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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 26, 2007, 1:36 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hey guys,

Being that no one has started such a thread I thought I would be the first. As I'm sure there will be/are many more considering these two cameras.

And for now all we can go by are the features/specs that have been released.

At the onset, it appears the key difference between the two is that the D300 is a camera more for the gadget guy. Whereas the 40D design is more oriented towards the "practical" features needed to get the shot.

We'll know more when Steve's and other sites start testing production samples of each camera. Looking forwards to that. To see if both cameras deliver. And what kind of bugs they might have. If you recall both the D200 and 30D had banding problems with their first batches. I think that was the only obvious bug.

And while we wait for the test reports let me ask you all this...How important or valueable do you think having the ability to "fine tune" the AF to a lens is? Which the D300 has.

Other D300 features like "active d-lighting" or their "scene recognition system" will have to wait for the testing to see if they have any merit in real world use. Looks good on paper.

And it is interesting that there is a $500.00 USD price difference. Even if they are intended for different market segments.

Other than that I think they have a lot of similarities when it comes to "new features".

Which would you choose?

DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 26, 2007, 2:14 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

For the most part, the which one would you choose debate will start and end with which brand you are already shooting. These are aimed at higher level shooters, who have already made their decision with previous models. I doubt (although I could be wrong) that either of these cameras will be the first DSLR for the typical person in the market for them. That person will already have an arsenal of lenses, and I though both seem to be very good, neither would offer a compelling reason to switch systems. I think the D300 has better specs (caveat..I shoot Nikon) and is priced a bit higher accordingly. The truth is, at this level of camera (really any level of DSLR), if you can't get quality results, it's not the camera.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 2:57 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
For the most part, the which one would you choose debate will start and end with which brand you are already shooting. These are aimed at higher level shooters, who have already made their decision with previous models. I doubt (although I could be wrong) that either of these cameras will be the first DSLR for the typical person in the market for them. That person will already have an arsenal of lenses, and I though both seem to be very good, neither would offer a compelling reason to switch systems. I think the D300 has better specs (caveat..I shoot Nikon) and is priced a bit higher accordingly. The truth is, at this level of camera (really any level of DSLR), if you can't get quality results, it's not the camera.

For me this would be my first DSLR. So I have no investment in lenses or other brand specific acessories. I'm looking for a DSLR that will give me enough flexibility as a novice and last me as I gain experience over the years. Though some would say both will allow me to do that. Having said that I think the D300 will actually serve a working photographer as well. So perhaps in terms of longevity the D300 would be the better bet.

And I tihnk when you're talking about ergonomics there is a difference there too. Giving the edge again to the D300.

But, as to which will perform better remains to be seen. Which will give us cleaner pics at high ISO settings? Which camera can "do as advertised"? Etc.

But I do agree with your last comment. I've always believed it's the photographer and not the camera that makes the picture. It's which camera allows you to get that shot more efficiently. All things considered.

DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 4:49 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Whereas the 40D design is more oriented towards the "practical" features needed to get the shot.

Not really sure what this means.
Quote:
D300 is a camera more for the gadget guy.
Ditto here. Cameras at this tier aren't about gadgets. These cameras aren't intended for the entry level market - they're designed for the serious advanced enthusiast. Advanced focus systems, customizations, weather sealing aren't gadgets they're tools the advanced shooter requires.

I think you're in the minority of buyers here. As indicated by rjseeney - these cameras aren't the typical first buy.

Assuming everything works on both cameras, I can't honestly say why, just from reading specs, what the 40d has going in it's favor. But, as mentioned there's a $500 price difference. It really comes down to whether the features are worth $500 to you.

Unless you're independently wealthy, if you don't require the features offered in these cameras you're infinitely better off putting the money into lenses.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not insinuating you're not "advanced enough" - but buying high end dslr equipment is about matching needs to feature set. If you don't need a feature, why on earth pay for it?

But, in the end, this really cant go far because neither camera has been released yet much less tested. So, you cant get an intelligent comparison - just speculation.

But if you want just speculation, the d300 is, according to specs only, the better camera hands down. But if you buy that and can only afford a kit lens then someone with a d80 or 400d and quality lens and same photographic ability as you is very likely to produce better results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 6:51 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

John is absolutely right. If you don't need the features, you're better off buying better lenses. Heck, the entry level cameras are more than most people need. If you're not a working pro, the D300 is probably overkill. The extra features make learning more difficult, and probably won't make a huge difference in the end result. I'd rather have a d80 and two quality lenses for $1800 than a D300 body. If the D200 continues to be in the lineup (which it just might as there is a quite a bit of differentiation between the two), it will be a very good value at around $1200, and appeal to the semi-pro's out there (like myself)
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 8:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Whereas the 40D design is more oriented towards the "practical" features needed to get the shot.

Not really sure what this means.
Quote:
D300 is a camera more for the gadget guy.
Ditto here. Cameras at this tier aren't about gadgets. These cameras aren't intended for the entry level market - they're designed for the serious advanced enthusiast. Advanced focus systems, customizations, weather sealing aren't gadgets they're tools the advanced shooter requires.

I think you're in the minority of buyers here. As indicated by rjseeney - these cameras aren't the typical first buy.

Assuming everything works on both cameras, I can't honestly say why, just from reading specs, what the 40d has going in it's favor. But, as mentioned there's a $500 price difference. It really comes down to whether the features are worth $500 to you.

Unless you're independently wealthy, if you don't require the features offered in these cameras you're infinitely better off putting the money into lenses.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not insinuating you're not "advanced enough" - but buying high end dslr equipment is about matching needs to feature set. If you don't need a feature, why on earth pay for it?

But, in the end, this really cant go far because neither camera has been released yet much less tested. So, you cant get an intelligent comparison - just speculation.

But if you want just speculation, the d300 is, according to specs only, the better camera hands down. But if you buy that and can only afford a kit lens then someone with a d80 or 400d and quality lens and same photographic ability as you is very likely to produce better results.
Hey John,

So you're basically telling me that you think all the new features in these two cameras are needed? And not just "window dressing"? Will having a 51 point AF system be that much more benefical than another DSLR with just 9? What about Live View?

If I end up with one of these two I really don't see myself using "live view". It's one feature I think both could do without. yet for some odd reason Nikon and Canon are investing development dollars in taking this technology to the next level. I guess there's actually a demant (shrug).

Any how, as I said, I'm looking for a DSLR that will past me for years to come. I still have my Nikon FE, Nikkormat and Roliflex medium format cameras. As the saying goes "If it ain't broke...".

So, while this would be my first DSLR it's not my first camera.


DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 8:50 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

DarkDTSHD it will be interesting to see how these to perform and that will have a lot to do with peoples recommendations. Also what you want to shoot and your capabilities as I don't think any of us have seen your work (I could be wrong but nearly all your posts have been relating to dSLR's as well as lens options going back to 2005). Are you waiting for the perfect camera for you or not yet ready to make the move from (what camera do you currently have???), if it is the former there will never be one and just think how many creative opportunities and how much learning you could have done if you had bought into a system a while ago?!

Anyway to pick up on
Quote:
I'm looking for a DSLR that will give me enough flexibility as a novice and last me as I gain experience over the years. Though some would say both will allow me to do that. Having said that I think the D300 will actually serve a working photographer as well. So perhaps in terms of longevity the D300 would be the better bet.
Working Pros are able to work with pretty much anything and I have a 30D in my bag as my backup for my 5D at weddings and currently use it as my main camera for shooting sports. There are full time Pros in the market that I've seen using XT's and D80's for certain jobs as well as the higher ends where the 1D's and D2X's need to be used as it will come down to the production size of finished work, types of client, work to be undertaken etc. A lot of the quality gains are in fact from good glass (as already mentioned) rather than a 'better' body.

So which is going to enable you to grown most??? Both will be very similar

Which is going to give best results??? No one knowshowever if Nikon have not sorted out high ISO noise then Canon is probably going to take it again (the reason there are very few wedding photogs shooting with D2X's but instead 5D's and 1D MKII and MKIII's).

Fine tuning a lens can be very helpful (as JohnG has recently testified to in another thread with his new 1DMKIII), however for most if the glass you have is good it will be very close and not noticed. It is only now that this feature has been available and the top shooters in the world have not gone out of business waiting for this feature. (BTW I would like this so not knocking it as I have one lens that I would like to make that little bit sharper).

Personally I would suggest spending less on the body and getting better glass (ergonomics would lead me to the D80 or 30D).

Getting good at photography is not learning some magic new feature in a camera but learning framing, timing, composition, lighting, exposure, dof rather than things like live view, very high fps, dust removal etc. What do the camera manufacturers want you to do...?? Buy new cameras, so they want to convince someone that these things are the greatest and essential to getting the best shot...... real world they are not. Do you need 10+ mp images..... simple answer NO for probably over 95% of shooters out there.

Do I think these are going to be good cameras? Yes, would I consider getting a 40D to replace my 30D for shooting sports (unlike JohnG I can't afford a MKIII currently), Yes to get faster continuous shooting until I can afford to go all out.

So bottom line, my advice to you is don't get sucked in and go spending all your money on a new body and scrimp on lenses, take a serious look at the sort of photography you do/want to do, get the right lenses for the job and a body that fits in. I have no issue from the current models recommending either Canon or Nikon as they both have a great system with many lens options so neither will cause you problems.

Happy decision making!!!

:-)
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 8:56 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Hey John,

So you're basically telling me that you think all the new features in these two cameras are needed? And not just "window dressing"? Will having a 51 point AF system be that much more benefical than another DSLR with just 9? What about Live View?

If I end up with one of these two I really don't see myself using "live view". It's one feature I think both could do without. yet for some odd reason Nikon and Canon are investing development dollars in taking this technology to the next level. I guess there's actually a demant (shrug).

Any how, as I said, I'm looking for a DSLR that will past me for years to come. I still have my Nikon FE, Nikkormat and Roliflex medium format cameras. As the saying goes "If it ain't broke...".

So, while this would be my first DSLR it's not my first camera.


Looks like you posted while I wrote my last one but I will try to answer this as I see it (John will probably disagree).

There are times when the 51 points will really help, mainly when shooting action (wildlife and sports) however most of the time shooters will use only the centre one so it's not a huge advantage.

If you are shooting quality shots in MF and 35mm then I would be asking what is it I need in a camera, is there anything really that my MF was missing that allowed me to produce good work and I'm sure you will come back to the answer of 'not a lot'.

Edit - With live view, the reason I think they are putting so much money into this is to get current digicam users to switch to a dSLR as so many people have got used to looking at a screen so it is a marketing 'gimmick' as far as I'm concerned and people will soon realise with a decent lens on the front trying to hold the camera still at arms length is really not clever and they will go back to using a camera properly. Why do they want people to get onto a dSLR from a digicam??? Easy, currently there is no incremental revenue from a digicam owner, once they have the camera that is pretty much it, once shooting dSLR people will be buying new lenses and thus giving much more money to the manufacturers.



Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 9:10 PM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
So you're basically telling me that you think all the new features in these two cameras are needed? And not just "window dressing"? Will having a 51 point AF system be that much more benefical than another DSLR with just 9? What about Live View?

If I end up with one of these two I really don't see myself using "live view". It's one feature I think both could do without. yet for some odd reason Nikon and Canon are investing development dollars in taking this technology to the next level. I guess there's actually a demant (shrug).
Hard as this may be to believe, a given camera usually has to meet the demands of several different types of photographers. I also do not need or use live view but Canon/Nikon perceive the market segment they've targeted for these cameras DOES need it.

As for 51 points vs. 9 - actually yes that can make a difference. But I'll leave the nikon out because I don't know enough about it. Instead I'll talk about the canon system. First off, it isn't just45 points vs 9 in canon. It's 19 high precision cross type points vs only 1 high precision (albeit 9 cross type). It's about the location of those points and it's about having other points around to 'help' if the subject slips off the primary point you've chosen (OR, you could choose NOT to use the helper points - it's customizable). Having used manual focus SLRs and DSLRs with 7, 9 and 45 points I can say without a doubt having more is better FOR ME.

Now, again, YOU might not require more than 1 or 9 focus points. But you're not the entire market segment for these two cameras. Neither am I. I have yet to use the live view on my mk III, but other photogs like it very much for studio or macro work.

I don't use the back seat cup holder in my minivan either - but other buyers DO use it.

Believe me I wish Canon would ignore some features and concentrate only on the features I want - but unfortunately theire cameras have to serve other peoples needs as well.

Which brings us back to my point - finding the camera & system with the feature set that meets your needs. Since you have a history of slr and medium format experience identifying what your needs are should be relatively simple. You should also be well versed in lens technology - so identifying the proper lenses that meet your requirements in a given system should be simple as well.

Good luck in your quest. But remember, the 50D and D400 are just around the corner. Perhaps its best to wait to hear the rumors on those cameras :G
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 11:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hello Mark1616,

Long time no see. I'm sort of flattered you remember me and my comments back to 2005. But you are wrong in that not all my posts have been about DSLRs and lenses. Hardly.

About "pro photographers" using XT's, D80's...that's news to me as I can see limitations in using those cameras and I'm just a novice (in the digital photography area). But sure, a good photographer should be able to get good shots, using most cameras. As it should be in any art form.

Regarding the usefullness or necessity of being able to fine tune the AF for a particular lens...thanks for posting your view. Couldn't agree with you more.

And yes I know budgeting more on glass is more important than spending it on the body. Heh. How many times have we heard that one mentioned in this forum (no offense intended btw). :-)

And as you said the manufacturers definitely do put out certain features that aren't necessary. That's one of the main reasons I decided to start this thread. To try to get you guys to help me (and others in my shoes) suss out what ARE the more benefiical features. For a novice, advanced amateur or working photographer.

Upgrading from a 30D to a 40D for sports photography? You'd seriously considering doing that? :-)Just because the 40D can shoot 1.5 fps more?? Would it make that much of a difference?

If I had a 30D right now we wouldn't be here talking shop. At least not about whether to consider either the D300 or 40D.

Your other points about what truly makes a good photographer...agreed 100%!! Always thought so too.

51 points of AF...point taken.

JohnG,

Good points as usual.

True, that while some of us might not find Live View useful in the type of photography we prefer to do others might. And it certainly is a good marketing tool in helping to sell a camera. Why not stress that the D300 has a LCD resolution of 922,000 and two methods of AF while using Live View?

Waiting for the 50D? Or D4000? I'll leave that to you my friend. For me it will be either the 40D or 300D.

About the release date of the 40D I read "early September". But read on another website (which one? I have no clue) that the date was the end of September. What have you guys heard on this?

Looking forward to reading some test reports.
DarkDTSHD 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 8:42 AM.