| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
D300 Vs. 1D-MkII
Jay Adeff, Photographer
 |
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 3:42 PM on 04.07.08 |
| ->> Does anyone have any experience comparing the Nikon D300 to the Canon 1D-MkII? I use a 1D-MkII for sports and I'm happy with it, but I've always preferred Nikon's ergonomics (I shot Nikon in my film days). I've also always preferred Nikon's 70-200 2.8 over the mediocre Canon version. Now, with the D300 and its low-noise at 1600-3200 ISO, 3" LCD, 51-point AF, 8fps capability, and Canon's 200 2.0L costing 50% more than the Nikon version, I'm really reconsidering things. Any opinions? |
|
Bastian Ehl, Photographer
|
Magdeburg | _ | Germany | Posted: 4:48 PM on 04.07.08 |
| ->> Everyone has his own specific needs. Maybe rent the equipment for a week-end and find out yourself. |
|
Michael Sasser, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 5:39 PM on 04.07.08 |
| ->> i own the d300, and have shot a bit with the mkII. both solid cameras. i would be happy with either. are you looking for someone to convince you to switch? but I would say yes, they are very comparable cameras. mkII has a few advantages, and d300 has a few advantages. but i would say they are pretty much on the same playing field. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 9:51 PM on 04.07.08 |
| ->> I agree with Bastian, rent a D300 and Mark II and see for yourself which you prefer. You will not get a quality response posting a question like this online as photographers tend to be fanatical regarding the equipment they use. |
|
Stephen Maturen, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Minneapolis | MN | United States | Posted: 2:12 AM on 04.08.08 |
| ->> I shot the WCHA championship hockey game recently using a Mark II for one period and the D300 w/ grip for the other two. The D300 gives a much sharper and clearer image especially at high iso's (feel free to shoot at 1600 with no worries) compared to the Mark II. It is also much easier to change AF points using the Nikon system which is quite helpful for shooting sports. The LCD is the most beautiful LCD I have seen on any camera, it gives an almost exact replication of what you will see on your computer monitor. The battery grip is one of the nicest I have ever seen, several people have thought it was a D3 because it attaches so cleanly. The one nice thing about the Mark II is the 1.3x crop vs the 1.5x crop on the Nikon, although some people prefer the larger crop. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:20 AM on 04.08.08 |
->> I switched back to Nikon after shooting Canon for 3 years.I bought both a D3 and a D300. During the time with Canon, I shot with the MII as well as a 20D.
It's a unfair comparison in that the technology advanced so much. The build quality on the MII is better, but the D300 is close. The low light capabilities of the D300 are better as has been written here.
I will say that ergonomics is a important factor. If you're not comfortable holding a camera, it will impact your ability to shoot, at least in the short term.
I sold the MII with 80,000 actuations and the buyer had the shutter blow within a matter of days. That isn't good. You have to analyze what's most important to you and then make a decision as to Nikon versus Canon. For me, I missed owning Nikon (VERY stupid reason). I shoot so much low light that the D3 was wayyyyyy too attractive to pass up. I was also disappointed with the way Canon Japan handled the MIII issues.
Good luck in your quest. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|