This is Hans, my 6 month old German Shepherd, taken with the Nikon D300 and a Nikon 80-400 VR Telephoto Zoom Lens.
Nikon D300 Evaluation
by Gary Gray (with a little help from Hans)
Anybody that knows me, knows I've been using Canon Digital SLR's. Reason being, I've always found them to have an image quality that was superior to Nikon across the board. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked Nikon cameras, but when it came to getting that little extra detail and lower noise, Canon has been a cut above and at a better price point for my professional needs since the dawn of the Digital SLR. All of this changed when Nikon released their latest Digital SLR's, beginning with the Nikon D300 and followed shortly thereafter by the D3, their first full-frame sensor body.
Here is the price / equipment comparison I'll be using as a reference for this report. This would be a common starting point for somebody purchasing either system. Both lenses offer a good focal range and image stabilization. You can find these sold as kits in this configuration.
Nikon D300, $1,799.99 MSRP, street price at the time of this writing $1,799,99 Body only (Amazon.com)
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor lens, street price $679.00 (Amazon.com)
Total cost for a base Nikon D300 setup: $2,478.99
Canon 5D, $2,499,99 MSRP, street price at the time of this writing $2,109 Body only (Amazon.com)
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens, street price $1,039.00 (Amazon.com)
Total cost for a base Canon 5D setup: $3,148.00
Both systems are very good setups and I have no problems using either in my work.
The Nikon D300 has been on the market since November, 2007. It sports a 12.3 megapixel, APS-C CMOS sensor. For those unfamiliar, the APS-C sensor, also referred to as the "cropped sensor" is a little smaller than the standard 35mm image format sensor found in its brother the D3 and the Canon 5D and 1DsMKIII bodies. The smaller sensor provides an economic advantage by being cheaper to manufacture, thus allowing the manufacturers to produce high-quality digital SLR's at a lower cost. This smaller sensor also provides other advantages and disadvantages to the photographer. In a nutshell, the cropped sensor reduces the field of view provided by any given lens by a factor of 1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon. So, a 100mm lens mounted on a D300 will give a field of view of a 150mm lens, vs a 100mm field of view if mounted on the D3 or Canon full frame bodies. To understand this effect on field of view, simply take an 8 x 10 photograph and cut off the outer 1/3 of the image to roughly the size of a 5 x 7 photo. The remaining image is what the sensor captures vs what the lens is actually providing the sensor in terms of image. Some folks believe that this is a telephoto advantage, but don't mistake the issue, there is no amplification or magnification, just a more narrow view, so the image appears to have a telephoto effect. On the other end of the focal view spectrum, the crop sensors do not provide as wide a field of view as the full-frame sensors.
As a landscape photographer, I've always found the wider field of view of more benefit to my type of work. Other factors such as depth of field come into play when one compares the full-frame and crop sensor bodies. If you adjust your field of view to be equal between the different bodies, you will always be using a shorter focal length lens on a crop sensor than on a full frame sensor. As a result of this type of adjustment, you'll find that the full frame sensor provides a more narrow depth of field for the same field of view for a given distance to your photographic subject. It can get confusing and I'm not going to waste a bunch of time here trying to explain it in depth. I will say though, that the photographic rules remain the same with any camera/lens combination, you simply have to account for the effects the smaller sensors generate when using Digital SLR's and standard lenses.
So with a crop sensor body you get a more narrow field of view with the benefit of having more pixels to reproduce your image than if you take a full-frame sensor with the same lens and then crop the image to get a closer view. If you are one of those people who can afford any type of lens, you can do just as well or better with a full-frame body by using a longer lens (at greater expense.) All that happy stuff aside, I've always believed that for a given budget, the crop sensor bodies tend to give a photographer a slight edge for shooting wildlife at a greater distance. But that edge came at a price. By cramming more pixels into a smaller space, these smaller sensors generate more noise in the image. There are trade-offs and this has always been my primary concern with using crop sensor bodies.
My benchmark for this discussion will be the Canon EOS-5D. The Canon 5D when released in August of 2005 it was the lowest noise digital SLR on the market and the first affordable full-frame sensor body and a whopping 12.7 megapixels. Full frame sensor bodies had been on the market before in the form of high-end professional grade cameras, but unless one had deep pockets, one simply couldn't afford them. With the 5D, images up to ISO 3200 were now possible, with noise levels that are substantially below any other Digital SLR at the time, including the Nikon cameras, and more importantly, affordable. A landmark camera. In the years following the release of the 5D, nothing came close to the low noise levels until the release of the EOS 1DMKIII in early 2007 and then the Nikon D3 in late 2007. At the time of this writing, the 5D was still on the market and at a price level competitive with the Nikon D300. Many photographers have to make a decision between buying either the Nikon or the Canon, so I'll give you an idea of how these two stack up to one-another, from my first hand experience.
On an equal footing, I'll start with the basics.
The Nikon D300 is a 2.5 year newer body technology wise. Nikon has crammed this camera with features and performance. From a handling standpoint, both the 5D and the D300 are about the same size and weight. Neither feels more or less comfortable in my hands or more or less uncomfortable strung over my shoulder or around my neck.
The very first thing I noticed with the Nikon D300 is the LCD display. The little screen on the back of the camera where the user interface and image is viewed. When you look at the D300 LCD next to the 5D LCD it is like night and day, in favor of the Nikon.
The Nikon LCD screen is much higher resolution (VGA) much brighter and renders colors much better. It's also larger, at 3 inches. Some photographers say this is a non-issue, but put them side by side and there is no doubt about which looks better. I find the LCD screen on the D300 is good enough to use for examining photographs in detail. On the other hand, the 5D's 2.5 inch LCD is only useful for making functional changes in the system menu and confirming you have a photograph. In bright sunlight, the 5D LCD screen is almost useless.
The 5D has a slightly larger view finder that covers about 96% of the frame, meaning there will be slightly more image than what you see in the viewfinder. Not a big issue, but a reality. Another reality for me is that I wear eye glasses and sometimes I can't see the entire viewfinder in the 5D as a result. It's that big, almost too big for my eyes.
The D300 viewfinder is slightly smaller, not a significant thing. It's big, bright and also gives the photographer a 100% view. What you see is what you get. I find it a little better for my photographic use as a result.
The Camera controls on the 5D are simple and intuitive. You can pick up a 5D and figure out how to use it in short order. More advanced options are available in the custom setting menu but most everything you'll need is at your finger-tips. The body isn't cluttered with buttons and switches and you run little risk of accidently changing a setting by inadvertent handling of the body. The main disappointment with the 5D body design seems to be the lack of a dedicated mirror-lockup button on the body. To do a mirror lockup one must either access this function through several button/dial maneuvers or program the function into the custom dial setting. The custom dial setting on the 5D works fine but if the camera self powers-down, you lose your last settings and it reverts to what the default setting was. Either way, getting to mirror lockup on the 5D was cumbersome and inconvenient.
The D300 on the other-hand is a maze of buttons and switches. I found myself having to practice several times to lean how the functions worked and where the proper buttons were to access them. Every thing is labeled, but I find the Nikon body to be less intuitive to operate. It takes more study and practice to master the controls. One advantage the D300 has over the 5D though is that you can change the mirror lockup function without having to wade through the camera settings. A single flip of a dial and you are there. This is a good thing.
The Canon 5D is not weather sealed. It is a rugged body and will take some abuse but I normally put it away if I'm outdoors and it begins to snow or rain. I don't want water leaking in through the seams or buttons and ruining my camera. Still, I've used it in low temperatures and wet conditions in the mountains and near the ocean, and using simple common sense about how and where I use it, I've never had an issue. To get better weather protection from a Canon camera, you must buy one of their 1 series cameras at a significantly higher cost.
The Nikon D300 has more protective sealing around the body. I don't think it is a fully weather-sealed body, but based on Nikon's description, the camera should be more resistant to water and the elements. I've read and heard of anecdotal evidence that the Nikons do indeed provide a better body for shooting in inclement weather, and I trust this is true.
Battery life
Both cameras utilize current Lithium Ion battery technology. Nikon claims that under normal shooting conditions one can expect about 1000 frames on a fully charged battery. From my testing and comparing it with the 5D, I would say they are about the same. I don't use the preview screen much and I allow my cameras to go to sleep when in use. I can't really see a difference at this point. Once I've had a chance to do some serious shooting, I'll report back with anything that I feel is out of the ordinary.
Lenses
It's been generally accepted that Canon has a little stronger lens lineup than Nikon. Canon makes a wide range of zoom and prime lenses to match just about any budget. Some of Canon's cheapest lenses perform very poorly and their more expensive "L" lenses are professional grade.
Nikon has a good lens lineup, but the distinction between their lower grade lenses and top glass is a little more blurred I think. Nikon's overall selection is a little thinner and their prices on better lenses tend to be a bit higher overall. What you save on the cost of a body may be lost acquiring glass.
It should be noted, second party lenses are made for both brands of camera by several companies, most notably, Sigma and Tamron. With few exceptions, I've found second party lenses to be under-performers from a professional photographic standpoint. For a budget conscious person who wants a less expensive alternative, they are an valid option though.
Overall, regarding lens selections, I feel that Canon has a better price/performance ratio than Nikon, as well as better selection of choices.
Things that aren't equal.
The Nikon D300 has newer features than the Canon EOS 5D. Many of these newer features can be found on the newer Canon bodies however and I fully expect the replacement to the 5D will also have an improved feature set. It's not really fair comparing a 2.5 year old camera's features to a brand new model. Still, I'll point out the differences.
Sensor cleaning. Canon 5D = NO, Nikon D300=Yes.
The jury is still out on how effective built in sensor cleaning is on Digital SLR's. We're sort of in version 1.0 of the technology. A common gripe of digital SLR owners over the years has been their propensity for collecting debris on the photographic sensors. Some claim the 5D is one of the worst offenders in this regard. My experience with the 5D is that it is no more prone to sensor debris than any other DSLR I've used, including the 1DsMKII full frame body. I think the 5D was shipped with excessive debris already in the camera and once it was cleaned out, I've had very few problems. Still, it is there and I have to look at my images and clean out the little dust specs from any image I want to sell. This adds time and effort to post processing.
The Nikon D300 has a vibrating sensor that will function when you turn the camera on or off, the idea being that it will loosen up dirt particles and shake them off the sensor. In theory, this should result in fewer sensor cleanings and less debris showing up in photographs. With limited experience using the D300, all I can say is the the camera came out of the box clean and in the time since getting it I've changed lenses numerous times and I've yet to find any dirt on the sensor showing up in my test images. It looks promising.
Live View
The newer Canon bodies are including Live-View but the Canon 5D doesn't have this feature. Live view allows you to see the scene in real time on the camera's LCD display. The D300 has this feature and it works in two different modes, hand held and tripod. From my initial testing, it seems to work very well and based on what I've heard and read from other sources, the Nikon Live view is functionally superior to Canon's present version.
Custom Lens Settings
With the 5D, you put a lens on the camera, you take your photograph. The camera communicates with the lens for auto-foccus and exposure and does nothing more.
With the Nikon D300, you can make fine adjustments to lenses that have CPU's plus compensating adjustments for slight variations of focus for a set of lenses. In addition, you can enter a number of lens into the Nikon storage for non-CPU lenses, such as older manual focus lenses. Nikon is smart here. What this allows is for older vintage Nikon lenses to communicate with the camera, even though those older lenses have no electronics. Nikon has an aperture ring on the back of every lens they've made and it will communicate mechanically with the Nikon body. You can still use these old lenses with the camera in manual or aperture priority mode and have the metering still functional. A very handy and forward looking design. With Canon bodies, you pretty much have to use an EOS lens if you want to use the functions of the camera without having to resort to a totally manual exposure measurement. The Canon bodies will still use other vintages and brands of lenses via special adapters, but Canon has more or less forsaken their older pre-1988 lenses. Personally, I find the Nikon approach much more enjoyable and functional. I can buy used Nikon lenses from the 60's and 70's and still use them on my brand new camera. Some of these older lenses are gems too. So the lens advantage isn't fully in Canon's corner at all, Nikons will work with a much wider variety of older lenses without having to resort to custom adapters.
Auto Focus
The Canon EOS-5D auto-focus system is a 9 point system with 6 invisible supplemental AF points. This system also includes separate modes for single shot focusing and AI servo tracking. Generally speaking, I've found the 5D's auto-focus system adequate for most needs. When shooting high speed action and fast moving subjects, it struggles a bit. By today's standards, this is run of the mill performance.
The Nikon D300 in contrast, uses a 51 point auto-focus with 3D focus tracking with three dynamic auto-focus modes. In my initial testing on my favorite subject, Hans the German Shepherd, I've found the D300 capable of tracking and staying locked on to this fast moving pooch in every test I've conducted. This is state-of-the-art auto-focusing on this body and by comparison, it makes the 5D look inadequate. With approximately 500 test shots, I've yet to take an out of focus shot using any mode on the D300 in any situation I've encountered. Simply great performance.
Frame Rate
Canon EOS 5D shoots at a maximum of 3 frames per second. This is not blazing fast. The buffer size in the camera though is fairly deep for a camera this old and will allow you to shoot about 16-17 continuous frames before bogging down. This isn't the camera for sports shooters, it simply won't keep up with the action. For general purpose photographic needs, it gets by just fine.
The D300 will shoot at a base mode of 6 frames per second and boosts that speed up to 8 frames per second with the addition of the optional MB-D10 Multi-power battery pack. This is fast. The only camera faster is the EOS 1DMKIII at 10 frames per second at almost 3 times the cost. You can use this body to shoot sports all day long and it will get the job done. I'd also venture an educated guess and suggest the auto-focus system on the D300 even outperforms the 1DMKIII, if it doesn't it is going to be very close because I feel it is better than the Canon 1DsMKII, which is no slouch.
One other item of note here regarding shutter lag (time it takes from pressing the shutter button to taking the picture), the 5D is a little bit sluggish compared to the D300. In my day-to-day use of the 5D, I've often found this slightly slower shutter lag to be an issue, mostly when I'm trying to time a shot for just the right moment. You are more likely to get a shot after the moment with the 5D than the D300. Not that the 5D is horrible, but just noticeably slower compared to many other cameras on the market.
Flash Sync
Canon EOS-5D, 1/200 second max.
Nikon D300, 1/250 second max.
Not much a difference at first glance, but considering the 5D is still more expensive and used by many professionals, 1/200th a second flash sync is sub-par by any standard. Why Canon decided to cripple this aspect of the 5D's performance is a mystery, even Canon's less expensive models out-perform it. Silly.
Now let us look at the 'big picture" (pun intended)
The million dollar question is. How good are the images and how well do they compare to one another? Well, I took a few test shots to get a feel. My first thoughts before doing a pixel peeping comparison was that both cameras have 12.x megapixel sensors, therefore, both camera should produce roughly the same resolution and comparable image quality. After doing a few test shots, I discovered that my assumptions are correct, for the most part. The ability to produce a high resolution, detailed and low noise image from either camera is almost identical up to ISO-1000. You wouldn't be able to tell either camera apart by looking at a 24 x 36 inch print.
Now, that said, I find that the Canon EOS-5D still outperforms the Nikon D300 above ISO-1000. The Canon produces cleaner images with more detail from ISO-1000 to ISO-3200 and there is no question about it. Below you'll find a few 100% crops showing the performance using the two sample setups. Keep in mind, the differences between the two test lenses can account for some of the difference in detail, but you can see that both lenses are doing a good job of resolving detail at 12 megpixels, and that's good news for Nikon owners, as the 18-200 VR holds it's own against the more expensive Canon L.
As you can see here, at lower ISO, there is no difference in noise level or detail. Both are excellent. These are 100% crops of JPGS converted from RAW. Aperture priority mode, F/11, matrix metering, bad light, tripod mounted, based on the following scene. Both cameras were in autofocus mode, using the center focus point, aimed at the UL emblem on the dog-chewed dremel tool.
The Hans Taste Test Image
The above image was a slap together scene I used to analyze these two cameras. I call it my dog taste test. Every item in the scene above has been the victim of my German Shepherd Puppy, Hans. Thank goodness he hasn't found my cameras yet. I used available light (tungsten) for the most part. The test images were equalized for white-balance and slight changes made for exposure for max highlight and shadow without clipping, using Adobe Lightroom. No changes were made to color saturation or sharpness. The differences in contrast I attribute to the different lenses. You'll also notice a difference in depth-of-field, with the 5D being more shallow. This is because to create these images with the same field of view, I had to increase the focal length of the 5D by a factor of 1.5. These objects are about 3 feet from the camera and the focal length is roughly 52mm on the D300 and 80mm on the 5D.
Nikon D300 at ISO-200 (base ISO)
Canon 5D at ISO-200
Nikon D300 at ISO 400
Canon 5D at ISO 400
Nikon D300 at ISO 800
Canon 5D at ISO 800
Here at ISO 800, this is where the similarity ends. The D300 is still doing a great job compared to the renowned 5D image quality. You'll never see the difference in print up to this point.
Here are ISO 1600 shots. You can see the Nikon is starting to lose it a little compared to the 5D. I'm using a low setting for noise reduction on the D300, trying to keep the noise down a little without losing much detail. It's not that effective in my opinion and further noise reduction may smooth things out but at what loss of detail? Even with noise reduction on, noise is beginning to interfere with the image and very fine details are beginning to break apart.
Nikon D300 at ISO 1600
Canon 5D at ISO 1600
Nikon D300 at ISO 3200
Canon 5D at ISO 3200
Again, ISO 3200 and the difference is really starting to show. Nikon Detail is falling apart and the Canon is still going strong. This is why the 5D is such a good photographic tool. It simply holds image throughout its range of function all the way to ISO 3200. Does this mean the D300 can't be used at the higher ISO's? Of course not. When looking at a full size image, it still looks very good to the naked eye at normal size. You can get excellent prints at ISO 1600 or higher from this camera, it just can't keep up with the full frame sensor on the 5D at this point, and this is one reason many photographers choose full frame over crop sensor bodies. They hold better detail with lower noise at high ISO's.
So, what does all this detail at high ISO mean for me and you. For me and my style of photography, nothing. I hardly ever shoot above ISO-800 and I have the ability to do so with excellent results using the 5D. I've taken thousands of photographs in many different situations and less than .05 % of those shots are above ISO 800. It just simply isn't required for most photographic situations I encounter as a professional photographer. Now, if you plan on doing a lot of low light shooting such as stages and music concerts in poorly lit venues, or if you need the ability to shoot in poorly lit rooms without a flash using only available light all the time, you may find yourself needing and using ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 and this may become a bigger factor. For me and 99% of the general public, it's a non issue and I strongly suggest you let go of your inner tech-no geek and not weigh the issue too heavily when choosing a camera body. It's a gear-head issue for the most part, not a photographic and artistic priority.
So, lets talk about a few intangibles now. You'll notice that I didn't mention picture styles and default setting for JPG shooting. Reason being is that I never shoot JPG's. I shoot everything in RAW and if you are serious about getting the best quality from your photographs, you'll shoot RAW as well. Still, there are some folks that insist that JPG is good enough. Well, I don't think you'll find much difference between the cameras shooting JPG files. The default settings and picture styles will give you enough variation and adjustment, you'll find some setup that meets your needs. But, if you are like me and like shooting raw, there are a few things I've discovered comparing the two cameras.
The Nikon D300 has a few additional exposure features over the Canon 5D. One is called SRS for Scene Recognition System, supposedly giving it a more intelligent exposure system than previous DSLR's. The D300 also has a highlight/shadow compensation capability which helps prevent blowing out highlights and smearing shadows. Canon's new cameras have a similar dynamic exposure feature. What I've found in my comparison is the D300 produces a better looking raw file out of the camera. The color seems better controlled on the D300 vs the color from the 5D. Exposures are very accurate, even in snow scenes. Automatic white balance seems to be very good as well, which brings up another plus in favor of the D300. The D300 has the ability to set a custom white balance on the fly, without having to take a reference photo. It still takes a reference exposure, but this exposure is loaded directly into the camera's storage and can be used immediately, plus you can take more than one reference shot and store it on the fly. A useful feature, something the Canon 5D doesn't do. With the 5D, you still have to take a photograph and tell the camera to reference that photograph as a white balance source; extra steps and extra work. In general I find the raw files from the D300 to be more punchy and better exposed than with the 5D. A very impressive output by any measure.
Other features found on the D300 that you may find helpful.
The D300 supports HDMI output for video hookup to a television. I've tested it on my 1080i High Def television and it works great. You'll have to buy a cable though, the camera doesn't come with one.
A really cool feature in the D300 is the ability to set the camera up for interval photography. You can program it to take shots unattended at a certain start time with definable intervals and for number of frames to take. Couple it with a infra-red sensor and you could place this camera in a remote location and have it take pictures of wildlife that strolled into the frame, or even more interesting, time-lapse photography. Set it up to photograph a budding flower over time. I really like this feature.
Conclusion
The Nikon D300 is a fantastic photographic tool. In almost every instance, it's performance, handling and agility far exceeds that of the Canon 5D. The Image quality is without a doubt every bit as good. The only area and I do mean ONLY, where the 5D out-performs the D300 is with noise above ISO-1000. In every other regard, the D300 is a superior tool. When I look at my kit and decide which camera to use, in most situations I will be picking up the D300 and leaving the 5D behind, there is no question about it. When you couple the fact that the 5D is priced several hundred dollars more than the D300, not including the lens, I can't see a justification for purchasing a new 5D at this time. When Canon releases a replacement body for the 5D, I'm certain that the gap in features between the two will lessen. I'm also quite sure that the price point for the 5D MKII or what ever it's named will also go back up to around $3000. Maybe Canon will get a clue and stop crippling their higher end cameras. Nikon has taken the lead here and there is no doubt about it. If you are looking for a great camera and lens combo at a very reasonable cost, you can not go wrong with the Nikon D300 with a 18-200 VR kit. It's a winner in every regard.
To learn more about the Nikon D300, click here.