Upgrade from nikon d300 to canon 5d markII

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.

 

 

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.

"LOL 5 years of technology gap and you want to compare them?" : Yes, newer does not necessarily mean better. Now I am LOL.

"I can say that my old 1DsMkII had better resolution than the D3": >> Sensor resolution is not everything. If this were true people would have used Kodachrome25 exclusively in their 35mm cameras in the film era (within the production life of KM).

"My requirements however are not your requirements.": >> Key point which is VERY true!!!

for example your video requirements which are presently not relevant to me

"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": >>

AF is a major part of my technique without which I would not have many shots in focus. Absolutely NO room for compromise.

Battery life is a concern for me as I use my camera powered up for extended periods, e.g., 7 hours. I have used over 50% of a fully charged newer model battery (D3 generation) on several shoots.

I have packed two large D2 housings and accessories up a stream, but there are advantages to the larger housing as well (position of the optical axis with respect to the housing bottom)

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.

You have done more to assess AF with two paragraphs than the multiple pages DPR puts out in one of their reviews!! Yes they do a fair job assessing sensor performance though I find most of these comparisons to be irrelevant.

LOL Jeff... was that reply pointed at me?

I'll suggest you take your D700 to a camera store with your favorite lens, say a 105VR and test the D3x. Lock the lens down and use a flash to illuminate and use the same settings on a subject that has fine detail like the surface of a carpet or something. That's the illustrate the point about detail with higher resolution, not just large prints or anything... just pure detail from higher resolution.

As for videos, I'm pretty sure 1080 vs 720 resolution is pretty easy to spot even for lay persons. That is the reason why the Canon 1080p system is being used in Hollywood productions, because it may be hokey aliased, low res H.264 1080p compared to a 2-4k camera. BUT the FF sensor gives a smooth look that holds up well even on a 40ft screen (post done correctly of course). So if hollywood studios like Lucasfilm who can afford to buy ANY camera or lens they want only evaluates Canons seriously after their own tests, and my own observations mirrors their findings, then I'm satisfied I'm not hallucinating.

On the same note, if you are happy with 720p for 5 minutes is as good as 1080p (12minutes per shot) in resolution, then that's great. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that 1280x720 is NOT going to resolve better than 1920x1080. Nor will 12 vs 18/21/24mp. If you read what I've been saying all along, it's pretty much that if images from each camera is pretty close, then I'd choose the higher resolution solution, something even you yourself are waiting for in the fabled D700x.

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 am not surprised at your results. No AF system is going to work well at 1:1. Therefore all cameras will produce similar results, i.e., lousy. In fact the time-tested technique when shooting 1:1 is to adjust the camera position and NOT the lens. This why many bellows units incorporate this adjustment.

How well do the AFs compare when say a 0.5 meter long object (my photographic subject) is passing through the frame within 1 meter of my lens at several meters per second (shooting with a wide-angle lens in low contrast and low light)? This more closely approximates my shooting scenarios. Additionally there are small particles suspended throughout the field of view.

LOL Jeff... was that reply pointed at me?

I'll suggest you take your D700 to a camera store with your favorite lens, say a 105VR and test the D3x. Lock the lens down and use a flash to illuminate and use the same settings on a subject that has fine detail like the surface of a carpet or something. That's the illustrate the point about detail with higher resolution, not just large prints or anything... just pure detail from higher resolution.

How relevant is this test to shooting under water? Under water we are using a compromised optical system not water-contact optics. What is the limiting factor to image sharpness?

No AF system is going to work well at 1:1.

 

How well do the AFs compare when say a 0.5 meter long object (my photographic subject) is passing through the frame within 1 meter of my lens at several meters per second (shooting with a wide-angle lens in low contrast and low light)?

Hey Tom,

Sounds like you need to buy a new 7D. The AF system is much improved and would be perfect for your fish. http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=3049

And I have no problem at 1:1 even with my 40D (but it is a Canon ) Just screw a 500D on the front of my 100mm, locks up at 1:1 every time.

Having fun,

Steve

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

Hey Rob,

It seems your post is creating a pissing contest between Nikon & Canon fans....As the Canon 5D MK II is half the price of the Nikon and you want to upgrade then the Canon is a slam dunk in my opinion.

I would look seriously at the 7D unless you feel the need for FF.

Can you visit your local underwater photo shop to get their opinion?

Mike

LOL Jeff... was that reply pointed at me?

I'll suggest you take your D700 to a camera store with your favorite lens, say a 105VR and test the D3x. Lock the lens down and use a flash to illuminate and use the same settings on a subject that has fine detail like the surface of a carpet or something. That's the illustrate the point about detail with higher resolution, not just large prints or anything... just pure detail from higher resolution.

As for videos, I'm pretty sure 1080 vs 720 resolution is pretty easy to spot even for lay persons. That is the reason why the Canon 1080p system is being used in Hollywood productions, because it may be hokey aliased, low res H.264 1080p compared to a 2-4k camera. BUT the FF sensor gives a smooth look that holds up well even on a 40ft screen (post done correctly of course). So if hollywood studios like Lucasfilm who can afford to buy ANY camera or lens they want only evaluates Canons seriously after their own tests, and my own observations mirrors their findings, then I'm satisfied I'm not hallucinating.

On the same note, if you are happy with 720p for 5 minutes is as good as 1080p (12minutes per shot) in resolution, then that's great. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that 1280x720 is NOT going to resolve better than 1920x1080. Nor will 12 vs 18/21/24mp. If you read what I've been saying all along, it's pretty much that if images from each camera is pretty close, then I'd choose the higher resolution solution, something even you yourself are waiting for in the fabled D700x.

Drew that's what I like about you, you are so insightful. Yes it was aimed at you.

But to get back to the basic question of these threads, does it make sense to keep switching brands, every time one brand leapfrogs the other. And I think the answer is decidedly no. Lets go back to Sept 08, when the Nikon D700 and D300 and D3, were arguably the best in their respective classes. Would it have made sense for a Canon person to switch; well no, the 5D MkII came out, and then even though it actually took more than a year for the 7D and MKIV to come out to leapfrog the D300 and D3, would a Canon guy who switched to Nikon have regretted it, I think so. Similarly should any Canon guy who uses a DSMKIII switch to a D3X, again the answer I think is no, even though the Nikon has 20% more resolution and is objectively(DXO) the best full frame high res sensor out there. I think the same applies to Nikon folks. Nikon WILL release cameras within the next year that will leapfrog Canon, or they will go out of business. And frankly that would not be a good thing for either Nikon or Canon folks. If money and hassle factor are no object, and every time one switches brands one is happy to also buy new lenses, strobes and other dedicated accessories, as well as readjusting to how to use the different brands then sure, have fun.

Hey Tom,

Sounds like you need to buy a new 7D. The AF system is much improved and would be perfect for your fish. http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=3049

 

And I have no problem at 1:1 even with my 40D (but it is a Canon ) Just screw a 500D on the front of my 100mm, locks up at 1:1 every time.

 

Having fun,

Steve

Why is it that I remain skeptical?

Locking up at 1:1 does not sound too great either.

the Canon 5D MK II is half the price of the Nikon

Depends on which Nikon you are comparing it to. The Nikon D3000 is much cheaper than the Canon 1DsMkwhatever as well as the 5DII as well as...

And frankly that would not be a good thing for either Nikon or Canon folks.

Excellent points, especially this one. The Canonites were very happy once Nikon came out with the D3 since it provided some FF competition. However they were not so keen on the D3X, nothing to really force down the Ds series cost. We will see for sure when the expected MkIV comes out; the MkIII being already 'old' at the time was quickly discounted. There is no direct competition for the 5DII from Nikon so much of the discussion can be categorized as the proverbial apples vs. oranges.

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

What do you want to do with your images? Have you had a look at Alex Mustards book 'Reefs Revealed'? If not, it is a 24x30 cm coffe table book. There are full 30x48 cm spreads coming from a half a decade old 12mp D2x – looking fantastic (even if you're not a fan of his images, I think you have to agree that they printed fantastic). There are even a few images coming from jurassic D100's and one from a D70 – even they look great!

Technicaly speaking, that book could've be shot with the equipment you own.

If it's video you want, I can understand that you want something else. Also if you just want something new, because that happens to any of us.

cheers

Jeff

The Nikon models were strong but the difference was not as pronounced as now, 2 years later. D3s, D300s are brand new and the difference in resolution and features are very real and vast compared to the 1DMkIV and 7D. Let's not even compare the D700 and 5D2. Even if the D700x came up with 24mp and 720/24p at 5 minutes, why would those who want 1080p settle for that since stills resolution is close.

FYI, many a shooter switched to the Nikon D3 when the 1D3 had AF issues and didn't work reliably. There's no brand loyalty when it comes to equipment for many. I don't consider switching to be a bad thing. It's an option I can exercise if the equipment doesn't perform to my requirements.

Many other factors for choosing brands like weathersealing, lens choices etc.

The point is switching to brands makes sense for those who want higher resolution stills and video for the same money right now (7D/5D2). Switching isn't always a big a hassle. I listed my lenses on Ebay and sold them in a week at great prices. I then bought a few good lenses in one go at the local store, only because I had more choice for lenses so I spent more . Like taking a picture, sometimes it takes a little effort to get the right equipement. Rob has done his homework and feels he can do it without much loss and seems willing to do it.

Tom, resolution can give you detail that can identify a species or just make it plain cool to have that shot. I use to think 8-12mp would be fine for my purposes, then I started seeing detail from my 16.7mp camera I couldn't see in a 12mp. Spots on a leptocephallic eel were clear at 16.7mp where it was mush at 12mp. It wasn't the photographer since he had more in focus sharp pictures than me but my camera's resolution could id the eel based on the spots. So yes resolution does make a difference underwater. Low contrast AF may be important but something else has made it easier... it's called a focus light. Red filter it so it's also sometimes less intrusive on sea life.

I do think in you are talking about your needs, and not Rob's. Rob wants 1080 video and higher resolution amongst other things right now, that's why he's considering switching. If he were willing to wait for whatever models coming in the next year, he wouldn't be considering the move. Why waste a year of shooting lower res just to wait for a camera that MAY have the feature he wants when it's all available now?

I hope people don't think this is a Canon vs Nikon pissing contest. Facts are that the images are close enough in quality whereby other factors like value for money, features and resolution make the deal. If this were Nikon in the lead, I'd be as unbiased about its abilities. Point is it's not.

Cor is not someone who is brand conscious nor am I and we've both stated that Canon is ahead on certain aspects of DSLR. In ViDSLR, it's WAY ahead. The best part it is available now and none of the Nikon equivalents meet the their counterparts in feature set at the same price points. The good thing is Rob sees this so that's all I have to say as all I wanted to was to help him get the right system for him.

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

Tom,

Read Rob's post above....that's where I got the half price deal.

Mike

Jeff

The Nikon models were strong but the difference was not as pronounced as now, 2 years later. D3s, D300s are brand new and the difference in resolution and features are very real and vast compared to the 1DMkIV and 7D. Let's not even compare the D700 and 5D2. Even if the D700x came up with 24mp and 720/24p at 5 minutes, why would those who want 1080p settle for that since stills resolution is close.

FYI, many a shooter switched to the Nikon D3 when the 1D3 had AF issues and didn't work reliably. There's no brand loyalty when it comes to equipment for many. I don't consider switching to be a bad thing. It's an option I can exercise if the equipment doesn't perform to my requirements.

As I said in an earlier post, I think if Nikon don't make inroads in the video aspect soon, I think they will be in trouble. Having said that, I simply disagree that the differences between D3s and DMKIV and D300s and 7D are vast. I for one would not change my D700 to 5DMKII even if you changed lenses for me etc. For me the better high ISO, better AF, built in flash of the D700 are still dealbreakers despite the higher Canon MP count. None of the testing on DP review, or DXO support your assertion that the MP advantage translates to significantly better image quality of the 7D over the D300s, similarly with the D3s and DMKIV. And these are absolutely interim upgrade cameras with video and tweaked sensors, not totally new cameras as are the 7D and DMKIV. So yes if video is the main factor Canon is the choice right now. In a year, that may or may not be the case. A D700x with 24P, 1020 video, possibly RAW video etc, may be a reason to drop the 5DMKII until the MKIII comes out.

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.

I agree 1000% with Tom, no sense at all.

A funny story (being a decade-plus, but not multi-decade user yet...):

In the film era no one had nothing to hide, camera makers would release new cameras every 4-5 years and would pre-release mock-ups of those cameras to 3rd party makers of bags, accessories and, housings well in advance!!! I remember I bought my last SLR housing like 2 months following the arrival of the camera in the market!

Today every one hides everything and it takes like 6 months after the camera hits the market for the serious housing makers to release/ship their housings, so it is something like 6 months to a year until you can use a brand new camera. But DSLRs have a life span of 2 years only... whenever most of us get our cameras underwater it is already half-old!!! We will never be at the top of the game like topside photographers or like we were on film...

Chill out... I also have a D300, I am thinking of buying a Sea&Sea DX1200HD for the video... something that would fit in my pocket (both figuratively and budgetary).

Not even the D300s strikes the bell with me... I am sitting for the D800/D400 duo.

Jeff that's where you're wrong. Canon just accidentally invented a new market for ViDSLR. Nikon will stick with the DSLR with minor video capability. People like Tom and yourself don't much care for it other than a novelty, so 720 vs 1080p won't matter as much. Nikon will probably not pursue that market too hard because it's out of their expertise. Sony on the other hand can but I think they'll want to protect their handycam market. Canon XL cameras marketing is bemoaning the ViDSLR eating into their sales.

I don't need DXO or DPreview to tell me what higher resolution does with ISO noise. Shrink a 18/21/24mp image to 12mp size and compare it with both shot at 6400ISO for noise. I think you'll be surprised with the results.

Finally the point is that we are not talking about your needs in this thread but Rob's. And he wants to consider Canon's offerings which are available now, not vaporware with aspiring 150MB/s CF cards to handle RAW 1080p at 4:2:0 As much as I'd like to see that happen, seeing how Ikonoskop and Red are having difficult putting FF sensors with compressed and uncompressed RAW clips in their units, I think your wishes are more prayers than what is available in technology today at that pricepoint.

Do not base your choice of photo equipment on video capabilities or a MP count... wrong specs to look at. Specially at a price tag of the Canon 5DMkII, I taught a student with that and would trade my D300 for it. In fact between the 5D and 7D I would like the later best... if I had no Nikon choice.

It is more than resolution and video size in the end (which is the ONLY things Canon is hanging on to, too bad that resolution has a diffraction limit, but I think they are starting to see the big picture with the 7D, the "2-and-a-half years later almost D300+video"):

It is more about AF performance with Nikon helping it out with distance info since 1992...

Light metering receiving all colors since 1996...

Better menus making the camera more configurable to YOUR shooting...

Back LCD colors being more reliable...

More resistant bodies...

Better ergonomic...

More logical & intuitive controls... (Nikon cameras are full ON when in the ON position, just an example:o))

Better lens choices for underwater...

Being sexier with chicks...

List goes on...

This is a good thread to remove your doubts:

Chenin Boutwell is back at Nikon

And her subjects are a LOT more cooperative than ours!!!

Good Luck

Tom, resolution can give you detail that can identify a species or just make it plain cool to have that shot. I use to think 8-12mp would be fine for my purposes, then I started seeing detail from my 16.7mp camera I couldn't see in a 12mp. Spots on a leptocephallic eel were clear at 16.7mp where it was mush at 12mp. It wasn't the photographer since he had more in focus sharp pictures than me but my camera's resolution could id the eel based on the spots. So yes resolution does make a difference underwater. Low contrast AF may be important but something else has made it easier... it's called a focus light. Red filter it so it's also sometimes less intrusive on sea life.

I have done meristic analysis of crops from D2X shots, the resolution therefore more than meets my needs. Furthermore my current laptop a 17" Powerbook and Lightroom can just can deal with the files. I have a nearly full (of image files) 2TB HD with me to work on my images while on holiday (a chance to get caught up). I am thankful for not having excessively large files entailed by larger res.

I have used a modeling light at dusk but with modest success (some OOF shots due to focus on backscatter). I have a fix light as well as the red filter but am concerned about using it effectively (due to backscatter) as well as not destroying it in my application.

Tom,

 

Read Rob's post above....that's where I got the half price deal.

 

Mike

His post is irrelevant. For example, I am not in the EU marketplace. Secondly I have a vast collection of Nikon gear, a couple doz cameras and a few dozen lenses. Various microscope configurations. Seven UW housings Nikon-related housings (includes Kodak dSLRs). I have owned a few Canon FD bodies as well but no more. I was not convinced to go Canon at the start of my digital voyage and remain unconvinced. Drew's arguments are like water off a duck's back.