Upgrade from nikon d300 to canon 5d markII

Hi,

I am thinking of switching camps. Nikon takes too long coming up with a d700x/d800. So I was thinking to make the jump to the Canon 5d mark II.

Would it make sense??

less noise with 5d mark II compared to Nikon d300

more pixels 21 megapixels ( more detail) compared to 12 megapixels

bigger viewfinder

price is now about 1800,- Euro for the canon, the Nikon will for sure be between 3000,- and 4000,- Euro

1080 video with the Canon

Disadvantage, no Tokina 10-17mm FE for the canon

are there more advantages??

Rob

Hi,

 

I am thinking of switching camps. Nikon takes too long coming up with a d700x/d800. So I was thinking to make the jump to the Canon 5d mark II.

Would it make sense??

less noise with 5d mark II compared to Nikon d300

more pixels 21 megapixels ( more detail) compared to 12 megapixels

bigger viewfinder

price is now about 1800,- Euro for the canon, the Nikon will for sure be between 3000,- and 4000,- Euro

1080 video with the Canon

Disadvantage, no Tokina 10-17mm FE for the canon

are there more advantages??

 

 

 

Rob

Rob,

More importantly you should decide whether you want to switch from DX to FX; there are many threads on this and I would read through them - particularly read what Alex Mustard has to say. The 10-17 is a workhorse in my opinion to have to give up. If you are convinced you need to switch, look hard at the 7D for underwater photography before a 5D MKII in my opinion. I think switching makes little sense either way as both companies just keep leapfrogging each other, unless money is no object and you don't care about switching back when Nikon brings out a camera that briefly upstages the 5DMkII

Rob,

If you do your homework and get your prices down, you won't lose as much as people say you will. I kept a couple of Nikon lenses.

The 7D is probably a better switch due to a whole lot less cash and better video options. It's not as good in ISO as the 5D2 but nothing is at that resolution. The video has 1080/24/25/29.97p and 720/50/60p That's a lot more flexibility than the 5D2 and definitely more than any of the Nikon. The 7D's AF is a tad quicker than the 5D2 but not as quick as the 1D series. I feel it's probably more accurate but I haven't tested it thoroughly to say that, but it locks on faster and searches less. If you shoot high ISO, then the 5D2 is the way to go. If video and 10-17 are more important, then go with the 7D. The 7D viewfinder is very nice. The only disadvantage I see is that the 7D may be an almost annual replacement model like the X0D series, and that just sucks!

Nikon dropped the ball with the D300/3s updates. No increase in resolution and crappy video implementation. It's definitely not worth going there. The D700 replacement, if it follows the D300s, won't have much of an upgrade. I think Canon is wise to put 24/25p into the 5D2 in an effort to extend the abilities of the 5D2. 720p would be great!

If you don't have upgrade fever and can be happy with 18-21mp and a move to Canon, no matter what comes out from Nikon next year or later shouldn't matter. Get what you need + a bit more so you won't need to upgrade as often.

Hi,

 

I am thinking of switching camps. Nikon takes too long coming up with a d700x/d800. So I was thinking to make the jump to the Canon 5d mark II.

Would it make sense??

less noise with 5d mark II compared to Nikon d300

more pixels 21 megapixels ( more detail) compared to 12 megapixels

bigger viewfinder

price is now about 1800,- Euro for the canon, the Nikon will for sure be between 3000,- and 4000,- Euro

1080 video with the Canon

Disadvantage, no Tokina 10-17mm FE for the canon

are there more advantages??

 

 

 

Rob

It does not make sense unless video is your main objective in which case switching to an actual video camera makes more sense. Nikon has a vastly superior AF from what I gather. My guess is that the 5DII would not be able to do many of the shots I have done with the old D2X.

One does have to be VERY patient with Nikon (I am a multi-decade user so know from experience). But when they get around to releasing a new product (not just a temporary refresh) it is usually a winner. Look at their first FF (the D3) vs. Canon's (the 1Ds).

Besides loosing a winning AF you need to consider the cost of a new housing and accessories.

I suspect there will be leaps and strides made with dSLR video in the next few years that will make the current products look lame.

Look at their first FF (the D3) vs. Canon's (the 1Ds).

Tom, I think you are talking about the D3x. The D3 has almost half the resolution of the 1Ds3. The D3x is slightly noisier but has 3mp more.

Rob, the point is to get a list of your priorities and then chose a camera (regardless of brand) that fits closest. While gleaning opinions can give you insights, nothing beats getting what you want. Switching brands is not simple but is rewarding as you get what you want in a camera.

Hi Drew,

I made some quick calculations because I have a lot of Nikon glass. But selling my Nikon glass and buy Canon isn't that expensive, especialy of you buy second hand. I thought it would be a lot more expensive.

I tested the Nikon D700 autofocus against the Canon 5d mark II with both the 105/100 mm macro usm/vr in my local shop. I didnt see much of a difference between them. I think testing at 1:1 makro is the best to test speed of autofocus isn't it.

Drew I don't have much experience in the different video formats. What is the big advantage if you can switch??

Tom if I buy a new camera it doesn't matter what branch I have to buy a new housing either way. Tom did you test the D700/D2X side by side against the 5d mark II. Do you think canons autofocus is less fast???

I just use the 11 autofocus fields of my D300 so I think I will not miss a lot with the focus fields of the Canon.

The other thing is, nobody now what Nikon will come out with and especiallay when will they come out with something new.

I think more pixels ( more detail) and bigger sensor ( better high ISO) and bigger viewfinder should weight up against the loss of the Tokina 10-17mm, what do you think

loftus I think switching D300 to 5d mark II is a bigg leap or isn't it?? I am a nikon photographer for almost 9 years now so I don't switch too much. Why do you think de 7D is a better camera than the 5d mark II??

More opions are welcome

Rob

Hi Drew,

 

I made some quick calculations because I have a lot of Nikon glass. But selling my Nikon glass and buy Canon isn't that expensive, especialy of you buy second hand. I thought it would be a lot more expensive.

I tested the Nikon D700 autofocus against the Canon 5d mark II with both the 105/100 mm macro usm/vr in my local shop. I didnt see much of a difference between them. I think testing at 1:1 makro is the best to test speed of autofocus isn't it.

Drew I don't have much experience in the different video formats. What is the big advantage if you can switch??

 

Tom if I buy a new camera it doesn't matter what branch I have to buy a new housing either way. Tom did you test the D700/D2X side by side against the 5d mark II. Do you think canons autofocus is less fast???

 

I just use the 11 autofocus fields of my D300 so I think I will not miss a lot with the focus fields of the Canon.

 

The other thing is, nobody now what Nikon will come out with and especiallay when will they come out with something new.

 

I think more pixels ( more detail) and bigger sensor ( better high ISO) and bigger viewfinder should weight up against the loss of the Tokina 10-17mm, what do you think

 

loftus I think switching D300 to 5d mark II is a bigg leap or isn't it?? I am a nikon photographer for almost 9 years now so I don't switch too much. Why do you think de 7D is a better camera than the 5d mark II??

 

More opions are welcome

 

Rob

Rob,

I think the decision to switch to a full frame camera from a cropped sensor is the most important decision in this process for you. If I only used my camera underwater I would probably stay with a cropped sensor. The 10-17 is a very important lens for me, many images I have would be difficult or impossible without it; so much so that I use it routinely on my D700 with a 1.4TC, which works but is a compromise. I have used a D3x with a 10-17 which still provides an excellent 12+ MP image. I am really hoping that Nikon releases a 24MP version of the D700 which will then provide me with the best of all worlds. The ability to switch between DX and FX is an unsung advantage of Nikon cameras, that I think will be fully realized with a high MP camera. The reality is that 12MP is really more than enough for most purposes, so being able to take 12-24 MP images with a large variety of lenses, possibly extend the length of my tele lens etc when needed, would be nice. I don't believe you can do this with Canon. I like Nikon for many reasons; including ergonomics and durability. I actually own Canon's that I use in my office and I've had far more reliability issues with the Canon cameras and strobes over the years.

The 7D is a sweet camera. Do I think it's a huge leap over the D300s? No. Will a D400 in a year or so be ahead of the 7D? You bet? It's just the way it goes.

Tom, I think you are talking about the D3x. The D3 has almost half the resolution of the 1Ds3. The D3x is slightly noisier but has 3mp more.

 

Rob, the point is to get a list of your priorities and then chose a camera (regardless of brand) that fits closest. While gleaning opinions can give you insights, nothing beats getting what you want. Switching brands is not simple but is rewarding as you get what you want in a camera.

NOPE, I was referring to their respective 1st FF mods. Re-read my post above. Has anyone compared the IQ of the 1Ds (notice no mark anything) vs the D3 (no suffix either)?

Tom did you test the D700/D2X side by side against the 5d mark II. Do you think canons autofocus is less fast???

Rob

No, as I do not have a D700, nor a 5DII. Nonetheless, it seems ardent Canon fans are saying the AF in the 5DII is crap, even here on WP. I want the best AF for what I do not something dummed down to lower costs. At least Nikon is no using the same AF modules in their 00 series as their single digit series.

To compare AF subjectively is a bit difficult but it is not only testing 1:1, you also want to test it in low light, low contrast situation (the norm for underwater) and with moving subject also. At least subjectively, even from Canon camp, it seems that people tend to agree that Nikon AF is better.

Drew,

is it correct that you own a 5d mark II??

are you happy with the camera and the AF for underwater use???

Rob

No, as I do not have a D700, nor a 5DII. Nonetheless, it seems ardent Canon fans are saying the AF in the 5DII is crap, even here on WP. I want the best AF for what I do not something dummed down to lower costs. At least Nikon is no using the same AF modules in their 00 series as their single digit series.

LOL 5 years of technology gap and you want to compare them? In tech years, that's a lifetime! Are you serious? Processors doubled in speed as did memory etc. If that's your criteria then Nikon is absolutely scraping the barrel with a camera that 5 years too late. I can say that my old 1DsMkII had better resolution than the D3 but not the same DR whereby the 1DsmkII couldn't pull back 1.5 stops of highlights unlike the new 14 bit cameras. And the noise level of the cameras are close up to 800ISO while being 2 years behind in technology.

is it correct that you own a 5d mark II??

are you happy with the camera and the AF for underwater use???

Yes, yes and sorta. I gave up the pro body cameras for travel purposes (as have many others like Eric). Along with it went super fast AF and battery life. I'm reconsidering the 1Dmark IV because of the low light ability of the 1080p and 10fps. My requirements however are not your requirements. I don't focus with AF in video as much as use MF, which is killer on most of today's housing LCD windows due to reflection.

To me it's pretty simple. If 2 cameras performance are close enough image wise but there's a 40+% resolution difference in stills and video (plus more video features) for one camera over the other, I'd choose the higher resolution, better featured camera. I'm also planted in the now. I don't know what camera is coming and I'm not about to wait in hope of features that may or may not be included. I get what is available NOW to satisfy my requirements now. If none of the cameras fit my requirements, then I either wait or change them to suit the cameras available. Either way, it's a simple decision based on my requirements. List your own requirements and then choose the camera that suits it closest.

I've been going through the same decisions and over the last few days I've come to the conclusion that switching to a Canon 7D is the way to go for me.

Rob, just wondering what you do with your photos (publishing, giant prints, loss of image sales, etc etc ?) that is driving you to consider such a drastic change of equipment? Or simply have the desire for new equip?

Hii to all. I have read all topic. Some day ago I have put the same question without great reply.

Now I have tried in depth the d300 's AF and that of 5D MII. The answer is one: The AF of D300 in low light mode with no contrast is much better.

If you try to focuser a black object in low light condition the D300 achieve the focus at first attempt. The 5d Mark II try but not focus. The test is made for more days with different lens in partularly with 105 micro for nikon and 100 macro for Canon.

Thanks to all for coment.

F.

Mike, my reasons for a possible switch are

FX against DX, less noise and bigger viewfinder

I don't think I will loose sales. I shot 2 covers this year with my D300 so my publisher is satisfied. But with 21 megapixels you can crop a little.

1080P video, I used to make some video a few years ago

21 megapixels makes printing 60x 90 cm no problem.

I think Nikon isn't coming out with a replacement of the D700 this year if I have to believe the rumours. Or it will be the same 12 megapixels like D3s

My drive for switching is certainly not my desire for new equipment. I shoot nikon for almost 9 years now.

Red Seadiver. How did you come to your discission switching from D300 to 7D. That isn't much of a jump or is it??

Chelydra. I tested myself the AF of D700 with 105 VR makro against 5d mark II with 100 mm IS L makro in my local shop. I didn't see much difference in AF speed as I was repeatedly focussing on the black Nikon lenshood at 1:1 in low light. That surprised me too because I read al the time that the 5d mark II AF is a pain. The 105 VR was hunting some times. The IS L looked like it was slowing down a bit and then it locked the focus.

Before I make my discission I will do some final testing underwater in the real world.

I think that Nikon's lens hood is a black object but with high contrast for the presence of the inscription Nikon. For my tests I had used a lowerpro lens care black in low light condition... I try to focus in low contrast zone (no inscripion, no lines orizzontal or vertical) and I repeat where Nikon achieve focus Canon fails.

I have tested only with D300 i Haven't now a D700 to try.

Thanks to all

Francesco

Red Seadiver. How did you come to your discission switching from D300 to 7D. That isn't much of a jump or is it??

The only single advantage that I can tell of the 7D over the 300s is the 1040p video implementation. All the subjective testing I have seen on the net shows very little difference in image quality between these two cameras (processed JPEG) even considering the MP difference. In fact the DXO testing which is the only testing that is somewhat objective shows a small advantage of RAW file quality for the D300 (probably not significant) and a significant advantage of the D300s over the 7D. (5 points is considered significant) When one considers that the 7D is about 2 years behind the D300, and the D300s is Nikon's standard interim type upgrade between models, I hardly think Canon has done much more than catch up. Similarly with the MkIV and D3s. (Remember how many photojournalists jumped to the D3 from Canon when it was released). We can expect to see a similar switch in slight one upmanship in a few months when there is a new DSMKIV and and D3xs. The real differences between these cameras in terms of abilities to take amazing images is marginal, the rest is marketing.

The difference between the 7d and the 300s is 4.9 by my maths, less than 1/3 of a stop according to their criteria. So a more correct thing to say would be is its 'almost significant'. As I said in the other thread on the topic, its more marketing games than meaningful in my view.

I cant see why you'd swap from a D300 to a 7d instead of a D300s either, the benefits would be minor at best compared to the hassle of changing systems.

The difference is 4.9 or .

Apparently translates to a 1/3 of a stop. So as I said, the differences are marginal, for anyone to claim otherwise, unless they work in Canon or Nikon's marketing departments, are full of it. (With all respects to Drew)

I challenge anyone to show me an image or a video that one can capture with one system and not the other, and furthermore be able to tell which system was used when challenged to compare in every situation except huge enlargements (even then it could be a D3x instead of a DSMKIV).