Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 28, 2007, 8:53 AM   #21
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What do you think about the new Nikon AF?
It's really a steep upgrade for a Canon guy to step up to that same AF capability in the MrkIII ($3799 extra) don't you think as opposed to the $500 premium for the D300?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2007, 8:59 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
What do you think about the new Nikon AF?
It's really a steep upgrade for a Canon guy to get that same AF capability in the MrkIII ($3799 extra) don't you think as opposed to the $500 premium for the D300?
Personally I think Nikon have done sterling work here and Canon need to wake up over the next year as I'm sure some people will consider making a move. However loads of us have a very large investment in Canon (especially at the pro end) so don't think a lot will jump ship at least in the short term if Canon respond correctly with the next generation, however I think that might change if the 1D Mk IV's, the 3D (or what ever replaces the 5D)and the 50D don't do something a little special then that is 2 generations of being 2nd in innovation....... HOWEVER, we have not see the real performance of the new Nikon kit so if it does not perform as advertised that could all go out of the window anyway.

Really looking forward to seeing what happens.

I do feel really sorry for some of the people on the wedding photog forum I'm on though who recently switched to Canon as they could no longer cope with the high noise of the Nikon D200's and D2X's as they must be kicking themselves now!!!
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2007, 9:20 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Default

Hello all,
I am new here and I am coming with the same question, however I have spent some more time reading different opinions and I would probably go for 40D. Still, I would be asking which camera is better for me. I never had DSLR, I made 7000+ shots with my Sony DSC F717 and I was quite happy with it, but I went to the Formula 1 race in September and then I realized this camera is not good enough. I decided to invest more money and I thought that I need a camera with a very good focus and good shoting speed so that I could take great pictures of Formula 1 cars.

This is my goal:
Formula 1 pictures
Indoor activities.

Some people say that a 1000$ is not good enough. I say....wow! That is very expensive....

I would then go for the Canon 40D without a lens kit, but then which glass to get?
Would you recommend one?

Thanks

Ferrari_Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2007, 11:07 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Ferrari_Alex wrote:
Quote:
Hello all,
I am new here and I am coming with the same question, however I have spent some more time reading different opinions and I would probably go for 40D. Still, I would be asking which camera is better for me. I never had DSLR, I made 7000+ shots with my Sony DSC F717 and I was quite happy with it, but I went to the Formula 1 race in September and then I realized this camera is not good enough. I decided to invest more money and I thought that I need a camera with a very good focus and good shoting speed so that I could take great pictures of Formula 1 cars.

This is my goal:
Formula 1 pictures
Indoor activities.

Some people say that a 1000$ is not good enough. I say....wow! That is very expensive....

I would then go for the Canon 40D without a lens kit, but then which glass to get?
Would you recommend one?

Thanks

Hello Alex,

I'm in the same boat as you. I've been shooting with a good P&S and about to make the move to DSLR. Realizing the limitations of my existing camera and the possibilities when using a DSLR system. I too have been looking at both the Canon 40D and Nikon D300. And actually...possibly...a D3...

What lens to get for sports? The 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be a great choice. "moderately" priced. Multi-function...as you can also use it for portrait work as well.

I think it comes down to your budget. Though, if you're looking at a 40D, then i'd assume you might have a tighter budget. So you might not be willing to look at getting a 400 f/2.8 IS tele...

For me, I like to shoot portraits, landscape, architecture,"action" (e.g. dance,close range sports,cars driving by in a city...etc.)and travel photography. So lens in the range of 10 to 200 mm would be fine.

Will I go for the 40D or the D300? Hard to say. Though, I have to say I'm leaning more towards the D300. At least based on specs. I would still like to read some test reports and see how it performs. Do all the said features work as they should? Will there be some annoying quirk that will be revealed in testing?

If I had to get a DSLR today I'd get the 40D. Don't think any one could go wrong getting one.

Regarding Nikon/Canon AF systems...I don't really think they are comparable. Besides the high AF point count. With Canon having a maximum of 45 and now Nikon with 51 in the D3/D300. With Canon you have a combination of selectable and "assist" points. Most are "assist" helping the AF sensor. Whereas with the two Nikons all 51 points are user selectable. Or that's my understanding (what I've read and heard on podcasts). Nikon has done their work in developing the new CAM3500 AF sensor...now how does it work in the real world? Remains to be seen...
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2007, 1:10 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
What lens to get for sports? The 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be a great choice. "moderately" priced. Multi-function...as you can also use it for portrait work as well.
200mm will be quite a bit short for racing unless you were shooting from inside the track. 300-400 would be more appropriate for this type of sport. So the $1600 could be better spent on other lenses better able to do the job. Again, there is no single sports lens you have to consider what sports are going to be shot. IfAlex is limiting his sports shootingto formula 1, reach is much more important than max aperture.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2007, 1:39 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
What lens to get for sports? The 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be a great choice. "moderately" priced. Multi-function...as you can also use it for portrait work as well.
200mm will be quite a bit short for racing unless you were shooting from inside the track. 300-400 would be more appropriate for this type of sport. So the $1600 could be better spent on other lenses better able to do the job. Again, there is no single sports lens you have to consider what sports are going to be shot. IfAlex is limiting his sports shootingto formula 1, reach is much more important than max aperture.

Hey JohnG,

It's true. Depending on where exactly Alex will be shooting from will greatly affect which lens he should be using. Along with his budget. Though, if he's willing to buy used glass...

He could consider Canon's 100-400 f/4.5 IS (or I think it's an IS lens). Though, it might not be the best lens to use indoors.

I just suggested the 70-200 more as an "all purpose" lens...a guess...not knowing more details.That and the fact that he said he also plans to shoot "indoors" (where having more f-stop, e.g. f/2.8 lens, would come in handy). That and being that he's more a F1 fan than a working sports photographer (limiting track location acess) I assumed he would be seated...only shooting cars that whip by the stands. Or hemight be standing against the fence at the front of the stands. Though, I know in some tracks in Europe you can wander along the periphery.

He could also get a 2x converter...giving him more flexiblity at few more dollars.

On another topic...

I just heard that Nikon Japan has set an offical release date for the D300 (for Japanese buyers in Japan). They are scheduled to debut the D300 on the 23rd. Wonder if that will be the same all over the world (and if that includes the D3). I hope it is.


DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 9:37 AM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Can I just point one thing out. Why do we take pictures?

I'm sure most of you will agree thats its to admire them!

So as far I am concerned - image quality plays a big role in this 'jungle', and the D300 has been labelled as a camera which produces the best image qualuty within it's class. So upto the pro level of your 1Ds and D3s this camera MAY be worth the extra buck considering the image quality PLUS the other 'gadgets'.

As my friends in this thread have also said - this coupled with goodglass and your technique will get you close to pro standards.
MDPhotography is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2008, 1:48 PM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Well, i guess I would be crazy if i trade my 40d in with a D300?

I have seen D300 work and it was just absolutely amazing!


Fobulous is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:02 AM.