I was in the same dilemma.
I chose the D300 although it cost much more.
Pros: - Much more solid....better live-view operations, lower noise on higher ISO, higher specs, excellent motordrive speed, excellent grip.
Cons: Heavier, more expensive
40D Pros: Lighter, smaller, lower noise on <ISO400.
Basically the D300 is alot closer to a full pro body than a 40D, although both belong to the semi-pro category.
btw. does the d300 has lens suitable for it? like cannon ef s cannot work on cannon FF.
I was in the same dilemma.
I chose the D300 although it cost much more.
Pros: - Much more solid....better live-view operations, lower noise on higher ISO, higher specs, excellent motordrive speed, excellent grip.
Cons: Heavier, more expensive
40D Pros: Lighter, smaller, lower noise on <ISO400.
Basically the D300 is alot closer to a full pro body than a 40D, although both belong to the semi-pro category.
I second that, melvinchen.
Nikon lens + High ISO control. Solid build. No way the Canon 40D can compare.
good lens = 1k+ dun have that much budget. wad i am now looking for is a good able to last body. when i improve then i will change my lens as deem fit.
then if like that. 450D + 17-55 f2.8 would be a better choice?