Canon 5D or Nikon D300?

[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/imagedetail/does.pixel.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 :shakehead

 

[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 :shakehead

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...

:laughing: 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.

 

[Nitro]

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

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.

According to someone that handled a Demo D300, it as 1 f-stop less noise then the D200. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as a Full Frame D400, I'd hold out for it if I knew it was coming out soon. However, I plan on taking a couple trips, and I'd like to take a new camera. I guess I'll just get the D300 for now (in ~5 weeks), and sell it if/when the D400 comes out in the future.

 

[Norm]

Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
Norm

 

[Nitro]

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!

I know what you're saying. I only spend this much time researching specs before I buy. After I buy, I forget about all the tech specs and have fun shooting.

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

I don't have a problem spending money on quality lenses, as long as I believe they will last me awhile. My problem is deciding which System, Format to go with. If I go Small Frame, I'll want to get SF lenses. But if in the future I decide to go with a Large Frame, I'll I have to buy a new set of lenses.

If I want to go with Nikon, and I if want a camera soon, I have no choice but to go with a Small Frame. I figure I'll get the D300, and a couple lens. Then if/when I decide to upgrade to Full Frame, I'll sell it off as a kit. Hopefully the lenses will retain some value. I'm really liking the D300 though. I'm sold on the 3" 640x480 LCD alone.

 

[Nitro]

Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
Norm

I'm having enough trouble deciding between TWO camera makers. If I start looking at others, I'll never make a decision.

It was easy for me in the past, I always assumed Canon was the best. Now that I handled a Nikon, I'm liking them better.

 

[Nitro]

That D3 is looking mighty interesting. If I keep reading about camera's, I may have to start selling off my lights. :shakehead

 

[Yenster]

Just a suggestion, have you looked at Panasonic they come standard with Leica lens.
Norm

I almost got one of the Panasonics as a bridge camera but they seem to have too much noise. I liked the features, but just like the Leica cameras, they use the same sensor and engine, and both have their share of problems with sensor noise. I finally got a Fujifilm S9100, which isn't bad for a bridge camera, but it's not near the level of true DSLR cameras.

So stick with DSLRs. Nikon and Canon are the market leaders and they're pretty much the same caliber and are very capable tools.

 

[paulr]

According to someone that handled a Demo D300, it as 1 f-stop less noise then the D200.

I suspect the sensor performance is similar and that the lower noise comes from noise reduction software built into the camera. that does make the image look nicer but it actually loses information in the fine details.

 

[Nitro]

I suspect the sensor performance is similar and that the lower noise comes from noise reduction software built into the camera. that does make the image look nicer but it actually loses information in the fine details.

I bit the bullet and pre-ordered the D300. After reading more people's opinion of Demo versions of the D300, and seeing example images comparing it to the D200, I'm convinced the D300 has less noise then the D200 by 1-2 stops.

Comparing the above examples clearly shows the D300 has less noise at 6400 ISO then the D200 has at 3200 ISO. Also, I read the D200 applies some NR even with it disabled, but the D300 does not. So comparing the two with NR turned off is not a fair comparison, in favor of the D200.

Also, I read opinions that the D3 has less noise then the D300 by 1-2 stops. That's 3-4 stops over the D200. So from what I'm reading it's not only the size of the sensor, it's the sensitivity of it also.

 

[nekomane]

Funny I see your decision the day I decided to go back to Nikon after a few months flirting with Canon.

Nitro, as far as I know, the D200 uses a CCD (which IMHO Nikon messed up big time from the D2),
while the D300 uses an outsourced CMOS.

They should be completely different and I hope to see the results.

 

[Nitro]

Funny I see your decision the day I decided to go back to Nikon after a few months flirting with Canon.

Are you getting a D300 also?

Nitro, as far as I know, the D200 uses a CCD (which IMHO Nikon messed up big time from the D2),
while the D300 uses an outsourced CMOS.

They should be completely different and I hope to see the results.

Is the D300's CCD made by Sony? I thought I read that somewhere.

That D3 looks pretty awesome. I just can't justify spending 5K on a body for non-pro use. However, considering I'm upgrading from a Canon D60, the D300 should be a major step up.