40D vs. D300

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 23, 2007

Hey, this is my first post here, hello to everyone...

I just wanted to hear from you guys about the 40D and D300, i've read some reviews on here, and els were about the two cameras, but i cant seem to find any info about witch one is better....

Is one of the two better? or are they practically the same cameras? are there any features that one has and one doesn't?

This will be my first SLR...and i just want to know if one is better than the other. Ive always had canon's, and i am leaning towards buying the 40d...
Though i haven't seen a D300 in person yet....So let me know anything u know about which is better than the other...

...id like to hear from all of you who have anything to say, D300 owners, and 40D owners, let me know anything u think will help me make my decision!

Thanks a lot,

Dan :wink:

soylentgreen · Nov 23, 2007

Hello Dan, Welcome to the forum. As to your question, your really comparing two cameras, that in my opinion, can't really be compared head-to-head. Canon and Nikon have a wierd strategy, in that they do not release cameras that directly compete with one another exactly. Kinda like how Intel and AMD release similar chips, but one has a slight edge over the other; and vice-versa. Both are mid-level professional grade camera bodies that more features than you will ever use. I akin the D300 to compete more with the Canon 5D. I am not sure if the D300 is out yet, I have not ran into anyone using it. My friend is on a waiting list for one, and I know he still has not got it. The D300 specs out a little higher and about $500 more than the 40D; but is the newer kid on the block. So being a bit later in, they packed it with some more features. I like the 51 point AF they tacked on it. Wish Canon did the same, but hey. I have the 40D and it is a great camera. ISO control is impressive, on par with the 5D by some estimates. Live-View is neat, but I really have not used it that much. The 6.5fps is awesome. That's what sold me on it, since I wanted a faster shooting rate than the 3fps I had on the 20D. Go to the store and play around with them. How they perform in your hands is more important than nit-picking features. I went to the store to buy a Nikon D70 but ended up with a Canon because it felt better to use. Also keep in mind the type of photography you will eventually like to do. Lens selection is a big factor also. I shoot more wildlife, so the telephoto line-up that Canon offered was important to me.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 23, 2007

hey soylentgreen, thanks for the informative reply....and everything u said about how the camera feels in my hands is very true. I played around a bit with a 40D, and it was just awesome. a friend of mine has a D80, and its pretty nice, but when i played around with a 40d at the store, it was just impressive. Much better than the D80.........well not MUCH better, but i like the spec on it. And i too will be shotting a lot of wildlife/animals, sports, and cars. I really like the shutter speed, the D80 is only 1/4000, 40D is 1/8000, and i was very impressed by how fast the 40D's shutter is....

thanks for your help, and i will go back to the store, and play around some more...and i think the D300 is out of the question for me, since like u said its not out yet, AND i can really benefit from saving those 500$.....

one more thing.... i found this camera store on ebay, they have pretty good prices on the 40d's, with good packages, have u ever heard of them? would it be safe to buy from them? http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-D...0446782QQihZ004QQcategoryZ43454QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks,

-Dan

EDIT* i just went through some of your photos of animals, they're awesome, where did u take these pictures at?
EDIT#2* i just looked through some more of your work, awesome is an understatement, its STUNNING! the animals are just beautiful. Tell me more about your work, where do you shoot all the magnificent animals?

ilockert · Nov 23, 2007

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=canon_eos40d,nikon_d300&show=all

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 23, 2007

ilockert said:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=canon_eos40d,nikon_d300&show=all

thanks for that link ! :thumbup:

soylentgreen · Nov 23, 2007

Check out their reviews. the price seems too low for me to be legit. I got my body for $1230 to put it in pespective. The 40D is a tad higher-end than the D80, so again; head-to-head comparison is a bit unfair.
The lenses are really not that spectacular. Will take pictures, but image quality is ho-hum. really depends on the quality you want. They lack the USM motor so AF will be slow. I prefer the EF-S 17-85 IS for a decent starter lens. They combo it for about $1450 with the 40D body. Great lens though. Go for the faster CF cards if possible, 4GB for about $80 these days PNY 266x, Sandisk Extreme IV or Lexar 300x. You can squeeze out a couple of extra images in burst mode before the buffer is full. The 10mp really chews up memory. Especially in RAW mode.
Those package bags and tripod are pretty much chode. IMO. Your best served going to the store and finding one that better suits your needs as you need them. There are different bags and tripod for all situations. Depending on how much you can carry and type of photography you like to take. Landscapes, panoramas use different heads on the tripod than say, wildlife photos. So your tripod should be able to adapt to your needs. I use a Manfrotto grip ball-head on my tripod for on-the-fly changes in nature photography. Landcapes may require a pan and tilt head.
Another great advantage of the 40D I forgot to mention is the viewfinder. Much brighter and larger than previous versions. Makes manual focusing much more attainable than before.
Just play around with them. You really can't go wrong with either camera. They are very capable. Just find the one that works best for you.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 25, 2007

soylentgreen said:
Check out their reviews. the price seems too low for me to be legit. I got my body for $1230 to put it in pespective. The 40D is a tad higher-end than the D80, so again; head-to-head comparison is a bit unfair.
The lenses are really not that spectacular. Will take pictures, but image quality is ho-hum. really depends on the quality you want. They lack the USM motor so AF will be slow. I prefer the EF-S 17-85 IS for a decent starter lens. They combo it for about $1450 with the 40D body. Great lens though. Go for the faster CF cards if possible, 4GB for about $80 these days PNY 266x, Sandisk Extreme IV or Lexar 300x. You can squeeze out a couple of extra images in burst mode before the buffer is full. The 10mp really chews up memory. Especially in RAW mode.
Those package bags and tripod are pretty much chode. IMO. Your best served going to the store and finding one that better suits your needs as you need them. There are different bags and tripod for all situations. Depending on how much you can carry and type of photography you like to take. Landscapes, panoramas use different heads on the tripod than say, wildlife photos. So your tripod should be able to adapt to your needs. I use a Manfrotto grip ball-head on my tripod for on-the-fly changes in nature photography. Landcapes may require a pan and tilt head.
Another great advantage of the 40D I forgot to mention is the viewfinder. Much brighter and larger than previous versions. Makes manual focusing much more attainable than before.
Just play around with them. You really can't go wrong with either camera. They are very capable. Just find the one that works best for you.

Hey, so i went to my local camera shop, and looked at some pricing/combos for the 40D. Would the EFS 28-135mm 3.5-4.6<<[if i remember correctly] IS be a good starter?....i also checked out the 70-200mm 2.8 IS.....man oh man is that an amazing lens...ill have one of those some day!

soylentgreen · Nov 25, 2007

The EF 28-135 was origianlly developed for 35mm full frame cameras. On a crop sensor with a 1.6 factor; it loses alot on the wide-angle end. Hence the EF-S 17-85, which equates to 28-135 on said crop sensor. It's a good lens though, just not wide enough on a crop sensor. I just think Canon is trying to dump out remaining inventory since DSLR sales took off.
The EF 70-200 line of L lenses are great. All of them; f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 25, 2007

soylentgreen said:
The EF 28-135 was origianlly developed for 35mm full frame cameras. On a crop sensor with a 1.6 factor; it loses alot on the wide-angle end. Hence the EF-S 17-85, which equates to 28-135 on said crop sensor. It's a good lens though, just not wide enough on a crop sensor. I just think Canon is trying to dump out remaining inventory since DSLR sales took off.
The EF 70-200 line of L lenses are great. All of them; f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS.

yeah, i was reading about that factor, with the crop sensor & wide angle issue....

and so, you're saying basically that the 17-85 is equivalent to 28-135?.....and the 28-135 is actually 44-216?

if so, then ill go back and check that lens out, perhaps ill go with that one instead of the 28-135...

soylentgreen · Nov 25, 2007

Pretty much. The outer edge of the lens coverage will be loss giving a sense of a tighter zoom.

DSLR noob · Nov 25, 2007

Just don't get a 40D OR a D300 and get crappy glass. It would be such a waste to get such good camera bodies and hinder them with optics that will lower the quality o fyour pictures(your pictures may not look any different until you get good enough to truly utilize the benefits of the L's but later on when you're more advanced, the non-L limitations will drag your photos down) If you get the 40D, spend the $500 you save over a D300 with a little extra on a lens that has an "L" in its name. And a memory card. I suggest the Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L or the Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L or if you have more, get more. If you have to, get a leftover from previous stock 30D to get the better glass as a trade-off.

dpolston · Nov 25, 2007

Muay_Thai_Dan said:
Is one of the two better? or are they practically the same cameras?

Ford vs. Chevy, vanilla vs. chocolate, Coke vs. Pepsi? My vote; Nikon. But it's not about me.

I really think it needs to come down to what you like better. What fit's your needs. I personally shot a fashion shoot today with 3 other photographers. 2 of them had Cannons. Me and the newspaper freelance photographer both shot Nikon. All of us used my strobes and each of us got shots that were marketable.

It's really up to you. You'll read a lot both for and against each of the cameras you mentioned. Wait a few days for the D300 to come out so you can play with them both.

DSLR noob · Nov 25, 2007

dpolston said:
Ford vs. Chevy, vanilla vs. chocolate, Coke vs. Pepsi? .

Dark or Milk chocolate? Mac or PC? Blue Ray or HD DVD? This is fun!

DWilks · Nov 25, 2007

D300's are out, held one in my hand the other day. Seems like a nice piece.

Muay_Thai_Dan · Nov 25, 2007

DSLR noob said:
Just don't get a 40D OR a D300 and get crappy glass. It would be such a waste to get such good camera bodies and hinder them with optics that will lower the quality o fyour pictures(your pictures may not look any different until you get good enough to truly utilize the benefits of the L's but later on when you're more advanced, the non-L limitations will drag your photos down) If you get the 40D, spend the $500 you save over a D300 with a little extra on a lens that has an "L" in its name. And a memory card. I suggest the Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L or the Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L or if you have more, get more. If you have to, get a leftover from previous stock 30D to get the better glass as a trade-off.

what does the 'L' mean exactly?.....i just look up canon's lenses on their site, and i dont see any of the regular zoom lenses with 'L's.....

....the telephoto 70-200mm has the 'L'.....but none of the regular zoom lenses...

some direction to where i can see examples of these 'L' lenses? and what is an 'L' lense?