DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> D300 vs. 40D - $500 better?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 52, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/23/2007 12:46:35 PM · #1
$1299 for the 40D
$1799 for the D300

What are the extra 500 bones getting you?
If you are not invested in F-mount glass is it worth it?
08/23/2007 01:00:22 PM · #2
Side by side comparison here.
 08/23/2007 01:09:50 PM · #3
103g more :p
 08/23/2007 02:07:51 PM · #4
I agree that there is not much difference. I think Nikon should have released the D300 with a sensor of 1.1 crop factor (assuming that it would have been compatible with DX lenses). That would have put Nikon in a very good situation against Canon.

Message edited by author 2007-08-23 14:29:29.
 08/23/2007 02:13:39 PM · #5
Are these prices typical of street prices?
At least at time of release probably.
Thats a tough price jump for those not loyal to Nikon.
If I only had my kit lens I would seriously consider upgrading to the 40D for $500 less.

ETA: A 1.1 crop factor would have screwed DX lens owners unless they did the same nifty DX recognition auto crop.

Message edited by author 2007-08-23 14:14:37.
 08/23/2007 02:32:08 PM · #6
I can't imagine how you can even begin to compare the two when you haven't seen images from either.
 08/23/2007 02:35:52 PM · #7
Originally posted by nikuser:
I can't imagine how you can even begin to compare the two when you haven't seen images from either.


You must understand that it's usually not about the images or creating any either.
 08/23/2007 02:47:00 PM · #8
Originally posted by nikuser:
I can't imagine how you can even begin to compare the two when you haven't seen images from either.


That obviously goes without saying.
This hypothetical assumes image quality being equal.
Now if it turns out that ISO 6400 on the D300 has the same noise characteristics as ISO 200 on the 40D then that makes a difference eh?
08/24/2007 12:14:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by rswank:

What are the extra 500 bones getting you?


your paying for the noise ;)

now considering that they've improved the ISO performance over the D200, the D300 would prolly be on par with the 20/30D by now, so they'll still be behind in the noise race :)

40D image samples
//web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos40d/eos40d_sample-e.html
ISO800 on the 40D is unbelievable!

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 12:16:41.
 08/24/2007 12:24:22 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bobster:

your paying for the noise ;)

now considering that they've improved the ISO performance over the D200, the D300 would prolly be on par with the 20/30D by now, so they'll still be behind in the noise race :)


Really? Have you seen the images yet? Because I haven't. What an amazing statement made without fact hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

:-)
 08/24/2007 12:31:05 PM · #11
I'm not overly impressed with the ISO800 shot on the site. Ya, it's not bad, but it doesn't represent a quantum leap forward or anything. It would certainly be better than the 300D, and maybe I'm used to the 5D, but I would think the 30D or even 20D could do almost as good at ISO800. Am I wrong?
 08/24/2007 12:45:20 PM · #12
I would say compared to my 20D, that 40D 800ISO image is fairly good. The key to low noise is proper exposure. Doing weddings has opened my eyes up to that, so once the sun goes down and the party begins, I have to make sure I am using the proper exposure so I can bump the iso to 1600 and have relatively noise free images. It's all in the exposure.
 08/24/2007 01:09:29 PM · #13
Nikons have always been more expensive than Canon. It's the reason I went with Canon instead of Nikon. The D200 cost about $500 more than the $30D.
 08/24/2007 01:18:40 PM · #14
But the D200 and the 30D are not comparable IMO. The 30D is somewhat between the D80 and the D200.
 08/24/2007 01:31:31 PM · #15
D3 will be the one to watch out for.. As for the 40D noise at ISO800 I think the best camera for noise in this price range is the Fujifilm S5 Pro by quite a long way.

Im sure the next camera I will buy could end up being the D3, on paper it looks great but I am waiting for the images and also for my local camera center to get one in store so I can go rip it up for a day and see what it can REALLY do. That is how I ended up going with the Fuji and to be honest, as far as NOISE goes, it is one of the best cameras on the market.

D300 don't really look THAT much better than the D200, few more bells and whistles I wont use a lot. The 40D looks a wee bit better than the 30D but not SUCH a great deal better either.

I personally think the D3 is a landmark with Nikon cameras and is a bit better "on paper" than the competition... waiting to confirm by shooting with one as soon as they are in store.
 08/24/2007 01:43:08 PM · #16
I agree with you MAK. The D300 is not much a step up to the D200. I wished the D300 would have a sensor close to be a FF

08/24/2007 01:56:00 PM · #17
part of the reason for the price difference is that the d200/d300 is just a much better build than the 30d/40d. It's sealed and can stand upto a lot more. To me that's worth more than a lot of things, cuz you can't make photos in a rough environment with a camera that can't hold up to it.
 08/24/2007 02:22:53 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bobster:
Originally posted by rswank:

What are the extra 500 bones getting you?


your paying for the noise ;)

now considering that they've improved the ISO performance over the D200, the D300 would prolly be on par with the 20/30D by now, so they'll still be behind in the noise race :)

40D image samples
//web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos40d/eos40d_sample-e.html
ISO800 on the 40D is unbelievable!


A. There are many who could care less about high ISO performance, in fact my biggest beef with the D3 (besides the unnecessary FF sensor) is 200 is the lowest ISO. For several decades my standard film was ISO 50 (Velvia) and my fastest was ISO 125 (tri-x).

B. Here are 40 million reasons for spending the extra $500.

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 14:23:56.
 08/24/2007 03:53:38 PM · #19
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

A. There are many who could care less about high ISO performance, in fact my biggest beef with the D3 (besides the unnecessary FF sensor) is 200 is the lowest ISO. For several decades my standard film was ISO 50 (Velvia) and my fastest was ISO 125 (tri-x).


I agree - why on earth don't they have 50 iso?
I have much more use for that than I would anything over 400...

(I think your memory fails you - tri-x is 400 iso. I believe the kodak 125 iso b&w film is called plus-x)
 08/24/2007 04:01:07 PM · #20
100% viewfinder. Those are expensive.
Weather sealing
Top of the line AF
Real 3" instead of upscaled 2.5"
If I were to buy my first DSLR system today, D300 would be close to my wish camera.
Edit:
Seems like Canon and Nikon had very different design philosophy:
Canon: What is the minimum we can offer people to upgrade from the 30D?
(10MP, better shutter, larger screen, faster FPS)
Nikon: Ok, now we have full frame camera (D3), lets make a professonal APS camera too!

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 16:03:26.
 08/24/2007 05:20:01 PM · #21
I do not think there will be much difference between a 3" LCD (230,000 pixels) and a 2.5" LCD (230,000 pixels). The difference might be a little bit more significant on the Nikon Side (3" LCD 922,000 pixels versus 2.5" LCD, 230,000 pixels) though.

It looks to me as if the new generation of cameras have more moving parts than ever. That might be a great deal for reliability. I am not so much excited by neither the anti-dust moving part.

The Canon strategy is obvious: sell more at a lower price, ultimately Canon has to step down the quality of the body. It is obvious when you compared the specs of the 40D and the D300 (regardless the image quality produced by both cameras)

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 17:23:02.
 08/24/2007 05:58:05 PM · #22
It looks like the D3 and the D300 are going to be tanks. I think the difference between the Canon and Nikon cameras are going to be the markets that they are trying to fill. On paper Canon has the edge when it comes to art and commercial photography. Lets face it, at 21mp the 1Ds Mk3is probably going to have amazing image quality. Nikon is going in the direction of sports and photojournalism. As far as the D300, I really can't justify the cost, the D200 is still a great camera. The D3, I will just have to see if I can get when I sell the house. Honestly, I think I'm more excited about the new glass Nikon has come out with. Pricey but nice.
 08/24/2007 06:57:45 PM · #23
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
The Canon strategy is obvious: sell more at a lower price, ultimately Canon has to step down the quality of the body. It is obvious when you compared the specs of the 40D and the D300 (regardless the image quality produced by both cameras)


Your point about the bodies might be valid, however, a cheaper pricepoint by Canon may also reflect economies of scale (Canon is bigger) and the fact they produce their own sensors.
 08/24/2007 09:52:16 PM · #24
Originally posted by Bobster:

now considering that they've improved the ISO performance over the D200, the D300 would prolly be on par with the 20/30D by now, so they'll still be behind in the noise race :)


This may be true, but is probably not. Canon was doing most of their noise removal on-chip for the longest time. Sony has found a way around the patent that Canon made, and now has a hardware based solution (i.e. - noise level is lowered before it gets to the image processor) Since Nikon has been working overtime to get their image processors up to coping with the inherently bad hardware design, Nikon may have leapt over Canon. Not trying to hype, just running hypotheticals ;)

On the bodies.

1. possibly better weather sealing (Canon upgraded theirs), and judging just from the weight (may or may not factor) more robust architecture.
2. 930,000 pixel LCD vs. 230,000 on the 40d - No contest there.
3. Arguably better AF system design - theortical, real world tests needed. The "cross type for f/5.6 and better" caveat on the 40d bolsters that theory. Difference may still be minuscule. Regardless, if 15 cross type and 51 total points don't make a difference over 9 cross-types, Nikon has some splaining to do. The contrast only in Live view is good, Canon you have to shutter up-down for auto-focus in live view, or manual focus.
4. Sync ports - this is important and gaining in popularity with the rise of the Strobist.com enthusiasts, unless you don't ever plan on doing studio or off-camera flash,
5. 12mp. of minor significance, but it's there.
6. Will do 8FPS with a grip. Sure, it's an addon, but not available with 40d at all.
7. Actual spot metering again. Canon still does their 4% center spot, Nikon spot meters at focus point.
8. 100% Frame coverage viewfinder, 40d 95%
9. Commander mode for off-camera flashes.

-1. Canon added wiFi and ethernet to the grip, so good on them.

= both have sensor cleaning
= both have live view
= both UDMA
= both HDMI

Message edited by author 2007-08-24 21:58:16.
 08/25/2007 03:23:16 PM · #25
ISO3200 from 40D //dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/canoneos40d_preview/originals/img_0509.jpg < full file, very slow DL atm

Message edited by nshapiro - fix link.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 01:36:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 01:36:11 PM EDT.