E3 or Nikon300

[achanth]

I take lots of landscape photography with pictures of flowers and gardens, also night photography, especially with night lights, of buildings or scenery. Also considering for vacation travel as well.

Kindly advise. I think the price of both is about the same.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Depends....I will go with D300 because I already have a few expensive Nikon lenses and flash(all these cost more than the D300 actually)....besides, I am more familiar with the ergonomic and gui.......but for Olympus users, it make more sense to go with E3 :dunno:

If you do not own both then you should spend more effort to study the entire system rather than just the body itself :sweat:

 

[achanth]

Thanks Kahuna. Is the D300 good in low light shooting? I find poublished reviews sometimes not as accurate as forum users' views.

 

[wind30]

I take lots of landscape photography with pictures of flowers and gardens, also night photography, especially with night lights, of buildings or scenery. Also considering for vacation travel as well.

Kindly advise. I think the price of both is about the same.

There are a LOT of minor difference but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Conversely, if you want a 15mm WA, the nikon camp has a cheap and economical 10-20mm sigma lens. For 4/3rds you have to buy the 7-14mm which is more than 2x the price and cannot mount a front filter (it is a big protruding front element.... I don't think I will be comfortable carrying that lens travelling).

PS: if you can get both at the same price, get the D300. I thought the D300 is more expensive than the E-3?

 

[achanth]

There are a LOT of minor difference but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Conversely, if you want a 15mm WA, the nikon camp has a cheap and economical 10-20mm sigma lens. For 4/3rds you have to buy the 7-14mm which is more than 2x the price and cannot mount a front filter (it is a big protruding front element.... I don't think I will be comfortable carrying that lens travelling).

PS: if you can get both at the same price, get the D300. I thought the D300 is more expensive than the E-3?

I will take your advice and explore the E3 with 11-22mm lens at f2.8, ISO 800. Will the noise level be high at ISO800 or is the E3 tuned for this? I looked at the D300+lens=over S$4000, with the E3 just slightly less by couple of hundreds.

 

[ceecookie]

Is the FLM of the E-3 2x?
Thats kinda high IMO since other brands are in the region of 1.x FLM

 

[dorts]

I will take your advice and explore the E3 with 11-22mm lens at f2.8, ISO 800. Will the noise level be high at ISO800 or is the E3 tuned for this? I looked at the D300+lens=over S$4000, with the E3 just slightly less by couple of hundreds.

The noise don't really look like noise, more like grain. ;p Noise level at ISO800 is very well-controlled. Might not compete with the Canons or maybe Nikon, but definitely not bad at all. In fact, I love the noise at ISO800.

 

[dorts]

Is the FLM of the E-3 2x?
Thats kinda high IMO since other brands are in the region of 1.x FLM

Yep, true. Will be an advantage for telephotos. But not a disadvantage for wide-angles as well. Where in the world can you find a 7-14mm Ultra-Wide? It's not a fisheye. A 8-16mm ultra-wide is planned for release in 2008 as well I believe.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Thanks Kahuna. Is the D300 good in low light shooting? I find poublished reviews sometimes not as accurate as forum users' views.

I am not sure as I do not own one...I also get all the infos from various reviews but I thought the new CMOS can really give this cam an edge even in high ISO? :sweat:

My main selection criteria is because I have invested in a few pro grads lens, so even if I really buy a D300, it will be for interim period and my ultimate aim is still the fulframe body like D3 or future Nikon FF model :lovegrin:

 

[achanth]

There are a LOT of minor difference but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Conversely, if you want a 15mm WA, the nikon camp has a cheap and economical 10-20mm sigma lens. For 4/3rds you have to buy the 7-14mm which is more than 2x the price and cannot mount a front filter (it is a big protruding front element.... I don't think I will be comfortable carrying that lens travelling).

PS: if you can get both at the same price, get the D300. I thought the D300 is more expensive than the E-3?

I have gone traveling before I wanted to reply this. My DSLR feels heavy (although it is one of the lightest of all DSLR) even with a light lens. Sometimes I just leave the DSLR and take my compact, especially after the 5th and 6th day. I will not try out the D300 and see how the low light photography is like. I will bear in mind the 11-22mm lens, when I try out the E-3. Many thanks.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Though of course you could always pop the ISO to 1600 or 3200 and have almost zero recognisable noise when resized to internet viewing resolutions with the D300..

 

[Colin Quek]

I have gone traveling before I wanted to reply this. My DSLR feels heavy (although it is one of the lightest of all DSLR) even with a light lens. Sometimes I just leave the DSLR and take my compact, especially after the 5th and 6th day. I will not try out the D300 and see how the low light photography is like. I will bear in mind the 11-22mm lens, when I try out the E-3. Many thanks.

Yes have to agree with you on this. Eventhough i was using a small dslr, the weight "grows" as you walk around.

In the end I brought out my film slr, and boy did i enjoyed the trip more.

 

[TMC]

There are a LOT of minor difference but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Conversely, if you want a 15mm WA, the nikon camp has a cheap and economical 10-20mm sigma lens. For 4/3rds you have to buy the 7-14mm which is more than 2x the price and cannot mount a front filter (it is a big protruding front element.... I don't think I will be comfortable carrying that lens travelling).

PS: if you can get both at the same price, get the D300. I thought the D300 is more expensive than the E-3?

That would be a reach to say that the D300 cannot. Lens there is the 12-24 even the 14-24/2.8. D300 can also go safely to 1600 and still come out with good pics. at 1600 depending on the scene, you can get 1/5 or even 1/8.

 

[chngpe01]

but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Sorry I do not understand. Are you saying that a D300 cannot shoot a night scene at f2.8, ISO800, 1/3secs ??? without tripod?

Why cannot?

For the 11-22mm lens am I not wrong to say that it is actually 22mm-44mm on a 35mm?

Whereas the 17-55mm f2.8 is about 25.5mm to 82.5mm its a difference of 3.5mm. Having said that a 12-24mmf4 (which is actually 18mm equiv on 35mm) can also do the job at an even wider angle, just shoot at ISO 1600 without much issue of noise. :think:

 

[Lumiere]

There are a LOT of minor difference but I will list one one MAJOR adv from each camp.

For travel photography, night scenes where you DON'T have a tripod, I think the E-3 has a BIG adv, in that you can get the 11-22mm lens and shoot at a WA of 22mm (after conversion to 35mm frame) f2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter speed, handheld.

At 2.8, ISO800, 1/3 shutter you can SHOOT a LOT of night scenes. This is something the D300 CANNOT do.

Conversely, if you want a 15mm WA, the nikon camp has a cheap and economical 10-20mm sigma lens. For 4/3rds you have to buy the 7-14mm which is more than 2x the price and cannot mount a front filter (it is a big protruding front element.... I don't think I will be comfortable carrying that lens travelling).

PS: if you can get both at the same price, get the D300. I thought the D300 is more expensive than the E-3?

The D300 cannot a night scene at f2.8 ISO800, 1/3? Thats becoz the lens cap is not taken off or when the camera is not even turn on.

The D300 can easily handle night scene comfortably at ISO1600 with fantastic noise suppression.

It can even freeze movement at an outdoor night concert at ISO800, f5 and 1/250 without the use of flash

i've also tried taking night scene at ISO1600 f2.8 at 1/10 Handheld...i would say it was a very the photo was well exposed and sharp

 

[achanth]

I have gone traveling before I wanted to reply this. My DSLR feels heavy (although it is one of the lightest of all DSLR) even with a light lens. Sometimes I just leave the DSLR and take my compact, especially after the 5th and 6th day. I will NOW try out the D300 and see how the low light photography is like. I will bear in mind the 11-22mm lens, when I try out the E-3. Many thanks.

Some spelling mistake there...
Rented D300 to try out...after getting used to the controls, finally saw how D300 was able to take pictures even in a very dark room...very impressed, with ISO3200 and ISO H1...with even a slight dash of light, the picture was very bright..

Lens was a zoom lens ( I think 24mm-200mm): the only thing that kept me from owning this is that after some hours of shooting...my arm really aches from the weight of the camera body and lens [more than 1 kilo, I think], although the night photography was fantastic...Once one has mastered the control ( and I am a total newbie to Nikon), I would say WOW.

I now look forward to test the Canon 40D and the Olympus E3 on low light photography. I think all 3 cameras are fantastic in good lighting.

Thanks for all the inputs.

 

[lsisaxon]

Sorry I do not understand. Are you saying that a D300 cannot shoot a night scene at f2.8, ISO800, 1/3secs ??? without tripod?

Why cannot?

For the 11-22mm lens am I not wrong to say that it is actually 22mm-44mm on a 35mm?

Whereas the 17-55mm f2.8 is about 25.5mm to 82.5mm its a difference of 3.5mm. Having said that a 12-24mmf4 (which is actually 18mm equiv on 35mm) can also do the job at an even wider angle, just shoot at ISO 1600 without much issue of noise. :think:

Because the user can't hand hold still for 1/3s. PLBV. E3 has sensor-based image stabilizer.

 

[smallaperture]

Because the user can't hand hold still for 1/3s. PLBV. E3 has sensor-based image stabilizer.

Ah, sensor-based IS / VR / SS - Sony, Oly and Pentax have it. When is Nikon gonna to have it? In the replacement of the D40x ? ?

 

[chngpe01]

Because the user can't hand hold still for 1/3s. PLBV. E3 has sensor-based image stabilizer.

Yes that does not mean the camera cannot take the images. Ion ago ppl have been taking pictures at that speed and no issue. Suddenly with a sensor based image stabilization, some ppl claim only one type of camera can do low light photography. That's to me is rubbish.

 

[conquer500]

Some spelling mistake there...
Rented D300 to try out...after getting used to the controls, finally saw how D300 was able to take pictures even in a very dark room...very impressed, with ISO3200 and ISO H1...with even a slight dash of light, the picture was very bright..

Lens was a zoom lens ( I think 24mm-200mm): the only thing that kept me from owning this is that after some hours of shooting...my arm really aches from the weight of the camera body and lens [more than 1 kilo, I think], although the night photography was fantastic...Once one has mastered the control ( and I am a total newbie to Nikon), I would say WOW.

I now look forward to test the Canon 40D and the Olympus E3 on low light photography. I think all 3 cameras are fantastic in good lighting.

Thanks for all the inputs.

uncle, you very funny you know, you just say your E3 got f2.8. Then you say D300 zoon lens 24-200 (nv hear of this range before, maybe have i dun know) cannot take, but this zoom lens confirm do not have f2.8 ma. once you mastered what controls? total rubbish lor, you mean you need to master nikon to take nice photo, i think it's you dun know the basic or you dunno anything then you say one. :thumbsd: :sticktong