Canon 40D vs. Nikon D300

[david3558]

I have finally saved up enough money for either camera and lens (Canon 40D/Nikon D300). Obviously due to the sheer price difference I could spend a bit more on the lens for the Canon than the D300.

Having sold my previous DSLR, I am not exactly constrained to any particular lenses that I own, but I do have a Nikon-compatible Sigma DC 18-200mm OS HSM.

I really can't decide which camera to go for, and which one is the best "bang for the buck". I am moving up from the D40x, so I want a camera which can do a bit more than my D40x could. If possible please suggest a reasonably priced lens which is good for all-around use.

Thanks so much!

 

[ScottS]

Here is a better question.

What kind of glass do you plan on putting in front of them?

 

[david3558]

I don't know exactly which lenses, but I know I want a fast prime (50mm/28mm), and a relatively fast wide-angle/zoom lens.

 

[ScottS]

Good, if you were planning on putting mediocre glass on either of the cameras, it would be foolish.

But since you plan on having good glass, i would say D300. Why? Well you already have a lens for it, and while its not a "great" lens, it still works for some stuff. Also i have heard that the ISO suppression on the D300 is better.

 

[david3558]

Ok thanks for the suggestion. I will look into other lenses for sure. I've used a 50mm 1.4 before, but I don't know what the difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 would be.

 

[Derek_Caven99]

I like the 1.8 better believe it or not. I find the 1.4 to be much softer. Just my opinion tho

 

[federerphotography]

The standard response is: Pick the system, then you know what camera to get.

That having been said, you have a nikon lens and the D300 is a killer camera - weddings, events, sports, you name it.

 

[RKW3]

They're both great cameras and they're both great systems, but I'd probably lean towards picking a D300. In the comparative reviews that I've read about these 2 cameras they always seem to favor the Nikon.

You can get outstanding results with either though, for sure. (look at TCimages for incredible 40d shots, and there are plenty of D300 shooters on this board that shoot good shots)


I think for the 1.4 vs 1.8 you may want to go for the 1.4. If you already have a fancy body like a D300 you should buy the best glass possible, and the 1.4 is supposed to be even better than the 1.8. (the build quality of the 1.4 is supposed to be much better than the 1.8 also)

 

[KOrmechea]

If it were me, I'd go with the newer technology.

On another note, after using the D40, you'll probably be a little more familiar with the D300 at the start (though I'm sure their will be a decent sized learning curve either way).

Of course, nothing beats trying them both out and seeing how you like them.

Good luck, I wish I was in your shoes...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've used both before and the 40D is like any other 10/20/30D with a 3 inch LCD and live view while the D300 is like a D200 with a bigger LCD and 51-point AF.

Walk into a shop that stocks both and use both of them. The 40D might make sense to you, the D300 might make more or less sense.

Personally, I don't particularly enjoy the ergonomics of the 40D.

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

I have the 40D and I love it, its easy to use and takes great pictures. Its so easy to learn and the settings make picture taking fun. I love the feel of the camera too.

 

[rooky]

what should the body on these run? I have seen so many diffferent price ranges


B&H may be very trustworthy but arent they a little high too? Just asking

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

you can always check pricegrabbers.com

 

[Antithesis]

The 40D will be significantly cheaper, because they are $600 cheaper new, plus there will be a large used market for them. If price is an issue, then this would be a better route and it would also allow you to get some nicer lenses. The d300 does have some nice options for the extra cash, you just need to figure out what's important to you (Low noise and faster frames per second are the two big ones).

 

[D-50]

Ive read and seen images that show the 50m 1.4 and 1.8 have essentially the same picture quality. AlsoI have held both side by side and the difference is negligable. The 1.4 is faster (obviously) and has a better build quality. For me I rarely use my 1.8 at 1.8 its just too shallow so I dont see the need for 1.4 as for the build quality the 1.8 50mm is fine with me, Im not throwing it around and because of its small size the odds of smacking it into something while on the camera are slim. For a third of the price of the 1.4 I think the 1.8 is the best deal going in the photography world. You could get a 50mm 1.8 and a SB600 for the price of a 50mm 1.4.