Are the 2 models comparable? because i heard from a friend that the d300 was a good choice because he got one, tried out both models, feeling is ABOUT the same..... but i also heard some relatively not so good reviews on the d300 like the slower AF. Which one would you guys recommend? Usage usually for portrait and nature views and some events.Also tried searching here for comparism but didn't managed to find any.
Help: Comparism Btw 40d and d300
- Thread starter labla
- Start date
- Status
if u can afford nikon, then by all means get the better system. but quality comes at a premium. for us poor shooters, canon serious enthusiast camera is the best bang for buck among the other brands. :bsmilie:
Hahahaha u poor shooter? hahahaha i see all the 'red L' in your signature lo
hahaha. But i feel like getting the 40d but waiting too because was told that it was quite a old model already hahaha
Hahahaha u poor shooter? hahahaha i see all the 'red L' in your signature lo
canon L lenses still cheaper than nikon G lenses actually.
anyway no point waiting because IT stuff always get obsolete the day u buy it. are u gonna wait till next yr for the 50D?
Buy into the system of accessories and lenses, not the bodies. You would want to upgrade sooner or later so a wide and widely available set of accessories, both original and third party is a must have.
Samuel
Samuel
But i feel like getting the 40d but waiting too because was told that it was quite a old model already
The 40D is not a "quite old model" at all.
Well, the 40D is several notches below the D300 in terms of features, etc. And the D300 AF is not slow at all.
In many ways, you get what you pay for... So for the 3 larger DSLR makers, it's:
Features:
D300 > A700 > 40D.
Price:
D300 > A700 > 40D.
But like the others said, you're buying into a system as a whole.
Both models will be great for portraits and nature shots.
Since your friend has a D300, why not just try it out first
Ryan
Since your friend has a D300, why not just try it out first
Ryan
I think the 40D is plenty for a starter into DSLR photography. It is the oldest of the three (A700, D300, 40D) which accounts for the lower price and supposedly poorer functions. But if you waited for the latest and greatest, you'll never stop waiting. Grab one now and take pictures Now instead of waiting for the D900 or the 99D.
Samuel
Samuel
Hey Sam thanks for your pointers. I was just curious as i read up on many sites and they seem to say that the 40d is comparable to the d300... yea so was just curios what the CSers think about it.
Both models will be great for portraits and nature shots.
Since your friend has a D300, why not just try it out first
Ryan
Yea waiting for him to bring it around so that i can play with it haha.... saw some pictures he took definitely beat 450D in terms of colours..... so i kinda opened my mind to more models.
The 40D is not a "quite old model" at all.
Well, the 40D is several notches below the D300 in terms of features, etc. And the D300 AF is not slow at all.
In many ways, you get what you pay for... So for the 3 larger DSLR makers, it's:
Features:
D300 > A700 > 40D.
Price:
D300 > A700 > 40D.
But like the others said, you're buying into a system as a whole.
Sorry Rash. But i have read quite a few articles on the d300. Many have complained about the relatively SLUGGISH AF. No idea why. Have to wait till i try it out maybe. hmmm it's ok i still have till the year end to think about which cam to get.
Thanks guys please tell me more
Victor
My advise is to stop reading reviews and go down to the stores to handle it. I think you've read enough reviews to last a lifetime, now is the time to feel and decide for yourself. All the best with your decision.
Samuel
The D300/D3 AF should be 1 of the most advanced AF systems now. Why I say that is because it uses the Matrix metering together with it's AF system to track subjects according to colour and I guess other things to, but colour is what I remember. Then there is it's 51 point AF which covers quite a lot of the sensor, so more often than not u'd get an AF point on your subject.
So with all these complexities, u need a lot of processing power and what reviews mentioned is if u turn on all the bells and whistles, target acquisition takes a bit of time because a lot of data to crunch but once it locks on, it's very accurate even if the target is running around in the viewfinder.
Thus if u want speed, put to the least complex AF settings and the target acquisition is as fast as the competion's.
So if u read that the AF is sluggish, must ask what mode they are using..
Thanks
will go steal a d300 for me to play with for awhile or go down to John 3:16 to play with the cams i think Sam is going to kill me for going in and playing with the cams just for fun Also, if LCD screen resolution is your thing, check out the nikon's 900k pixel 3.0 inch LCD. That's nothing to do with picture quality... but hey...
Yup. Same LCD as the A700, and the D300 also has HDMI out. Don't underestimate how cool that feature is.
actually,the technical specs of the d300 are not that much better than the 40d...BUT,the d300 has a much better build with weather sealings
Thanks
No he won't. But it'll make his day if you do decide to put down the cash for it...
Samuel
I think in very practical terms...the diff between D300 and 40D is as such:
D300's colour (not just saturation) is like 10x better than Canon (besides 1Ds Mk III).
Its not just about more saturated, but it looks realistic and colourful, just different. I've compared this side-by-side with 5D, 450D, 30D, 40D and also seen on almost every review.
D300 is much more solidly built, closer to a full-fledged Pro body. Every button and switch feels almost exactly like a full pro body.
Noise levels are lower than 40D from ISO 400 onwards. Although 40D is cleaner from ISO 100 to 400...I don't know why.
D300's sharpness after noise reduction is also better, when noise kicks in, is significantly cleaner and the noise is more monochromatic rather than Canon's colourful noise patterns.
D300's colour (not just saturation) is like 10x better than Canon (besides 1Ds Mk III).
Its not just about more saturated, but it looks realistic and colourful, just different. I've compared this side-by-side with 5D, 450D, 30D, 40D and also seen on almost every review.
D300 is much more solidly built, closer to a full-fledged Pro body. Every button and switch feels almost exactly like a full pro body.
Noise levels are lower than 40D from ISO 400 onwards. Although 40D is cleaner from ISO 100 to 400...I don't know why.
D300's sharpness after noise reduction is also better, when noise kicks in, is significantly cleaner and the noise is more monochromatic rather than Canon's colourful noise patterns.
To be honest, this 14-bit thing is no diff...I've read so many reviews, lab tests and done my own tests...really can't tell the diff, no matter how close u look...they just look identical 12 or 14-bit....they are just brilliantly the same. haha.
I use only 12-bit mode, cause the 14-bit mode does have a slight shutter lag, which can affect whether u can capture the moment for action/sports shooting.
Saturation is opinionated, plus with the different picture styles (don't know what Nikon calls it) you get different effects, making it harder to pinpoint it down. Plus, even if there might be a difference, there certainly isn't a 10x difference.
I half agree with you on the built part. Again, the 40D is no slouch at the built quality, but the battery grip fails badly while Nikon's own battery grip works seamlessly with the D300.
I find that the high ISO pictures details are smudged if you turn on the noise reduction for both cameras so I turned it off and didn't note it.
All of these are my impressions of the 40D vis a vis the D300.
Samuel
- Status
Similar threads
