Will the D300 make my 70-300mm VR Better?

[Turnerx5]

Hello all. I'm looking to upgrade from my current D50. I use Nikon's VR 70-300mm for shooting outdoor sports, mostly lacrosse. I recently used a friend's Canon 40D with Canon's 70-200mm F/4 IS lens, and was really impressed with how sharp the pictures turned out. It's got me thinking of picking up a 40D on rebate and defecting to Canon (I only have 2 lenses, the 70-300mm and the Nikon 18-70mm).

With the recent price drop, I'm strongly considering the D300. The question is, how much better will the D300 make my 70-300mm VR? I know this lens is not in the same league with the Canon F/4 IS, but megapixels aside, how much of a bump in image quality do you think I'll see by upgrading to the D300. Will I really notice that much of a difference in autofocus speed and accuracy?

I'm only leaving my D50 because I want a higher frame rate for sports, and the ability to crop without such a big falloff in image quality (6 vs. 12 MP). I'm tempted to wait until August to see what the frame rate of the D80 replacement will be, but the Canon rebate is very tempting.

Thank you for your thoughts!

 

[Daniel Har]

I don't think it will help you to achieve sharper shots. Autofocus could be faster since the D300 has a superior AF system.

Now, the 70-300vr should be quite sharp if you open it up a bit, are you sure you're not blurring your pics because of camera movement?

 

[Hide Takahashi]

Hello all. I'm looking to upgrade from my current D50. I use Nikon's
VR 70-300mm for shooting outdoor sports, mostly lacrosse. I recently
used a friend's Canon 40D with Canon's 70-200mm F/4 IS lens, and was
really impressed with how sharp the pictures turned out. It's got me
thinking of picking up a 40D on rebate and defecting to Canon (I only
have 2 lenses, the 70-300mm and the Nikon 18-70mm).

With the recent price drop, I'm strongly considering the D300. The
question is, how much better will the D300 make my 70-300mm VR? I
know this lens is not in the same league with the Canon F/4 IS, but
megapixels aside, how much of a bump in image quality do you think
I'll see by upgrading to the D300. Will I really notice that much of
a difference in autofocus speed and accuracy?

I'm only leaving my D50 because I want a higher frame rate for
sports, and the ability to crop without such a big falloff in image
quality (6 vs. 12 MP). I'm tempted to wait until August to see what
the frame rate of the D80 replacement will be, but the Canon rebate
is very tempting.

Thank you for your thoughts!

I have upgrade my D50 to D300 recently and I think I made a right decision. But before I did the camera upgrade,I upgraded my 70-300VR to 300 f/4 AFS which I think was the right move for a long run. The lens makes a huge difference and your firiend has a right combo of a camera/ a lens. You can get a very good shot with your lens/D300,but as you may know that the 70-300VR gets a bit soft toward the end of the zoom.

AF/AF accuracy are better than that of the D50 and with the D300, you can crop without noticeable image degration.

Hide
--



http://www.pbase.com/coffee/madera_canyon

http://www.pbase.com/coffee/humming_birds_by_d50

 

[snesie]

I have the D300 and the 70-300VR and I am pleased with it. As the previous poster said this lens is a rather soft beyond 240mm, but between 70 and 200mm I cannot see a huge difference between my 70-200VR and this lens (and that says a lot for the IQ of this cheap lens).

So if your missing the shot because of slow or wrong AF tracking the D300 would surely bring you a lot, but if your complaining about the softness @ 300mm then a better long lens would bring you more.

 

[Turnerx5]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful replies. The one thing that's really got me thinking about the switch to Canon is that the 70-200mm F/4 is so light. To get better than my 70-300mm VR, I'd have to go up to the Nikon 2.8 70-200mm, which is a beast weight/size wise (although beyond reproach for IQ).

However, knowing that the autofocus will improve with the D300 makes me want to stay put with Nikon. Right now I'm in major paralysis through analysis mode. I've gotten plenty of good shots from the 70-300 VR (my abilities certainly limit my results), but the shots from the F/4 Canon just had more pop at the same exposure settings.

I also have remorse over leaving my D50 behind; it has been a faithful companion, and it took me a few years just to learn how to use it properly. Again, thank you for your thoughts!

 

[IraE]

Hi Turnerx5, I recently upgraded from the D80 to the D300. Now my 70-300 focuses much faster and no hesitation. I use it for bird-in-flight photography. It even focuses better in low light.

 

[Hans Osinga]

I upgraded from D70 to D300 and the lenses perform better. Autofocus is better and faster.
So, go for it!

 

[Pedro Dias]

Turner,

Consider this:

The optical quality of your lens will of course NOT change as a result of being connected to a different camera, so in that respect, the direct answer to your question is a short and blunt "No". The glass inside the objective is the same.

Now, what you WILL experience, upgrading from the D50, is that you are likely to get a lot more keepers than you are used to. I started out with the D70, and quickly bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, and was happy with it, even though my keepers on my favourite subject, a black dobermann which so happens to be mine.

When I went from the D70 to the D200, my keepers went up to around 9/10. It was THAT much better, along with color reproduction being far superior. This is due to a faster focus mechanism, and superior light metering compared to my D70.

The D300 has an EVEN BETTER focus mojo (is that even possible??) as well as a generation shift to CMOS technology (yea, canonites go "been there, done that"), giving it high ISO performance that you wouldn't dare to dream of with your D50.

So conclusion, going for the D300, your lens will not imporove one bit, but your images will, by a lot!

--
http://www.digitaldias.com

 

[Turnerx5]

D300 body ordered tonight. Already downloaded the manual and I'm making headway. Thanks all for your help!

PS - The picture of the hawk pushed me over the edge. If I can't get sharp photos, it's me, not the camera/lens.

 

[Beechwood]

The D300 (along with the D3 and D700) has Lateral Chromatic Abberation - LCA - correction. This will result in finer detail, depending on how much LCA exists in the photoghaph. It will vary depending on the focal length and the nature of the subject. This is one feature which will truly allow a lens to perform better. (One can also achive the same result in Photoshop. But to have it done seamlessly in the camera is a great convenience).

 

[monte12345]

Use it at 300mm and it won't compare well to that Canon. The simple truth is the hte 70-300 VR is very good between 70 and 200mm and then gets progressively softer as you extend the focal length to 300mm. I think that if you compare both combination at f8 at 200mm you really won't be able to see any difference. Also, if you consider that you would have to crop the frame from the 40D combination pretty heavily, you may even find the image quality of the crop from the Canon lens to just about match the D300 result with the 70-300 set at 300mm, specifically useable but a bit lacking in detail.

 

[Clay Stewart]

The Canon 70-200 F4 IS is probably the sharpest zoom on the planet, according to MTF charts and better than many prime lenses. My experience with Canon IS vs Nikon VR is that Canon engages faster. I don't know if it works better or not, for sure, but it's faster than the 70-200VR and the 18-200VR that I've used. I no longer own Canon stuff, but I have to give them credit for that lens and IS, if nothing else.

 

[bob elkind]

Here's what I experienced when I switched from D70 to D200, very similar to your switching from D50 to D300:

1. Taking long focal length shots, I could get away with shutter speeds of 1/(focal length) on the D70/D50, to avoid blurring from camera shake. With the D200/D300 increased resolution (or increased pixel density, if you prefer), minimum shutter speed became 1/(1.5x focal length).

This is ignoring VR, and assumes a slow-moving subject. VR will still give you a 2-stop advantage, but it will still be the same relative advantage to the differing baselines of the two cameras.

2. Same idea, applied to action shots of fast-moving subjects. A football player moving across the frame could be frozen with 1/600 or so shutter speed on the D70/D50, but you'll want 1/1000 sec shutter for sharp images on a D200/D300 (all else being equal). Note that this has nothing to do with focal length, and everything to do with how quickly your subject is moving across the frame.

3. Your shots will be hit-and-miss on autofocus for a while, until you get as comfortable with the D300's very different AF system as you have become with your D50 after all the years of shooting with it.

4. Your lenses (some of them, perhaps) will become "soft". The D200/D300 has more resolution. That slow, consumer lens that worked just fine on your D50 will start to look like a slug crawled across the front element when you mount it on the D300. If you have sharp, fast lenses they will make your slow consumer lenses look like wasted money. Lenses that didn't need to be stopped down on the D50 will want to be stopped down on the D300, and not just the cheap lenses.

5. You'll need a photographer upgrade when you go to the D300.

• Your handholding technique will need to be re-learned.
• You'll want to use a tripod (and/or monopod) more often.
• You'll need to use "mirror up" more often.
• A decent remote shutter release is not an option.

(note: "decent" does not mean expensive, lotsa threads on this)

• Now that you'll be using your tripod more often, you might grow tired of that 3-way head.

The D70 (and D50) are incredibly well designed starter dSLRs. They're great for learning, and they are very forgiving. When you move up to the D200/D300, you're going back to school. When I switched (after 2+ years with the D70), it took me 2-3 months before I was matching the quality I had been getting on the D70, consistently. After 4-6 months with the D200, there was no comparison.

You will get an instant boost from the 1 stop (maybe 1.5 stops) better ISO performance on the D300 for the same noise and image quality levels, which will help your shutter speed for indoor (read: high-school gym) sports. That's the biggest instant advantage you'll get. Increased resolution isn't a freebie, you've got to earn it with your skills level. If you buy the D300 at the beginning of basketball season, by the end of basketball season you'll be able to look back at the pictures of the early games and see how much you've learned and how far you've come.

You'll know you're "there" when you aren't thinking about the gear, the settings, the displays as much as you're thinking about the subject, the light, and the composition.

It's a helluva ride, you'll love it. No going back! And you'll kick yourself for not making the switch sooner.

-- Bob Elkind
Family,in/outdoor sports, landscape, wildlife
photo galleries at http://eteam.zenfolio.com
my relationship with my camera is strictly photonic

 

[monte12345]

Using the results published at Photozone.DE

At f5.6 and 200mm the results for the Canon 10-200mm USM L IS is, drum roll please, 2122 Center and 2122 Border. Which I must say is pretty goll darn good.

At f5.3, which is wide open for the Nikkor, at 200mm the results for the Nikon 70-300mm VR is, drum roll please, 1963 Center and 1865.5 Border. Which is ok but not stellar.

However, I did note that used at f8 the 2 lenses would be within spitting distance of each other. That was based on my experience comparing my 70-200 to my 180mm f2.8 EDIF which is no slouch. This is the first time that I have looked at this lenses results in comparison to the Canon.

At f8 and 200mm the results for the Canon are, forget the drum roll it's getting tiresome and the sound is getting on my nerves, 2084 Center and 2047 Border.

At f8 and 200mm the results for the Nikkor are, 2019.5 Center and 1933.5 Border. Which isn't quite as good as the Canon but the center performance is within spitting distance. As for the Border numbers, 1933.5 is not as good as 2047 but it's not bad at all. I also suspect that either I have a good sample of this lens, or they had a slightly lacking sample because I have not noticed any drop off in sharpness at the edges with my 70-300 VR.

So, I'll give the nod and a tip of the hat to Canon, that is one great lens. However, I use my lens to take pictures with and at this level of quality those numbers won't have a big impact on the image quality produced. After all we're talking about a difference of only 3 to 5%. It will take a honking big print to make a difference that small noticable.

Now lets do a comparison between the 2 lenses at a 300mm FOV. Since the Canon only extends to 200mm there is no choice except to crop the image. I think that means that requires the resolution of the Canon lens be divided by a factor of 1.5. Which isn't "fair" but that is the true price that any of us have to pay when we crop an image this severely. You could also try a teleconverter but the lens change may cost you a picture, or 10, and I have yet to use a teleconverter on a zoom lens that didn't just trash the image quality.

So, at f8 and a 300mm FOV the results for the Canon are, 1389 Center and 1364 border. Which is poor and will limit the size of print where the loss in sharpness won't be obvious. At 300mm and f8 the results for the Nikkor are, 1882 Center and 1624 Border. Not great but useable if your willing to put in some time with post processing and limit your print size to 11 x 17 inches at the largest. What's interesting is that the Nikkor isn't half bad at f11, where I haven't tried my 70-300.

So, thanks for pointing me to comparing these two lenses. In the future, when I need that 300mm setting, I'll just nudge the ISO of my D300 up a notch and tweak the aperture a bit further. Doing so will must mean less work in post and better final results. So, for me, the 70-300 VR is a win win situation, all I have to do is remember to choose my aperture based on the focal length in use. As for those shooting Canon, you really don't have much choice, you'll just have to carry an additional lens if you must extend your "reach".

 

[monte12345]

I moved up from the D70 to the D300 and the increase in resolution didn't trash my lens collection. Basically I just had to learn how to adjust for hte higher magnification of a 100% peep. For example, the 18-70 that came with my d70 is a real favorite and it still is. However, I did notice some camera shake in 100% peeps of images shot with the d300 that I never saw with my D70. But after making some prints, I found that the camera shake that I could see in a 100% peep was totally invisible in my prints, even those printed at 16 x 24 inches. Simply put, the 100% peeps from the D300 are 45% LARGER than peeps from my D70 were and I had to re-learn how to evaluate what I saw in a peep as it related to prints.

For me, the initial greatest gain in moving up was the AF system in the D300. Compared to the D70 it a VAST improvement. One thing that always caused me problems with the D70 was that the AF system was way way too sensitive to ANY background detail within the AF area in use. I got a new dog last October and every image shot of him standing from head on had his tail in perfect focus, not the head where I thought I had the camera's AF system aimed. Because that fluffy tail was also within the oversize AF area that I was using. Background bleed has always been a problem with the D70 and I just do not understand why Nikon chose to set the priority for the AF system in the D70 to the farthest area of detail when there was a distance conflict within the AF area in use but they did, and it has driven me crazy at times. That problem is ancianet history now that I have the D300. For one thing, the AF areas are 1/2 the size of those in the D70. The second is that I think that Nikon may have re-assigned the priority for distance conflicts to the nearest area of detail, where it belongs. However, I have not actually tested the D300 for this because the camera has been spot on perfect at focusing, misses that were common with the D70 are now gone gone gone. To be blunt, I cannot praise the AF system in the D300 highly enough, it is just fantastic.

The second greatest gain is something that I discovered recently while documenting tooling and processes for a new project at work. That is that the D300 can produce stunningly good images shot at high ISO settings, even the top setting of ISO 6400. With a tiny bit of effort in NX applying some light noise reduction you can reduce the noise to the point where it is totally unnoticable. It's still there to a slight degree if you look real close but it has no impact at all on the actual image. Something about the D300 is that the noise is so subdued that it just fades into the background and you have to look fairly hard to see it. Now instead of limiting my ISO to just 640, I can use the full range and not have a worry about too much obvious noise being present in my images.

As for the resolution bump, to be honest I really didn't need it. Used properly the D70 can make a great looking 11 x 17 inch print which is as large as I normally print. Doesn't mean that I won't shoot at 12mp and enjoy it's potential, it just means that I really don't have to rush out an buy an arsenal of new lenses. Instead I have been toying with widening my range. Gothte Sigma 12-24mm DG with the D300 so wide is covered. Now I am thinking about that new Sigma 150-500mm OS, the price is right and it would certainly give me more reach.

 

[brightcolours]

If the 70-300 VR already does not provide the same on a 6mp camera, it will not get better (just worse) on a 12mp camera. The lens will not get sharper or get better contrast with a higher resolution sensor, but the higher resolution will maginify the unsharpness.

The 70-200 f4 L IS USM is rather exceptional, but there is a lens that will come close in sharpness (but it has no image stabilization).

It is the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX. That is the only option to get the same quality on a D300 compared to a 70-200 f4 L IS USM on a 40D.

 

[sfried]

The 70-300 VR is not a fast lens. With my D70 I never set ISO above 400 because of the camera noise. That limited my shutter speed which, as you know, causes bluriness especially at the longer focal lengths (even with VR).

With the D300, I have no reservations for shooting at 1600 ISO. That changes the game and allowsme much faster shutter speeds and hence sharper pictures.

--
D300, SB800, 105/f2.8 VR, 50/f1.8, 70-300 VR,
TAMRON 17-50
http://www.pbase.com/solfried