Canon EOS 5D Mark II vs Nikon D300

Winner
Canon EOS 5D Mark II

74

Nikon D300

59

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,815 ISO
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 30fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.7 bits
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.71x
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D300

Lens availability
Slightly more lenses available
230 lenses
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
External flash not needed

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D300.

competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Competitors

Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$1,255 - $1,499 body only

$1,800 - $1,899 with 24-105mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Fastest shutter speed Much slower max shutter speed
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Pro DSLR

$2,199 - $2,599 body only

$2,700 - $3,199 with 24-105mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Cross type focus points Many more cross-type focus points
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$830 - $999 body only

$975 - $1,099 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Low light performance More noise at high ISO

Nikon D300 Competitors

Nikon D90

Nikon D90

Entry-level DSLR

$967 with 55-300mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Overall image quality Better image quality
Weather sealed No weather sealing
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$519 body only

$1,220 with 18-105mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Cross type focus points Fewer cross-type focus points
Nikon D300S

Nikon D300S

Pro DSLR

$2,550 with 18-200mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Color depth Better color depth
Lowest price More expensive

discussion

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
EOS 5D Mark II
Canon

Report a correction
Nikon D300
D300
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments