not noticed a gain from 7 MP to higher.

I never thought about getting anything other then Canon. I always figured I can't go wrong with them, and they have everything I could ever need or want.

However, seeing the D200 in person, and reading about the D300, I want the D300. The only drawback I see is Nikon doesn't have a 10mm lens. If they come out with a 9mm someday, that would be the same as a 13.5mm full frame.

[geepondy]

I've read that Nikon DSLR's have better exposure and based on my limited experience with my only DSLR, the Canon Rebel 300D, I would agree. I get frequent improperly exposed shots, particularly with flash.

I've also read that full frame sensors are much less forgiving with cheaper glass which makes sense as a non full frame sensor will only use the center part of the lens, if it is a traditional 35mm lens and not one designed specifically for the sensor such as Canon's EF-S lens.

Also aren't the kit lens generally of higher quality with the Nikons?

[Nitro]

I've read that Nikon DSLR's have better exposure and based on my limited experience with my only DSLR, the Canon Rebel 300D, I would agree. I get frequent improperly exposed shots, particularly with flash.

I find the same problem my D60. Exposure is not very consistent either. I thought it was the same issue with all cameras.

I've also read that full frame sensors are much less forgiving with cheaper glass which makes sense as a non full frame sensor will only use the center part of the lens, if it is a traditional 35mm lens and not one designed specifically for the sensor such as Canon's EF-S lens.

Interesting. Full Frames are much less forgiving with cheap lenses? This won't be an issue for me though. I'll be using lenses designed for the smaller sensor.

Also aren't the kit lens generally of higher quality with the Nikons?

I read that also, but again, that won't apply to me, I'll be getting the body only.

[JetskiMark]

The D300 does look very interesting. Have you been to the forums at DPReview? They have a LOT of threads there discussing the D300. I would wait until it's in production and see what actual owners think of it.

Regards,
Mark

[onthebeam]

The Canon 5D will be replaced in the early spring so I'd wait. If you want a full frame sensor camera, Canon is still the way to go since the 5D and it's replacement are a couple thousand less than Nikon's new top of the line camera, which comes out soon. If comparing the D300 with Canon's equivalent, the just released 40D, you'll find 2 extra megapixels for the Nikon, more focusing points, and another $500 in expense. In practical use, the slightly larger file size and extra focus points will not meaningfully effect your pictures.

Also,the 5D has no built in flash, the other cameras do, if that's important to you.

After more than 33 years as a Nikon user, I am switching to Canon.

[Nitro]

The D300 does look very interesting. Have you been to the forums at DPReview? They have a LOT of threads there discussing the D300. I would wait until it's in production and see what actual owners think of it.

Regards,
Mark

I'll check that site out, thanks. I'm most going on the fact it's a successor to the D200, so I can't see it being any worse. The 3" 640x480 LCD alone is worth the extra money to me. I'll have 30 days to check it out. If I don't like it, I'll just return it. Also, it's not expected to ship until Dec. That's already too long.

[Nitro]

The Canon 5D will be replaced in the early spring so I'd wait. If you want a full frame sensor camera, Canon is still the way to go since the 5D and it's replacement are a couple thousand less than Nikon's new top of the line camera, which comes out soon. If comparing the D300 with Canon's equivalent, the just released 40D, you'll find 2 extra megapixels for the Nikon, more focusing points, and another $500 in expense. In practical use, the slightly larger file size and extra focus points will not meaningfully effect your pictures.

Also,the 5D has no built in flash, the other cameras do, if that's important to you.

After more than 33 years as a Nikon user, I am switching to Canon.

I guess my question is, why go with a Full Frame Sensor? It seems lenses are getting short enough to give Small Frame's the same wide angle.

Have you tried the D200? If so, how do you like it?

Why are you switching to Canon?

Thanks.

[nekomane]

Hello Nitro and all,

The D200 has good construction (they are made in Nikon's Thailand factory, no longer made in Japan), well laid out buttons and menus.
Images over ISO 800 get noisy.
I have only seen test shots of a Beta version D3, but if the D300 is close to its big brother, I would not hesitate to say that Nikon has finally got it right this time and gets sharp and low noise images comparable to (or some say better than) Canons.

A full size sensor gives the 5D the advantage of a very wide vision through the optical viefinder. No more cramped frame.

As you know, having a smaller sensor will multiply the focul length by 1.3-1.6 depending on camera, and will cut down on the heavy telephoto gear. But if you are mainly interested in wide angle lenses, having more option on the wide side may be more important.

The Nikon 12-24 produces sharp images, is a small, liteweight usefull zoom for the wide side.
Comparing it to the single length Canon 14/2.8 (excellent lens) may not be fair, but if the 18-200 is also of interest to you, the combination of the 2 lenses can cover a lot and will be about the same price of the single Canon 14mm.
The Sigma 10-20 paulr mentions may be a good option too.

Find further info regarding image distortion if you are going to be shooting architecture, though you should be able to correct it using the software bundled with the body.

If you go with the 5D and are considering the 16-35/2.8, get the newer one (filter size 82mm). The light drops off around the corners on the old one (filter size 77mm). Of course, some people like that effect, but just to warn you, it really shows on a full frame 5D image.

Since you were a long time Canon user, you may need to adjust operating the zoom and manual focus ring on the Nikons. They turn oppsite from Canon. I'm still zooming out when I want to shoot tighter

I've been using Nikon (F3-5, F100-D200, D1-D2Hs etc) for over 20 years and just switched to Canon(MkIII, 40D) less than 6 months ago. Canon has excellent image quiality, but operation is cumbersome , speedlight is unreliable, and being unable to take total, full control (the camera thinks its smarter than you) is annoying. If only I had known the D3 was coming...

Hope this helps.

[onthebeam]

I guess my question is, why go with a Full Frame Sensor? It seems lenses are getting short enough to give Small Frame's the same wide angle.

Have you tried the D200? If so, how do you like it?

Why are you switching to Canon?

Thanks.

Mainly because the pro market was ignored by Nikon for far too long. Several of their cameras have had backfocusing problems and the Canon lenses, which were always better in the telephoto range, and top notch in the wide angles now too.

As Nekomane pointed out, the D200 was quite noisy over EI 200. Their new sensor for the D300 and D3 models has supposed to get a handle on this. Pros like full frame sensors to get fast speed on very wide lenses, particularly being able to shoot in available light at f 2.8.

You can buy a nice 17-55 f 2.8 Canon lens made only for the 1.6 sensor cameras but when you multiply 17 x 1.6 it's really not that wide. The image stabilization is nice though.

Pros love the 5D but it's not weather sealed well and isn't suited well to sports either. And, no built in flash, if that matters. I like to do fill flash with the little flash dialed down to put out less light.

The 40D is actually a better sports camera since it has a faster burst rate and the 1.6 multiplier is helpful in most sports situations. The viewfinders on the 1.5 multiplier Nikons and 1.6 Canons are getting better all the time--less tunnel vision. But, if you look at a 5D, you feel like you are back to a big crisp viewfinder like the film cameras we all used to love.

Still, even though the 5D has just dropped to $2300, wait for the 6D, 7D or whatever they'll call it. In the digital game, you don't want more than 2 year old technology.

Nekomane, I knew you were a flashlight engineering master, but didn't know you were also a long term Nikon shooter, too! Are you in Thailand or Hong Kong? What strobe problems are you experiencing? The 580 EX II should take care of that. . .

[Nitro]

Hello Nitro and all,

The D200 has good construction (they are made in Nikon's Thailand factory, no longer made in Japan), well laid out buttons and menus.
Images over ISO 800 get noisy.
I have only seen test shots of a Beta version D3, but if the D300 is close to its big brother, I would not hesitate to say that Nikon has finally got it right this time and gets sharp and low noise images comparable to (or some say better than) Canons.

A full size sensor gives the 5D the advantage of a very wide vision through the optical viefinder. No more cramped frame.

As you know, having a smaller sensor will multiply the focul length by 1.3-1.6 depending on camera, and will cut down on the heavy telephoto gear. But if you are mainly interested in wide angle lenses, having more option on the wide side may be more important.

The Nikon 12-24 produces sharp images, is a small, liteweight usefull zoom for the wide side.
Comparing it to the single length Canon 14/2.8 (excellent lens) may not be fair, but if the 18-200 is also of interest to you, the combination of the 2 lenses can cover a lot and will be about the same price of the single Canon 14mm.
The Sigma 10-20 paulr mentions may be a good option too.

Find further info regarding image distortion if you are going to be shooting architecture, though you should be able to correct it using the software bundled with the body.

If you go with the 5D and are considering the 16-35/2.8, get the newer one (filter size 82mm). The light drops off around the corners on the old one (filter size 77mm). Of course, some people like that effect, but just to warn you, it really shows on a full frame 5D image.

Since you were a long time Canon user, you may need to adjust operating the zoom and manual focus ring on the Nikons. They turn oppsite from Canon. I'm still zooming out when I want to shoot tighter

I've been using Nikon (F3-5, F100-D200, D1-D2Hs etc) for over 20 years and just switched to Canon(MkIII, 40D) less than 6 months ago. Canon has excellent image quiality, but operation is cumbersome , speedlight is unreliable, and being unable to take total, full control (the camera thinks its smarter than you) is annoying. If only I had known the D3 was coming...

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the info. Very informative.

However, why buy a Full Frame sensor? When lenses get shorter i.e. 9, 10mm, small frame's will be just as wide. Am I missing something?

Also, the D300's view finder has the same wide angle, 100% of the image.

[Nitro]

Mainly because the pro market was ignored by Nikon for far too long. Several of their cameras have had backfocusing problems and the Canon lenses, which were always better in the telephoto range, and top notch in the wide angles now too.

As Nekomane pointed out, the D200 was quite noisy over EI 200. Their new sensor for the D300 and D3 models has supposed to get a handle on this. Pros like full frame sensors to get fast speed on very wide lenses, particularly being able to shoot in available light at f 2.8.

You can buy a nice 17-35 f 2.8 Canon lens made only for the 1.6 sensor cameras but when you multiply 17 x 1.6 it's really not that wide. The image stabilization is nice though.

Pros love the 5D but it's not weather sealed well and isn't suited well to sports either. And, no built in flash, if that matters. I like to do fill flash with the little flash dialed down to put out less light.

The 40D is actually a better sports camera since it has a faster burst rate and the 1.6 multiplier is helpful in most sports situations. The viewfinders on the 1.5 multiplier Nikons and 1.6 Canons are getting better all the time--less tunnel vision. But, if you look at a 5D, you feel like you are back to a big crisp viewfinder like the film cameras we all used to love.

Still, even though the 5D has just dropped to $2300, wait for the 6D, 7D or whatever they'll call it. In the digital game, you don't want more than 2 year old technology.

Nekomane, I knew you were a flashlight engineering master, but didn't know you were also a long term Nikon shooter, too! Are you in Thailand or Hong Kong? What strobe problems are you experiencing? The 580 EX II should take care of that. . .

I can see pros wanting Canon's for the telephoto lenses. However, I'm not a pro, nor will I need a LARGE telephoto lens.

I hate to sound like a broken records but, will Full Frames eventually be replaced by Small Frames, after 9mm lenses come out?

[onthebeam]

In my opinion, you'll be seeing more full frame sensors coming out. They are definitely not disappearing. In fact, Nikon has finally announced their first full frame camera, the D3.

The next will probably be Sony branded. I'd suggest playing with both the 40D and 5D, as well as a Nikon D200 and you may sense the advantages of the full frame sensor. Honestly, for most shooters, the 40D is all you need. It's far superior to the Nikon D200.

It's possible the D300 may leapfrog the 40D slightly, for another $500 and with features you probably don't need, such as more focus points and a 12 megapixel sensor, as opposed to 10. Up until now the Canons have been superior at noise reduction. Rumor is that Nikon is finally catching up, thanks to Sony-built technology.

[nekomane]

oops I did not know the D300 uses a full size sensor. I've been trying hard to ignore it since switching to Canon ;(
That means you will not be able to use the 12-24 which is designed for the smaller DX format. Sorry for the mistake.

However, why buy a Full Frame sensor? When lenses get shorter i.e. 9, 10mm, small frame's will be just as wide. Am I missing something?

....... but, will Full Frames eventually be replaced by Small Frames, after 9mm lenses come out?

onthebeam explained it better than me.

...........
The viewfinders on the 1.5 multiplier Nikons and 1.6 Canons are getting better all the time--less tunnel vision. But, if you look at a 5D, you feel like you are back to a big crisp viewfinder like the film cameras we all used to love.

You'll just see so much more through the view finder of a full size sensor camera. I don't know the details of how this is done, but if you have a chance to compare and look through the viewfinder of the 5D and a x1.3 or x1.6 camera, you should feel the difference (especially on a wide angle lens).

Other than that, as long as sensor manufacturing costs keep dropping, I cannot think of other reasons the camera makers need to stick to the smaller format.

Regarding the 9mm you are after, I think the Nikon 10.5 is the widest you will see.
I'm no expert on optical engineering, but is such an extreme wide lens possible, or are they really necessary?

In the early years of digital cameras, full sized sensors were much more expensive and the camera manufacturers reorganized the lineup of lenses to accomodate the smaller format instead of making expensive bodies.
Thanks to this, there is now a vast option of wide angle lenses (especially zooms) you can choose from. Back in the film days, in my field, a 20mm lens was considered extremely wide and did not see general use.

If the full frame sensor becomes mainstream, I doubt the camera makers will need to introduce lenses other than what they already had in the 35mm era (24 20 18 16fisheye 8fisheye etc) or make such extreme lenses for the smaller format.

............
Are you in Thailand or Hong Kong? What strobe problems are you experiencing? The 580 EX II should take care of that. . .

Nice to see you around I'm in Tokyo.
The 580EX II is said to be better than the older one, but I still get inconstistent/underexposed images with distant subjects (around 20meters) using a 70-200. Charge is slow on Alkalines too. But this is all in comparison to the Nikon SBs I've used, and the highISO/low noise images do compensate for lack of artificial lighting.

EDIT 2009: The D300 was not as good as expected. Get the D700.

[Nitro]

I'm no expert, but I don't see why camera makers will go to Full Frames in the future. They're bigger, slower, more expensive, etc. It's like making computer chips larger instead of smaller. I see lenses getting wider instead, i.e. 9mm. But I could be wrong.

FYI, the D300 has a Small Frame Sensor (DX), but the viewfinder has 100% Frame Coverage, just like the Full Frame camera's. Also, I read on another forum, someone actually played with a Demo D300. He said based on his observations it was 1-1.3 stops better in noise over the D200. I don't know how accurate that is, but it sounds promising.

[Yenster]

I have a 5D and really like it. I think smaller sensors can work well so long as there's lens that are designed for it...and there's a lot out there that are. However, there doesn't seem to be a good fisheye designed specifically for 1.6 cropped sensors. And most of the L telephoto lens are still designed for full 35mm frames. Also macros...hmm...I guess that's the main reason for full frame sensors...there're more lens designed for it.

[paulr]

Older 1/1.6 cropped cameras had narrow viewfinders because they were adapted versions of 35mm film SLR's and the viewfinders were still set up for 24x36mm but masked off. More recent DSLR's including the D80/D200/D300 fix this problem. However, the cameras still use the same lens mount as the old 35mm film cameras, which in particular means the lenses are made for the same (larger) clearances between the mount and imaging plane as for the old cameras. That means to get the same angle of view as a full frame 50mm "normal" lens, you have to go to a 30mm or so focal length, apparently requiring a wideangle design even if you're covering just the smaller 1.6 sensor area. The flange-to-sensor distance was designed for 24x36mm and is mismatched to the smaller sensor, which puts some cramps into the possible lens choices. This wouldn't apply to (for example) the Olympus 4/3 system, where the whole mount has been designed from scratch so they can bring the lenses closer to the sensor.

The full frame sensors also have the advantage of simply being bigger, so they can collect more total photons from the same exposure at the same f/number. That's why the 5D and D3 perform better at high ISO than small sensor cameras. This article explains the effect:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/

[Nitro]

I have a 5D and really like it. I think smaller sensors can work well so long as there's lens that are designed for it...and there's a lot out there that are. However, there doesn't seem to be a good fisheye designed specifically for 1.6 cropped sensors. And most of the L telephoto lens are still designed for full 35mm frames. Also macros...hmm...I guess that's the main reason for full frame sensors...there're more lens designed for it.

That makes sense. I just really think(hope) eventually there will be just as many Small Frame lenses with the same FL options as the Full Frame's.

[nekomane]

One benefit of a larger sensor is that you can receive more light on the chip.
Comparing a DX size (23.6x15.8mm) 10MP sensor and a Full Size (36x24mm) sensor, each chip has the same pixels, but each pixel in the larger sensor is bigger and can receive more light, resulting in less noise at higher ISO levels.

A few years back when the Nikon D1 was introduced, Nikon sounded as if they would never go full size.
But a 'few years' in digital imaging is a very long time, and now the D3 is announced.

Perhaps both formats can co-exist. One for expensive top of the line models, and another cost effective smaller format.

.......FYI, the D300 has a Small Frame Sensor (DX)...

I stand corrected, twice

As onthebeam suggested, I hope you can compare the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. The price tag does differ but you will probably favor the tough build of the Nikon, and if image quality is as good as or close to the D3...

[Nitro]

Older 1/1.6 cropped cameras had narrow viewfinders because they were adapted versions of 35mm film SLR's and the viewfinders were still set up for 24x36mm but masked off. More recent DSLR's including the D80/D200/D300 fix this problem. However, the cameras still use the same lens mount as the old 35mm film cameras, which in particular means the lenses are made for the same (larger) clearances between the mount and imaging plane as for the old cameras. That means to get the same angle of view as a full frame 50mm "normal" lens, you have to go to a 30mm or so focal length, apparently requiring a wideangle design even if you're covering just the smaller 1.6 sensor area. The flange-to-sensor distance was designed for 24x36mm and is mismatched to the smaller sensor, which puts some cramps into the possible lens choices. This wouldn't apply to (for example) the Olympus 4/3 system, where the whole mount has been designed from scratch so they can bring the lenses closer to the sensor.

The full frame sensors also have the advantage of simply being bigger, so they can collect more total photons from the same exposure at the same f/number. That's why the 5D and D3 perform better at high ISO than small sensor cameras. This article explains the effect:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/

Interesting. So it's the mount causing the wide angle FL problem? That makes sense.

Will(can) sensors become more and more sensitive? If so, it really comes down to which size sensor the makers will make standard. Why did they make a smaller sensor to begin with?

[paulr]

Will(can) sensors become more and more sensitive?

Not by much, they are really operating close to the quantum limits already (see the article I linked to). The only way left to get more sensitivity is by collecting more photons, i.e. faster lenses and bigger sensors.

If so, it really comes down to which size sensor the makers will make standard. Why did they make a smaller sensor to begin with?

As with many things it comes down to cost. It's like LCD monitors, the technology needed to make very large ones wasn't available til recently, and the biggest ones are still waaaay more expensive than the next smaller size.

[Nitro]

Not by much, they are really operating close to the quantum limits already (see the article I linked to). The only way left to get more sensitivity is by collecting more photons, i.e. faster lenses and bigger sensors. As with many things it comes down to cost. It's like LCD monitors, the technology needed to make very large ones wasn't available til recently, and the biggest ones are still waaaay more expensive than the next smaller size.

Interesting article. That clears things up a lot.

Another question though. Other size and cost, are there any other disadvantages to Large Sensor Camera's?

[Nitro]

I just read on another forum (so I can't confirm) that a Nikon Rep said the Noise Level of the D300 @ ISO3200 is the same as the D3 @ ISO6400. That's not bad for a small sensor priced at $1800 compared to a full sensor at $5000, assuming it's true.

My problems is, if I buy lenses designed for Small Sensors, what if I decide to go Full Sensor in the future. Decisions Decisions

[paulr]

Another question though. Other size and cost, are there any other disadvantages to Large Sensor Camera's?

Hmm. Some small sensor cameras have finer pixel pitch than the 5D or D3 in order to bag bigger numbers in the mostly-bogus megapixel wars. This is a disadvantage for low light shooting, but in bright light it means you get more resolution in the central part of the picture, for example if you're using a long telephoto lens that you wish were even longer. But that's a farfetched issue for most shooters, I suspect.

I just read on another forum (so I can't confirm) that a Nikon Rep said the Noise Level of the D300 @ ISO3200 is the same as the D3 @ ISO6400. That's not bad for a small sensor priced at $1800 compared to a full sensor at $5000, assuming it's true.

i can believe that. The D3 sensor is 2x as big so it collects 2x as many photons, i.e. one extra stop. Don't forget though that full frame cameras make full use of your wideangle lenses. Think of the fast primes (Canon 24/1.4 or whatever) that were never made in the small format.

My problems is, if I buy lenses designed for Small Sensors, what if I decide to go Full Sensor in the future. Decisions Decisions

Ebay...

[Nitro]

i can believe that. The D3 sensor is 2x as big so it collects 2x as many photons, i.e. one extra stop. Don't forget though that full frame cameras make full use of your wideangle lenses. Think of the fast primes (Canon 24/1.4 or whatever) that were never made in the small format.

Isn't the difference between ISO3200 and ISO6400 one f-stop?

Ebay...

Yup, the answer to all our mistakes.

I'm really liking the Nikon design, but the Full Frame D3 is out of my price range. Unless, I skip the lenses and buy them next year.

I may just bite the bullet and per-order the D300. If I don't like it, I can always return it. Something tells me I'll like it though.

[paulr]

Isn't the difference between ISO3200 and ISO6400 one f-stop?

Yes, that's the point, the D3 collects 2x the photons so it's one stop more sensitive.

I may just bite the bullet and per-order the D300. If I don't like it, I can always return it. Something tells me I'll like it though.

I'm not sure what the D300 really gains compared with the D200 or even the D80, but I haven't looked into it carefully. I figure there will be a lower cost version (D90 or whatever) of the d300 pretty soon. But in my case I think I might hold out for a full frame camera in the D200/D300 price range. The Canon 5D had a $500 rebate about a year ago so everyone thought a replacement was due, but none appeared and the rebate dried up. If the successor is coming next spring I suspect it will be under $2K which will be just a few hundred $ above the d300, and Nikon will have to introduce a full frame D400 not too long afterwards. If I were buying a Nikon now and didn't need MF lenses, I'd probably buy a D50 or D80 while holding out for the "D400". As it is, I think I mentioned I have a D70--it's comparatively obsolete but still definitely functional. I wouldn't see a fancier 1.6x camera as that big an improvement. But a full frame replacement would be basically the last camera--there's not much left to improve within the basic system framework. Large sensor hi-def video is going to send all this DSLR stuff to the junk heap starting in around 5 years anyway, just like digital did to film.

[onthebeam]

The Nikon D70 is a wonderful camera as is the D80. Honestly, it's important to spend a bit less time on the technical details and more on making wonderful, pleasing pix. Although I'm a longtime pro, I'm only in the camera store very occasionally. The camera is just a tool, but I know that's hard to communicate to tool obsessed flashaholics. And I'm a confirmed one of those!

If budget is tight, it's always better to invest less in a camera body and more on top rate lenses.