Question of the day: Canon 40D or Nikon D300???

[Gintaras]

Question to Canonians.

Which one looks more appealing, 40D or D300?

[coldrain]

Looks? I like the EOS 40D styling better... less clutter, cleaner lines.

About which to prefer photography wise, a bit soon to tell? The D300 will only surface in november, a LOOOONG way till reviews and real results will show up.

[DonSchap]

I have no Nikon glass to use ... not even an adapter for the TAMRON Adaptall 2 lens ... so yeah, I can see myself running right out and grabbing a D300 for $1800 ... and then, popping for another $7500 worth of glass to throw on the front of it. That's sound-thinking in any one's estimation.

I mean, after the SONY and Canon debacle I went through. LOL , this kind of thing will be "old-hat".

Three camera systems to choose from ... crap, why not four? Where's that Pentax Super K100D?

[sunnythepsychocat]

Not again:D I mean does it really matter.
You pick either one and you will eventaully love what you have.
Just remember having the best camera does not make you or anyone in that matter a better photographer.

[timmciglobal]

I'm keeping my 40D pre-order BUT will watching closely for the reviews of the D300 when it comes out.

What are my qualifiers for considering switching?

1) ISO performance on par with 30D or better.
2) All features work "As advertised"
3) Improved AF tracking over 30/40D.

I love the D200's body and controls so I'm interested to see. The 40D is still a real big step up from the 30d but the D300 is a ridiculously huge leap if all features work and iso performance is as advertised.

Tim

[Speed2]

I love the D200's body and controls so I'm interested to see. The 40D is still a real big step up from the 30d but the D300 is a ridiculously huge leap if all features work and iso performance is as advertised.

Tim[/QUOTE]

Oh ya sure....now looked u, i just bought my 30d 3 months ago. Don't be saying such things, i'm still trying to figure out "if that baby performs as advertised" how much i'll be able to ask for my 30d. Then comes the wife. I have these thoughts about having to take a shit kicking, from both sides:(

[VTEC_EATER]

From the specs, the 40D isn't even in the same league as the D300.

The D300 has more megapixles, has a faster shooting rate, has a much more advanced focus system, has a better live view system, has a brighter and sharper screen, Larger, brighter viewfinder, and the list could go on.

If anything you should be comparing the D300 to the 1D mkIIn. These two cameras seem to have the most similarities between the two different systems.

The 40D is in direct competition with the D200, but the 40D has some new features like live view, a 3" screen Vs. 2.5, and 1.5 more frames per second. So on paper I would say the 40D beats the D200, but its not in line with the D300's alleged specs.

If I were to do it, I would choose the 40D over the D200, and the D300 over the 40D and the 1DmkIIn. Of course this is if everything is as advertised. We will see.

[timmciglobal]

All boils down to performance. >If< the d300 ISO performance is near or at or better then 30d and the AF system comes close to or better then mk2 then you've got a very dangerous combo for canon.

IF the bechmarks turn out true I wouldn't be surprised if you see a 50D in a year with a mk2 AF system and deeper buffer. IF the d300 turns into more of a "between 40d but not really in same league as mk2" I think they'll wait and upgrade and the 40D later on and fight on the price point of 40D vs D300.

Really depends how good the d300 is. If that sensor turns out to be really good canon's got a lot to fear from new people or people with low lens investment that could reasonably switch to nikon for a cheaper "pro" body.

Tim

[coldrain]

From the specs, the 40D isn't even in the same league as the D300.

The D300 has more megapixles, has a faster shooting rate, has a much more advanced focus system, has a better live view system, has a brighter and sharper screen, Larger, brighter viewfinder, and the list could go on.

If anything you should be comparing the D300 to the 1D mkIIn. These two cameras seem to have the most similarities between the two different systems.

The 40D is in direct competition with the D200, but the 40D has some new features like live view, a 3" screen Vs. 2.5, and 1.5 more frames per second. So on paper I would say the 40D beats the D200, but its not in line with the D300's alleged specs.

If I were to do it, I would choose the 40D over the D200, and the D300 over the 40D and the 1DmkIIn. Of course this is if everything is as advertised. We will see.
How is it that when we used to have an EOS 20D, an XT with 8mp, they were comparable to the D70 and D50 with 6mp, but now that the D300 has 12.3 mp it is not to be compared with a 40D?

The D300 is 6fps, the 40D 6.5 fps. Faster shooting speed? Only with vertical grip (don' ask me why). That is the same as saying the EOS 40D is not comparable because it allows you to connect a portable harddrive, or real 14 bit images...

Both are of about the same size, both sit $500 from eachother, both offer 3" LCD and live view for the first time, both are about the same speed.
Yes, they do compete.

[Rooz]

How is it that when we used to have an EOS 20D, an XT with 8mp, they were comparable to the D70 and D50 with 6mp, but now that the D300 has 12.3 mp it is not to be compared with a 40D?

The D300 is 6fps, the 40D 6.5 fps. Faster shooting speed? Only with vertical grip (don' ask me why). That is the same as saying the EOS 40D is not comparable because it allows you to connect a portable harddrive, or real 14 bit images...

Both are of about the same size, both sit $500 from eachother, both offer 3" LCD and live view for the first time, both are about the same speed.
Yes, they do compete.

as vtech and tim said, if everything that nikon claims actually WORKS then no, they don;t compare at all. the d300 is far better specced hence the price difference. thats why i dont think canon have anything to worry about. the price step is huge and some people will just say, to hell with all those features, i prefer equal IQ with less features and i'll invest in glass.

the LCD is far clearer and brighter. at the end of the day canon increased their LCD size but kept the exact same resolution, that was a very poor screen upgrade imo. especially with live view where there is an expectation from the user for as true a reflection of the view as possible. add 51 AF points and a pack of features straight from the D3, more MP, tripod liveview WITH AF...come on coldy these are not on the same level. IQ yes they will be compared but for features ? not in the same stratosphere.

this is not about a nikon/ canon war between us but it is CLEAR as day that the d300 is higher specced and better featured. that is actually indisputable and apart from the canon groupies at POTN, you are the first sensible person i have seen that won't accept that fact.

[coldrain]

I am not saying the D300 and D40 are the same in every aspect at all, though.
Yes, the higher res. LCD is very nice! Yes, the inclusion of digital compact style AF for live view via the sensor is nice too!
Does that all of a sudden make them not compete? I beg to differ on that point. Never before has been said about any camera that they can not be compared, because one of the camera has a nicer LCD screen.

Just as the 40D (on paper) has some plusses... like the 14 bits, the tricks possible with the vertical grips, the included RAW convertor.

So, no, they are not the same camera. And yes, they have a difference in price. And yes, the do compete. Anyone interested in a semi pro range camera automatically will look at the 40D and D300.
Just like before, with the 30D and the D200. And before that with the D100/D70 and 20D. And in that choice, lenses will take a role too.

BTW, I did see some ISO 3200 samples supposedly taken with an EOS 40D, and they were not all too amazing.

[RichNY]

Coldy- If specs hold up to reality the D300 is vastly superior to the D40. If it were not for the issues with high ISO who in their right mind would have purchased a 30D over a D200 in the past?

I'm with you more often than not but when comparing speed of the Mark III with the D3 you honestly do have to drop the Canon's speed by 20% for the images that you'll loose because of the AF issues.

I also agree with you the a $500 price difference still put the 40D and D300 as head to head competitors (It's actually only $250 if you factor in not having to buy an ST-E2/or extra flash to have wireless control- and then you're still stuck with a crappy flash system)

Tim- Why do you have a 40D on pre-order? I thought your current kit would have been great until both cameras are out and fully tested. I'm beginning to think you just really like buying and playing with new cameras as they come out ;)

[VTEC_EATER]

Would you say that the 40D and 1DmkIIn are in the same class of cameras?

If not, what would you say are the key things that put these cameras in two different classes? Would it be burst rate? Would it be a more advanced focus system? Would it be the sensor? Would it be its construction? Its LCD screen? Its viewfinder? What? Im actually serious about these questions.

Because as I see it, the D300, on paper, is the equivalent of a 1DmkIIn. Only its $1700 less.

[coldrain]

Coldy- If specs hold up to reality the D300 is vastly superior to the D40. If it were not for the issues with high ISO who in their right mind would have purchased a 30D over a D200 in the past?

I'm with you more often than not but when comparing speed of the Mark III with the D3 you honestly do have to drop the Canon's speed by 20% for the images that you'll loose because of the AF issues.

I also agree with you the a $500 price difference still put the 40D and D300 as head to head competitors (It's actually only $250 if you factor in not having to buy an ST-E2/or extra flash to have wireless control- and then you're still stuck with a crappy flash system)

Tim- Why do you have a 40D on pre-order? I thought your current kit would have been great until both cameras are out and fully tested. I'm beginning to think you just really like buying and playing with new cameras as they come out ;)
Only some Mk III's have AF issues, and they are not all of the same kind.
CW at the moment has NO AF issues in burst mode with IA Focus.
The problems he showed were with single shot focus. So, no, you do not distract 20% off the frame rate.

[Speed2]

U two are not gonna come to any sort of agreement on this issue till the beasts are tested, and then, that also remains to be seen. Richny ur statment was right when u said "if it were not for the issues with high ISO who in their right mind would have purchased a 30D over a D200 in the past" for me anyways that was true, price maybe a small factor, but not for others. Dpreview compared these 2 cameras side by side in their review and they will they compare the 40d and d300 also side by side, and so they should. Megapixels isn't gonna mean a thing, they could have almost left the 40d at 8.2, but nikons 12.1 might be to much of a jump, if color and sharpening algorithms, are equal in both. Tests will tell us.

[fionndruinne]

Oooh, who accidentally typed "D40"?;)

[Gintaras]

what i figure immediately from European retailers is that 40D is another price league than D300. Canon's 40D is 1050-1150 euros on pre-order, D300 is about 1800-1900 euros. Difference is not little to neglect as one can invest 750 euros in Canon 10-22 lenses. I also see no immediate drop of prices on 400D and D80 or 30D...probably in Europe as always we have to wait till new models hit stores. :(

for me D300 looks like a perfect camera and a big overkill for an amateur at the same time. rather 40D fits better my needs. that s not to say which camera is better, it is just i am not about to invest 2k euros in the body only unless i plan doing photography for living, which i am not.
OR IS THERE D90 ON THE WAY??? :rolleyes:

[Gintaras]

fion... D40 or 40D... soooooo easy to make a typo...:p

[Rex914]

As much as I'm impressed with the specs list for the D300 and its value proposition, I've also quite pleased that Canon pulled through with more than I expected and kept the price relatively low. I won't be pulling the gun until December, but it looks like the 40D is the right choice for my needs. On paper, it looks like a great improvement over the 30D, and it's just enough camera to satisfy my needs whereas the D300 looks to be too much camera for me. That and the fact that I still have a leaning towards the Canon lens lineup because it suits my needs better.

- Jon

[steeliejim]

I just joined so I could chime in on the comparison between the 40d and d300. I put down my deposit on the 40d the day after it came out,and hope it will arrive before my trip to Africa in early Oct (Last year I shot 43 rolls of slide film--never again).

I still shoot film (switched from t-90 and F-1N with lenses up to the 500 4.5L, to EOS 3's so I could start building up glass inventory while waiting for the Canon dslr that met my needs and price). Yeah, I'm a dinosaur just switching to digital--except for a Sylus 800 P&S (which I love BTW,since, even with its limitations--and it does have limits), I can get the shot I need in wet conditions.

Anyway, I had a chance to move to Nikon because my old (but still great FD lenses aren't compatible with the EOS series. I was tempted on the d200, but was concerned with the banding issue, and a couple of pro's I know who are supplied cameras by their newpaper, hated the D2X they were "forced" to use.

Okay, to my points re. the attractiveness of the d300 (at least on paper) for my needs. I guess I could be called a semi-pro photog, since I've had a bunch of pix published in magazines to accompany published articles. A step up, I like to think, from the guy with the XT shooting weddings for friends, but still it would take a big leap up to getting published in upscale travel/adventure magazines.

I write mostly on fishing, outdoors, and environmental stuff, so one big need for me is good weather jsealing. I was really excited by the 40d specs initially, but, from what I can tell, the buttons are not sealed. Not good for taking pix on a boat pitching in high seas on the "coho highway" at Rivers Inlet in BC. One mistake (which I've made in the past) with salt water on my hands, I'm down a camera, and facing a big repair bill.

The other point I'd like to make is the cost difference between the two cameras. I don't look at the body alone, but at the system, including my lens suite. So far, I have the EF 20mm 2.8, 24-105mm 4.0L IS, 70-200mm, 4.0L IS, 100 mm 2.8 macro, 300mm 4.0L IS, 580 EX and 1.4 converter. I will get a wide angle fixed (maybe tie new 14mm) or wide angle zoom to make up (somewhat) for the crop factor of the 40d, and eventually, the 500mm 4.0L IS.

So, even without the future purchases, the lenses in which I have invested, added to cost of the camera body, make the relative difference in cost between 40D and D300 systems (assuming an equivalent Nikon lens and accessory quiver) much smaller.

Now, if the real life specs turn out that the d300 (and the D3x) live up to the specs, I will be sorely pressed to reconsider my investment in Canon. Yes, I would lose some $$$ in selling my Canon gear, but in watching EBAY it's amazing how some people are willing to bid up photo gear, sometimes as much or more than it can be bought new.

No hurry, though, and I am not inclined to jump. I have a lot of fondness for, and great photos from, Canon. But, the weather sealing is big to me, and the relative cost difference is really not so geat when the camera body has a lens (a good one, anyway) attached. The tipping point will be (maybe) the side by side high ISO comparisons between the two. I'm a guy who has spent decades trying to get low light shots with ISO 64 (yeah, I loved Kodachrome), and 100 slide film. No question that Canon has excelled in that dept. It just might be that Nikon has now caught up. Can't wait to be able to go to 400 or 800 with a button push--get publishable photos, and then go back down to the lower ISO's.

Just a few thoughts. I like this forum, because it seems that people can keep to the issues without name calling.

Jim

[timmciglobal]

Sounds like you would be a good candidate for a used 1d mark 2. I just missed one for 1700 used. If I can find another one for < 2K I'll probably buy one over the 40d.

Tim