25 of 32 people found the following review helpful
Review of the Nikon D300s,
This review is from: Nikon D300S Digital SLR Camera Body Only (12.3MP) 3 inch LCD (Electronics)
This is the best D-SLR 'cropped' sensor digital camera you can buy reason being because of the Nikon D-SLR lens available. The Canon which is catching up on available light photography (noise free high ISO) and focus points does not have the lenses to compete. If you do buy this camera do not skimp on a lens and I would recommend the 17-55mm DX which whilst heavy and expensive gives you pro-results and a beautiful 3d look due to the smooth blurring 'bokeh'.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Dec 2009 20:58:42 GMT
Sorry, its simply not true that Canon have an inferior range of lenses, in fact they have a larger range and in many cases are considerably cheaper than their Nikon equivalent.
Posted on 2 Jan 2010 11:39:49 GMT
Dr. Keith A. Moseley says:
Neither Canon or Nikon lenses are as cheap as they could be because they insist on putting the anti-shake technology in each lens instead of putting it in the camera body (once) like Sony and Pentax do. However, both Canon and Nikon offer a huge range of lenses whereas Pentax in particular have a lot of catching up to do.
One useful thing to know is that, after looking through endless test charts, Canon and Nikon cameras return the best images whereas Pentax and Olympus models generate more noise (random speckling) at higher ISO settings. Cannot comment on Sony.
So, if it's between Canon and Nikon, just toss a coin. All makes of DSLRs are miles ahead of where they started and will give satisfaction to all but the most fussy users (like me).
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2010 17:50:00 GMT
D. J. Gibbs says:
Spot on Dr Keith... made me smile... thing is I am STILL (fussily) just tossing that coin... again and again :)
Posted on 13 Jan 2010 23:44:33 GMT
W. H. J. Yip says:
I'm a Nikon user, but I disagree with the OP that Nikon have a better range of lenses than Canon. Both companies have updated their lenses line-up in recent times, and they're both excellent choices. In some cases, the Nikon will be more expensive, and in other cases the Canon equivalent is more expensive. Much of a muchness to be honest.
As for the 17-55mm DX lens, I'll pass on it. For the same price, I got myself a Nikon 85mm f/1.4, which produces far better bokeh than the 17-55mm ever could. In fact, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (at less than £100) can produce smoother bokeh than the 17-55m.
In terms of low-light capabilities, Nikon has the upper hand at the moment; but it won't last forever. Nikon and Canon will continue to leapfrog each other. As for the other manufacturers, none of them produce a camera nearly as ergonomic as a Nikon; and none of them have a camera that rival Canon for image quality at base ISO.
I wouldn't trust Sony... they use proprietary 'MemoryStick' memory cards, which cost substantially more than SD/CF cards; and Sony's low-end SLRs also require adapters just for the 'privilege' of using studio lighting - disgraceful, if you ask me. Sony should have stuck to producing PlayStations and music system, which is what they're best at.
Posted on 29 Jan 2010 14:21:19 GMT
I totally disagree that Canon are catching up, i am a Nikon user and this is only due to preference. Canon and Nikon are both pretty much on an even keel so i feel this review is very biased and should be treated with caution. I also partly disagree with the lens comment, the 17-55mm f2.8 is a fantastic zoom lens for your money but is more of a wide angle zoom lens built for full frame or a versatile mid-range zoom for cropped cameras, and it's also not as fantastic at the blurred effect as some of the low aperture prime lenses that cost a fraction of the price. The 50mm f1.8 is only £100 approx and you will achieve an excellent shallow depth of field with it, more so than the 17-55mm f2.8. Id recommend the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 in this lenses stead as it's excellent and half the price brand new. I may have repeated previous comments but i feel the same.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2011 22:47:11 BDT
The 85mm 1.4 is a great lens but its hardly a walk-around lens. For bokeh i'd go with the 105mm DC f2. overall with Nikon I feel I can point to a number of truly superb lenses whereas with Canon it may be more of an ask. I'm looking at the 28mm f1.4, 105mm DC, 70-200mm etc.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2011 22:49:19 BDT
Larger yes. Cheaper sometimes. But the premium Nikon lenses are more keenly priced especially in the DX market where Canon is not that strong. By the way I believe Canon produces better colour images with better saturation and hue than the nikon. Of course if you use a Raw editor then that does not matter so much.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2011 22:50:40 BDT
Anti-shake is overrated and ruins some images on close examination. It seems to work with consumers though...i remember when i first got into digital photography and got sold on VR.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›