Toronto Photography Meetup Group

If you strictly want studio use, it's hard to beat the Sony a850/900.
Good DR and resolution and Sony has really nice primes like the CZ 85 and CZ 135 for portraits and headshots.
Very nice ergonomics and a viewfinder.
ISO 100-400 is better on the Sony than on the Nikon or Canon. It starts pooping out past ISO 800 though.

Nikon kicks Canon's ass in wide angle country. The 14-24 is untouchable and the new, pricey 24/1.4 is great. It feels and looks big (but not really heavy) but will fly off the shelves. Canon shooters love the feel of Nikon's 24-70.

If you shoot long and have the coin, the 200-400 is THE lens to have. Bar none. The main reason to go Canon is for video and maybe the larger sensor.

Yeah, now all Nikon needs are new or updated 21/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2, 135/2, 200/2 and 300/2 all with VR-II and Nano.

Looking at the original question a different way: what is it about the D300s that you find limiting? Lack of full frame? In a controlled studio or strobe environment, there's not much disadvantage to a cropped sensor. You don't really need high ISO capabilities either. And is the camera's feature set the biggest obstacle preventing you from getting the photos you want, or creating better photos?

I say stick with the company you got. The grass is always greener and that sort of stuff. Both Nikon and Canon are the top dogs and they compete back and forth.

Everybody is giving the OP great advice but sometimes you don't need a good reason for doing anything. Even the little things are enough to drive you crazy. I switched to full frame because the 1.6x crop factor annoyed me but that's just me. I hated putting on a 70-200mm with it not really being 70-200mm. Put on a 1.4 tele and then it becomes 70-200x1.6x1.4 = where's my calculator?

Edit. Or is it 70-200x1.4x1.6?

[quote="labgrunt"]Nikon kicks Canon's ass in wide angle country. The 14-24 is untouchable and the new, pricey 24/1.4 is great. It feels and looks big (but not really heavy) but will fly off the shelves. Canon shooters love the feel of Nikon's 24-70.

If you shoot long and have the coin, the 200-400 is THE lens to have. Bar none. The main reason to go Canon is for video and maybe the larger sensor.[/quote

The sensor on both cameras are the same size just the canon has more megapixels

yeah, figured people would figure that out

If crop factor is your primary concern, I can make things more confusing... when you shoot medium format (the Hasselblad) , 50mm is the wide angle and 90mm is the normal lens (on a 6x6 medium format, there is about a 0.6 crop factor compare to 35mm equivalent, FYI). Does that means you will find a medium format camera mm rating "not true" and need to sell it and replace it with a 35mm full frame camera?

I don't think there is "true" or "not true" mm rating on a lens. We invented "35mm equivalent field of view" because we consumers need a common yardstick to compare lens from different systems.

Crop factor, Resolution,IQ, Low light were my biggest deciding factors.. (crop I really like wide angle shots) I do have a d70 which I would keep for a crop camera still. (Resolution IF needed to crop or blow up) (IG general high quality.rez photos/ which Im very happy with my d300s I may add) (low light. for when I am out and about shooting friends without strobes, maybe if a wedding comes along or general indoor low light situations)

Can't go wrong with either the d700 or 5DmkII .. it's just a matter of deciding whether you want to switch systems. Personally if I were you I would keep the 300s and invest in a good fast prime for low light conditions.

Noooooo! Get a proper camera, get a Canon. Get what the cool kids have

that's alot of math work for u before u shoot pics lol lol

I always get asked this question when I stand around Pearson to shoot the military jets during the airshow.

"Come on ...join the dark side. It's really cool." Darth "Stewie" Vader, Something, Something, Something Dark Side

I beg to differ.

DG

no contest. 5f mk2.

no contest. D700

lol..


LOL....

My backup body is a 5D MKII and my bro-in-law shoots the D700. I tend to think that I'm fairly unbiased to any one particular OEM. I like the 5D MKII for the image size which can be cropped down without sacrificing too much. I like the movie mode too. I find the D700 performs a bit better in low light and I really like the noise control of the D700 over the 5DMKII. It looks more like film grain compared to the 5D MKII. I like Nikon's CLS system when used properly but it seems to fail the odd time outdoors in bright light. The Canon's ST-E8 works great indoors but sucks outdoors so a 50/50 split here I suppose. I find Nikon has really stepped up to the plate with their line of speedlights and TTL metering. I find Nikon's images a bit on the warm side while Canon seems more neutral.

I've blown up D700 files to 24"x36" and they look just fine. The 5D MKII files look a bit more detailed at 24"x36" up close but you probably couldn't tell the difference standing 5feet away.

Either system is a winner. If all your glass are DX then you're basically starting over from scratch unless you find yourself having more Nikon gear that you can carry over to a new body. That might be a possible deciding factor ie. Speedlight, maybe a lens. With Canon, you have nothing so you're starting from the very beginning again. If you think you'd like to get into shooting video (and it's not like using it as a standing for a camcorder by any stretch of the imagination) eventually, then maybe the 5D MK II is in the works.

Everyone loves to justify their purchase, I guess it gives them comfort with their investment but as always, take any and everyone's recommendation with a grain of salt and weigh the pros and cons and make the final decision. There are no winners and certainly no losers with any system you end up getting. Just make it work the way YOU want it to for your needs.

(Get the Canon! Just kidding.)

lol .. just read that small print Carlton.

LOL...shhhh!

I think a few years back C was having a definite advantage in low light with the 5D and N has no FF at all, but now, it's pretty much even unless video is a must have.

If $ is not much an issue, I would pick a FF, whether it's a N or C doesn't matter.

update em with AFS would already be a good enough improvement. esp the 85 and 135

Just get both lol.

Not to turn this into a C vs. N debate.
I've owned and shot 5Dmk2's+1ds3 and D3's side by side last wedding season. For that purpose, my impression is that the Nikon suited the task more efficiently. Good files, consistent af and exposure ~ more keepers and less editing. Ultimately, I kept the Canon system because of the flexible lens selection (and the fact I owned more EF lenses). I have a 1d4 now and I still feel the D3 (/D700) is a better camera if you don't need video.

At the end of the day, they're just tools. Just a flip a coin and get it done and over with...

x 1 billion. amen to that.

+1

But go Olympus ... LMAO.

Mamiya AFDIII with a DM56 back.

I wouldn;t even know what to do with that lol