1
Cameras / Lenses / second hand d300 or second hand canon eos 5d?(equal price)
« on: August 09, 2009, 15:12 »
let me explain a bit. I am a nikon user with two lenses(one 18-55, one 50mm prime) and I am inclined towards build quality of d300, but I am not sure it's best bang for buck. I shoot events and concerts, and I need a good high iso performance. I know d300 is good, but 5d is full frame. dpreview does not have a direct comparison, and on most discussion boards people seem to be polarized about the issue, which is definitely bad for a real confrontation of abilities. people talk about d300's far superior color rendition, does that hold in raw?
I also want to contribute to alamy, but so far I have been rejected because of inferior file quality(d50 is 6 megapixels) will 12 megapixels suffice? I am also worried about full frame problems such as "Edge softness / falloff / chromatic aberrations, needs good lenses" (dpreview) if anyone does have an idea about them, I'd be grateful. do full-frame really make a solid difference in image quality? I suppose a full frame body needs quality lenses. should I expect full-frame lenses to be more pricey than APS-C lenses? one of the reasons for thinking full-frame is the ability to use old secondhand(metal lens era) lenses if possible. but if they are absolutely equal, I'd be more inclined towards nikon, I have nikon lenses. if you have other suggestions also, I'd be more than happy to listen.
sincerely
burak
edit: well, I found this kenrockwell article
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm
that does have 5d versus d300 iso comparison, but unlike ken, I am not that sure about definite 5d victory. i mean, we all see 6400 is unusable(in print, microstock is locked to iso100) but under that it seems it's a tradeoff. 5d gets more detail in, but d300's noise is more unobtrusive like film grain. 5d's noise is disturbing even when there's not much. and for ken's shame, he didnt turn off d300's noise reduction, which renders his article totally inconclusive. any thoughts?
I also want to contribute to alamy, but so far I have been rejected because of inferior file quality(d50 is 6 megapixels) will 12 megapixels suffice? I am also worried about full frame problems such as "Edge softness / falloff / chromatic aberrations, needs good lenses" (dpreview) if anyone does have an idea about them, I'd be grateful. do full-frame really make a solid difference in image quality? I suppose a full frame body needs quality lenses. should I expect full-frame lenses to be more pricey than APS-C lenses? one of the reasons for thinking full-frame is the ability to use old secondhand(metal lens era) lenses if possible. but if they are absolutely equal, I'd be more inclined towards nikon, I have nikon lenses. if you have other suggestions also, I'd be more than happy to listen.
sincerely
burak
edit: well, I found this kenrockwell article
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm
that does have 5d versus d300 iso comparison, but unlike ken, I am not that sure about definite 5d victory. i mean, we all see 6400 is unusable(in print, microstock is locked to iso100) but under that it seems it's a tradeoff. 5d gets more detail in, but d300's noise is more unobtrusive like film grain. 5d's noise is disturbing even when there's not much. and for ken's shame, he didnt turn off d300's noise reduction, which renders his article totally inconclusive. any thoughts?