New dSLR to buy D300 vs 50D

Niether. Wait 2mo and get a D400. Ok - thats just the rumor world, but really, that is what I am doing. I dont need the rig Until April so I am waiting. D300 is due for an upgrade. A fair amount of buzz says it is coming. Your spending a LOT of the setup. D400 will likely cost a little more upon release, but is it worth it for you to wait a month or two to have a new hot-sh!t camera. I would think so. Or wait for all the other guys to upgrade and get a steal on a D300 rig .

But otherwise, GO NIKON!

Niether. Wait 2mo and get a D400. Ok - thats just the rumor world, but really, that is what I am doing. I dont need the rig Until April so I am waiting. D300 is due for an upgrade. A fair amount of buzz says it is coming. Your spending a LOT of the setup. D400 will likely cost a little more upon release, but is it worth it for you to wait a month or two to have a new hot-sh!t camera. I would think so. Or wait for all the other guys to upgrade and get a steal on a D300 rig .

 

But otherwise, GO NIKON!

well same as me, i do not need the rig RIGHT now, as am off to work in the near future for a month or so, so shall be waiting anyway and you never know!

that was one reason for me not to go for the D300 as it was an older camera, granted i know its a lot to do with the glass you put on the front of it, but dont want to buy a camera body and then a week or so later it gets replaced! of course though after its release there is the inevitable waiting period while the tweakers get in there and try to break the thing to see what sort of output it really can give!

ARGGGGH!! decisions decisions.... patience is a virtue...

"Also, the Canon's smaller photosites make it slightly more susceptable to diffraction so small apertures needed for sunball shots damage its IQ a bit more"

 

This is going around a bit, but the Canon forums I read seem to be pretty strong on the idea that the diffraction effects are never so large that you end up with less detail overall, its just a change in where it theoretically starts.

 

I think the idea is the increase in resolution from the extra MP always more than offsets the loss of resolution from the earlier diffraction, its more that the increasing diffraction results in diminishing returns from the increase in MP, it never overtakes it as such to the point where you're actually worse off overall. No doubt I will be corrected if thats incorrect.

 

Otara

Diffraction can limit overall detail. It will never make a 15MP camera inferior to a 12MP but it can make the difference in detail moot. Once that occurs, the 12MP camera may provide better overall image quality if the per-pixel quality is better. This is currently the case with the 50D compared to the 40D and D300 (or so say many testers). It is also the case, BTW, between the D3 and the D3x. If you open up a bit to preserve detail then the lower base ISO advantage will be lost.

If you are shooting at f/22 because the sunball is so bright, then the amount of detail between a 50D and D300 will be much less than if you were at f/5.6. A full frame, base ISO 100 camera (like a 5D2) is a better choice for sunball shots because it can tolerate another stop of aperture for a given level of detail. Too bad it doesn't have the 10-17.

surely if I get a FF body and use lenes that would be same focal length as a 1.6/5 cropped body with shorter focal length then would this not be the same? not sure i understand why shooting FF is a lot more demanding?

Theoretically, you're right. Macro lenses adjusted for (lack of) crop factor will preserve angle of view but you will have a larger, heavier lens and in some cases you will lose a stop of light for autofocus. You will need more macro strobe power and you will lose the apparent magnification of the crop. You may also experience some vignetting. With wide angle you lose the fisheye zoom but gain some useful primes. All in all you have to work harder with FF.

The real reason FF is more demanding is that it is generally higher resolution and that makes the optics harder to cope with. If you consider the D700, though, that's not the case.

Example I have a Sigma 10-20 for cropped and 16-35mm for FF. With the same f number set on each I get more depth of field at a given angle of view with the 10-20. So in many situations where you want good depth of field (UW scenics, 1/2-1/2s etc) the result is achievable at larger apertures (ie smaller numbers) on a cropped sensor. In a way this cancels out the low light capabilities of the d700 to some degree.

Yes, it exactly does! Full frame has better high ISO performance but the sensor requires more light to expose because it is larger. All things equal, these cancel out (no free lunch). The D700 has the most efficient sensor currently available, though, so all things aren't equal.

As has been said before here, it isn't clear why you'd upgrade to full frame without getting higher resolution. The D700 I'm sure is great and Alex enjoyed it when he tested it, but right now I'd go with the 5D2 if I weren't married to Nikon and wanted full frame.

Niether. Wait 2mo and get a D400. Ok - thats just the rumor world, but really, that is what I am doing. I dont need the rig Until April so I am waiting. D300 is due for an upgrade. A fair amount of buzz says it is coming. Your spending a LOT of the setup. D400 will likely cost a little more upon release, but is it worth it for you to wait a month or two to have a new hot-sh!t camera. I would think so. Or wait for all the other guys to upgrade and get a steal on a D300 rig .

 

But otherwise, GO NIKON!

You won't get a D400 in the water in April unless it announces and ships very soon and is compatible with an existing housing. That has happened a few times but is the exception rather than the rule.

"This is currently the case with the 50D compared to the 40D and D300 (or so say many testers)."

Can you give me some links to that? Im not aware of anyone whos given measurable data on 'X image was _worse_ from Y fstop onwards with the 50D vs 40D, let alone it was actually visibly different.

You'd have to have some pretty huge decreases in per pixel detail to offset a 50% increase in resolution, and it just isnt that large a difference in my view.

Me Ive tried F32 with both with my 60mm, manual focus with liveview and remote release and I cant see anything in it, slight increase to the 50D if anything but probably just expectation bias. If there is one, its way beyond what I can do.

Otara

Diffraction can limit overall detail. It will never make a 15MP camera inferior to a 12MP but it can make the difference in detail moot. Once that occurs, the 12MP camera may provide better overall image quality if the per-pixel quality is better. This is currently the case with the 50D compared to the 40D and D300 (or so say many testers). It is also the case, BTW, between the D3 and the D3x. If you open up a bit to preserve detail then the lower base ISO advantage will be lost.

Sorry to disagree mate,

Firstly the megapixel is not the most important factor in image quality. This is almost a myth most people believe in.

Have you looked at the DxO graphics? Do you read reviews? You draw this lines out of thin air.

Second the 50D HAS worse image than the 40D. Canon really stepped on it's toes on this one to say the least, good thing she has a great marketing department!

The D3 x D3x case is NOTHING like the 50D x 40D described, with the D3x being the best (in image quality) DSRL (35mm or APS-C sized) there is today by a good margin.

In fact the only Canon that gets close to the D700, D3 and D3x is the 1Ds MkIII.

On the APS-C sized cameras ALL Canons are behind the D90 (leader), D300, D60 and EVEN the D200 and D40x!!! You just need to click the APS-C sized on the Sensor list at the site...

In all the threads folks seem to continue comparing the D3 and D3X, and the D700 with some future D700X. These are different cameras aimed at different uses / markets. I find this strange as nobody ever compares the 1DSMKIII with the 1DMKIII. Our illustrious WP leader has one of each if I recall, which are used according to the task at hand. It seems pretty clear to me at the moment that Nikon is essentially rounding out their prosumer and professional range. The D3 and D3X are meant to compare to the 1DMKIII and 1DSMKIII respectively. I think it's unlikely that serious sports photographers for example will choose the higher MP cameras (or even a 5DMKII) over the D3 or 1DMKIII. Yes, Nikon was behind, but probably within 6 months if the D700X materializes, you will have two pretty comparable ranges of cameras. It will be interesting to see where Canon will place their 1DMKIII upgrade, but it seems very unlikely that they will raise it to the 21MP mark because then they are very likely to loose one of their largest markets - sports etc requiring speed and high ISO above high MP. At the present time, Canon has clearly lost ground to Nikon in the sports market which they previously dominated, by choosing to emphasize MP in their new cameras. It's fairly certain to me that any new 1DMKIII or IV I guess will try to change that. If Nikon does bring out a D700x, they will certainly outflank Canon by having a D700 and D700x to Canon's single 5DMkII.

Similarly I think Canon has gone with the MP marketing thing for their prosumer 50D; and for those who want to pixel peep, they have probably lost some ground to the D300 in ISO/image quality etc. Is this really important, probably not, because in the end, all the world's a marketing scheme. Another camera which has not received that much attention here on WP but which seems like a pretty awesome UW camera, with sensor specs that surpass anything by Canon in the DX market on DXO is the D90. This is presently the only DX (APC) camera with video, which some folks here are very excited about for UW.

Underwater I think we are starting to see a similar divergence, though this may not be acknowledged by everyone. High MP may be nice if all one is seeking is better and better detail (which goes unused 99% of the time for web and prints under 16x20 lets say), but if we are really going to start seeing new ideas and new stuff in underwater photography then new ways of seeing and creating images I think will be important. As such I still think the possibilities of high ISO, expanding dynamic range, possibly video etc are going to be much more important than any increases in MP.

the d300 is my first dslr so i really can't give you advice. I use a seatool housing and here are some of "my" results. I will have the chance to use it again in a few weeks with Bonnie Pelnar and this is also the camera that she shoots so I hope to learn a lot. Scott

d300picsbonaire

Can you give me some links to that? Im not aware of anyone whos given measurable data on 'X image was _worse_ from Y fstop onwards with the 50D vs 40D, let alone it was actually visibly different.

I didn't say that. I said that reviewers have observed that per-pixel quality was less. I doubt any reviewer has bothered testing the cameras at f/32 but the results can be projected.

You'd have to have some pretty huge decreases in per pixel detail to offset a 50% increase in resolution, and it just isnt that large a difference in my view.

I didn't say "per pixel detail" nor do I have any idea what that is. There is little, if any, increase in resolution from 10MP to 15MP when the aperture is small enough. Even at large apertures the difference isn't 50%, it's 22%. It's only 12% at best between the 50D and the D300.

Me Ive tried F32 with both with my 60mm, manual focus with liveview and remote release and I cant see anything in it, slight increase to the 50D if anything but probably just expectation bias. If there is one, its way beyond what I can do.

Not sure what you are saying, but if you are saying that the 50D isn't an improvement over the 40D at f/32 then that's what I'm saying.

With today's lineup, I'd say Nikon has the better lenses for macro. The 60 and 105VR I find sharper than the Canon equivalents, most probably because they are newer and they are both FX and DX compatible. The Canon 60 is EF-S and the 50mm needs a converter to do 1:1. The sigma 50mm works well but it's not as sharp as the Nikkor 60mm to my eyes. TTL strobe shooting is more easily available to the Nikon due to the N5 pin vs the 6 pin requirement for the Canons. S&S and Ikelite have their own systems but with other makes you'll have to install S6 bulkheads, which are extra usually. For wide angle, the very popular 10-17 is available for both. The D300 has overall better specs than the 50D, the major drawbacks are resolution and price (at MSRP, street will vary drastically).

The biggest hesitation I would have for buying EFS or DX lenses is the future proofing of buying EF or FX lenses. It seems the crop sensors are headed rapidly toward a resolution ceiling. That's why Nikon went to FX, in effect screwing their customers who believed them when they claimed DX was it for them. So buying EF and FX lenses protect you for the next 10 years at minimum, unless Canon/Nikon change their mounts again.

Like quite a few others have suggested, go out and take a few test shots with both cameras and the lenses you'd want to use. You can't do an uw comparison but at least from the pictures you judge for yourself. I doubt you could go wrong with either.

Sorry to disagree mate,

Firstly the megapixel is not the most important factor in image quality. This is almost a myth most people believe in.

Have you looked at the DxO graphics? Do you read reviews? You draw this lines out of thin air...

DXO's standards are a little dubious to me. Their webpages are full of errors on specs for cameras which leads me to believe that their results are going to be similarly error prone. I won't even bother to comment on Rockwell's statements.

Second the 50D HAS worse image than the 40D. Canon really stepped on it's toes on this one to say the least, good thing she has a great marketing department!

The D3 x D3x case is NOTHING like the 50D x 40D described, with the D3x being the best (in image quality) DSRL (35mm or APS-C sized) there is today by a good margin.

In fact the only Canon that gets close to the D700, D3 and D3x is the 1Ds MkIII.

On the APS-C sized cameras ALL Canons are behind the D90 (leader), D300, D60 and EVEN the D200 and D40x!!! You just need to click the APS-C sized on the Sensor list at the site.

When anyone makes statements like that, I always ask for proof. Not some review online which states so, but actual proof in a side by side shoot out. It seems you are taking the DXO ratings as absolute truth. Until their tests are proven so, I'd be careful how much weight I'd given them. I still prefer IMATEST because it's an industry proven app.

Sorry to disagree mate,

Firstly the megapixel is not the most important factor in image quality. This is almost a myth most people believe in.

Have you looked at the DxO graphics? Do you read reviews? You draw this lines out of thin air.

Second the 50D HAS worse image than the 40D. Canon really stepped on it's toes on this one to say the least, good thing she has a great marketing department!

The D3 x D3x case is NOTHING like the 50D x 40D described, with the D3x being the best (in image quality) DSRL (35mm or APS-C sized) there is today by a good margin.

In fact the only Canon that gets close to the D700, D3 and D3x is the 1Ds MkIII.

On the APS-C sized cameras ALL Canons are behind the D90 (leader), D300, D60 and EVEN the D200 and D40x!!! You just need to click the APS-C sized on the Sensor list at the site...

(1) I never said that MPs are the most important factor in image quality. Quite the opposite.

(2) I never said that the 50D was superior to the 40D. I never said anything either way on those cameras.

(3) I never said that the D3x compared to the D3 like the 50D compared to the 40D. I said the D3x advantages are largely negated at small apertures.

(4) I don't agree with your assertions regarding what DSLRs perform the best. DxO is not gospel, like Drew said.

(5) Yes I read DxO but there's no substitute for understanding.

In all the threads folks seem to continue comparing the D3 and D3X, and the D700 with some future D700X. These are different cameras aimed at different uses / markets.

I agree. Nikon pros only have the D3 to compare the D3x to so that's what they are doing. In the long run that's uninteresting. I only brought it up because some experienced photographers have been trying to quantify at what apertures and ISO speeds the D3 becomes preferable to the D3x. Consensus seems to be f/11 and ISO 1600. Some say as low as f/8 and ISO 800 or even 640.

With today's lineup, I'd say Nikon has the better lenses for macro.

When I shot Canon, not one of my Canon macro lenses actually achieved 1:1. Every Nikon macro lens I've owned has exceeded that spec. Not that big a deal but it always irked me. Then there's the 70-180 of course...

I don't take DxO as a religion, but when you see something on the same grounds coming from other sites as DPreview it's kinda hard not to believe in some of it. It doesn't mean every D300 gets better pics than 50D, that depends on who is behind it.

Anyway, those are small differences, but they are there. I guess the only way of getting "proof" is by buying and shooting both.

I don't have the time nor the money, that's why I (like a good number of people) rely on reports from people who uses both systems and specialized reports.

At the present time, Canon has clearly lost ground to Nikon in the sports market which they previously dominated, by choosing to emphasize MP in their new cameras. It's fairly certain to me that any new 1DMKIII or IV I guess will try to change that. If Nikon does bring out a D700x, they will certainly outflank Canon by having a D700 and D700x to Canon's single 5DMkII.

Canon loss ground due to the AF problems it had when the 1Dmk3 first came out. Too many pros had issues with AF and they were enticed to switch when the D3 came out, especially a few agencies which supplies cameras to their shooters. The sea of white lenses is now more often dotted with black lenses with a red mark on the camera but they still have to cover their Nikkors while the Canon guys keep on shooting when it rains heavily. That's the advantage of the newer L lenses.

I'm not sure if Nikon will release a D700x which would kill the D700 sales. I doubt the market for high ISO vs high res is as differentiated as high res vs high fps speed & crop sensor, which is the real comparison betw the Canon 1D series models. 10fps, 1.3x crop, slightly better ISO performance vs 5fps, 21mp, FF. Sport shooters appreciate a little more length in their telephotos. With a depressed market like now, it'd be a bold move to introduce yet another camera to the lineup.

Another camera which has not received that much attention here on WP but which seems like a pretty awesome UW camera, with sensor specs that surpass anything by Canon in the DX market on DXO is the D90. This is presently the only DX (APC) camera with video, which some folks here are very excited about for UW.

The problem with the D90 is that its 720/24p is mjpeg and is worse than even the H.264 1080p from the P&S Canon SX1U. The 4 minute recording time limit is just not useable by any means, no matter how good that sensor purportedly is. Take away the HD video as a joke, then you just have a 12mp that has a very nice feature called D-Lighting. I used it and the DR on the camera is purdy darn good. It's a great little camera but don't buy it for the video function. I considered it for topside SB900 24mm iTTL combo but the 5D2's video is so much better and 21mp is 21mp.

DXO's standards are a little dubious to me. Their webpages are full of errors on specs for cameras which leads me to believe that their results are going to be similarly error prone. I won't even bother to comment on Rockwell's statements.

I agree that DXO may have presumed certain standards and measurements that can be debated; but as long as they are applying similar testing and standards to all cameras, I think they can provide a reasonably objective standard for comparison.

The problem with the D90 is that its 720/24p is mjpeg and is worse than even the H.264 1080p from the P&S Canon SX1U. The 4 minute recording time limit is just not useable by any means, no matter how good that sensor purportedly is. Take away the HD video as a joke, then you just have a 12mp that has a very nice feature called D-Lighting. I used it and the DR on the camera is purdy darn good. It's a great little camera but don't buy it for the video function. I considered it for topside SB900 24mm iTTL combo but the 5D2's video is so much better and 21mp is 21mp.

Sure the D90 video is not up to the same standard as the 5D, I was not comparing them. I'm comparing the D90 here to the 50D for underwater use. (Street price on a D90 body is under $900) Despite the quality and time limitations, I have to admit I've seen some pretty decent video from the D90 on the Vimeo site at least for webstyle presentation and reproduction. For those non-pro underwater photographers who want to dabble in hybrid underwater still and video setups, the D90 may be more attractive than the 50D. (If a video D400 comes out, even more so)

It appears the ergonomic / focusing / housing issues related to using these video capable DSLR's underwater are similar for the 5D and D90, which is the main reason I'm waiting to see what you pros can produce with the 5D before getting too excited.

I agree that DXO may have presumed certain standards and measurements that can be debated; but as long as they are applying similar testing and standards to all cameras, I think they can provide a reasonably objective standard for comparison.

Although DxO analyzes raw data directly (the most meaningful advance they offer), the objectiveness of their results still depends on how they implement that processing. Considering that some people consider color processing in raw converters an art, you have to wonder how objective their color results are. DxO also scales their summary results with resolution and that can lead to confusion when comparing cameras. DxO is clearly striving for objective standards of comparison but you still need to understand how to interpret their results.

I like that DxO attempts to factor in resolution but that is complicated. It is also only applicable when you are comparing cameras with the ultimate goal of producing the same, large size print. How large that print is determines how to scale resolution so no single algorithm works. I wonder if DxO's overly simplistic approach isn't counterproductive considering the confusion it creates.

When I shot Canon, not one of my Canon macro lenses actually achieved 1:1. Every Nikon macro lens I've owned has exceeded that spec. Not that big a deal but it always irked me. Then there's the 70-180 of course...

That's interesting. I only have the 100mm now as with FF, the 50mm Sigma becomes a liability with fish shots. I'll try to see if I get 1:1.

I do find that Canon's L lens lineup is designed to certain markets, just as Nikon is. The weaker macro series is probably because they couldn't get the CSI product placement.

For those non-pro underwater photographers who want to dabble in hybrid underwater still and video setups, the D90 may be more attractive than the 50D.

That would obviously depend on which side of the fence the user straddles on. 4 mins limitation is just too short for any behavior recording, not to mention dealing with Mjpeg. It's a cool thing to have for kicks though. It's too bad the SX1 isn't available in the US. The video and stills from that camera is very nice for a high end P&S.

Another camera which has not received that much attention here on WP but which seems like a pretty awesome UW camera, with sensor specs that surpass anything by Canon in the DX market on DXO is the D90.

If the specs on the DXO site mean anything, the D90 offers great IQ, and is far and away the best deal out there -- completely ignoring the video capabilities. If a D400 comes out and leapfrogs the D90, even by a little in dynamic range, color, high ISO performance etc., I could chill on the FX lust and just spend the money on good DX lenses.

Does seem that the D90 is largely overlooked -- maybe because it lacks the serious camera body, seals etc. Suspiciously lightweight.