A public bet with Coldy :)

[RichNY]

I've read your threads where you offer the opinion that the 40D will have superior high ISO to the D300 and question whether the new D300's AF will be up to par as well.

I'm going to call you on this in public and challenge you to a bet of one lens cap, winner take all :)

Once the reviews are in should the D300 prevail you will also promise not to make any posts that the 40D should not be compared to the D300 because of the price difference, yada yada.

Don, if you want to get in on this you'll have to promise no Tamron or in-camera IS posts for 6 months; willing to take up the challenge? :)

[Viky]

Lmaof :d:d:d

[Rooz]

challenge you to a bet of one lens cap, winner take all :)

lmfao
i hope at least its not one of the shitty canon lens caps that fall off. :D

[forno]

Rich, Rooz take a seat in one of my comfy deck chairs, the beer is cold and the popcorn fresh:p

[fionndruinne]

I'll pitch in: if the 40d has a better ISO 3200 image (and I'm not talking a little less desaturation than the D300, I mean if the 40d's noise level is really lower and detail clearer) than the D300's... why I'll admit myself lost without a dedicated WB button.:D

[TheObiJuan]

haha!
This is great!

[RichNY]

lmfao
i hope at least its not one of the shitty canon lens caps that fall off. :D

If I loose I'll let Coldy pick the brand of his choice. I'll even give Don a waiver to type Tamron in Caps and Colors if they win :)

[RichNY]

I'll admit myself lost without a dedicated WB button.:D

Canon's WB is easy to set. Now mirror lock up....

[coldrain]

That is a bit odf an odd bey, RichNY. Especially since I have never claimed a 40D should not be compared to a D300, but that some have been telling ME it should not be compared. If you have folloed any thread, you must have noticed I do compare them. Look up the high ISO 40D D300 thread for example.

And I have never said a 30D and D200 should not be compared either.

So, I do not get it. Since when is a price difference a reason to to compare items?

[Rooz]

i get the distinct impression rich is joking coldy. ;)

[coldrain]

I know, I am pointing out that the joke does not make much sense to me.
A joke should have some basis, afterall..

Not sure how else I should have reacted.

Anyway... look, no noise at the sample shots!
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d300/sample.htm

...At ISO 200. The photos are soft, yet the used lesn is the 17-55 f2.8 DX which normally is not that soft at 45 and 31mm. In camera processed JPEGs, hard to tell what the camera is capable of. And the blue colour of the photos makes them even less informative, they do not show what the colour feel of the D300 is like (I hope :D:p).

[Gintaras]

Is it again about NOISE??? how boring...:p

[RichNY]

That is a bit odf an odd bey, RichNY. Especially since I have never claimed a 40D should not be compared to a D300, but that some have been telling ME it should not be compared. If you have folloed any thread, you must have noticed I do compare them. Look up the high ISO 40D D300 thread for example.

And I have never said a 30D and D200 should not be compared either.

So, I do not get it. Since when is a price difference a reason to to compare items?

Coldy- Rooz is right, I am joking with you as I think was evident by the huge wager of a lens cap :)

I know you never made the claim that a 40D shouldn't be compared to a D300 or the 30D/D200.... I was just joking that if it turned out that Nikon does finally pass Canon this round that making that type of claim couldn't be a defense :)

And if Don joins in with the no Tamron or In-Camera IS then I'd expect to see you jumping up and down hoping Nikon finally has a leg up for a while!