Looking for some help D300 or 40D

[edolyne]

I have narrowed my DSLR search down between two cameras. In the end there is a difference of $100 between the two packages with the Nikon coming in more expensive. I am wondering if the Nikon is worth the extra and if I will notice a huge difference between the final image produced from each lens and if a f/5.6 will make a huge difference shooting at night while at Disney(i.e Wishes/Spectro).

D300 w/ 18-200 VR f/3.5-5.6

Or

40D w/ 24-105L IS f/4

Also my main area of interest for photography while not in the parks are family events, landscape, and travel photography.

I apprecaite any and all input.

 

[YEKCIM]

Both cameras are excellent, from all I have read. The 18-200vr lens covers a lot more ground, focal-length wise than the 24-105, however. The Canon lens has the advantage of being semi-fast (f/4) throughout its focal range. I'm guessing that the differences in their common range (24-105, which the Nikkor significantly exceeds on both ends) will be minimal. For really good low-light shooting, you ought to consider a fast prime, anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.

Hope that helps some.

~Ed

 

[ukcatfan]

My personal opinion is that the D300 is the better camera, but have you considered the Pentax K20D? It is very impressive as well.

Kevin

 

[Master Mason]

My personal opinion is that the D300 is the better camera, but have you considered the Pentax K20D? It is very impressive as well.

Kevin

First off, let me preface this by saying I have a Canon 40D.

Now. I actually agree with Kevin. I think that the the D300 probably is a slightly better body than the 40D, not by much but a little. (personal feeling here, but I think the companies do that on purpose so that the cameras really don't line up for side by side comparisons. The XT line is better than nikons d40 line, but not as good as it's D80, the Canon 40D is better than the d80 but not as good as the D300. And they are priced accordingly. In this manner, they make sure you can not do a perfect side by side comparison, and makes you choose on other factors)

However, I think that with the 2 lenses you have put up with them, the canon lens is superior. With the canon your getting "L" glass, which is the top of the line. With the nikon your getting consumer glass, which while good, is not at the same level.

 

[DizzyV6P]

The 40D w/ the 24-105 L will give you picture quality unrivaled by the Nikon lens. Where exactly are you buying this package from? The D300 usually comes out more expensive than the 40D simply because they are 2 different classes of DSLR's. "Better" is a really relative term. You can compare stats and pixel peep all day long, but if your technique stinks, it won't matter in the end. A Canon 40D will last a long time as will a D300.

As far as whether to choose Canon or Nikon, that's really up to you. I personally went w/ Canon because all my photog friends have Canons and I could buy their used lenses for a lot cheaper than new. I've also found Canon's lenses to be a bit cheaper than Nikon's. Either one will be fine for most prosumers. YOu have to keep in mind that you are not simply buying a DSLR...you're buying a system. If you are serious about this hobby, I always tell friends to choose either Canon or Nikon and avoid the rest. Simply because the others don't have the nice 200+ lenses to choose from and the huge followings that Nikon and Canon have around the world and on the internet. Canon has their big Canon forums and so does Nikon. You'd be hard pressed to find a large forum w/ 50,000+ members for the Sony Alpha, Pentax, Olympus, etc...

For shooting lowlight, you can pick up a 50mm f/1.8 for a mere $100 or if you want zoom, there are plenty of lenses out there that are f/2.8. I personally use the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which is a fantastically sharp lens with a reasonable price. Tokina and Sigma also over their versions with very similar pricing and range. Canon has their 17-55 IS f/2.8 which retails for $900 plus change. Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 also runs around that price range. So you'll have to see what your budget is. The Canon 17-55 IS is truly an incredible lens to the point that I know a few people who use it for their wedding photography business.

Personlly, I'd get the Canon...but then again, I'm a bit biased

 

[Master Mason]

If you are serious about this hobby, I always tell friends to choose either Canon or Nikon and avoid the rest. Simply because the others don't have the nice 200+ lenses to choose from and the huge followings that Nikon and Canon have around the world and on the internet. Canon has their big Canon forums and so does Nikon. You'd be hard pressed to find a large forum w/ 50,000+ members for the Sony Alpha, Pentax, Olympus, etc...

As another Canon Shooter, I would have to disagree with the above. Pentax has a great line of lenses, and are doing great things with their cameras. And the k1000 was the most popular film SLR in history, so there are millions of lenses around that can be bought and used.

Sony appears to be doing good things as well, their new lineup gets great reviews, and there were a lot of Minolta users out there as well to get used lenses.

Oympus, I honestly know very little about, but the folks that I know that have them love them for the reasons they bought them.

Every brand has it's pros and cons. Get the one that feels the best to you, and fits your needs the best.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I always tell friends to choose either Canon or Nikon and avoid the rest.

I'm trying to be nice but this, IMO, is just bizarre advice, and will surely raise the ire of many.

 

[jann1033]

some good advice already but IFFFF i were starting from scratch i'd go with the nikon...glass is better with the canon but reading about the nikon imo it blows the canon 40d away..and this from a canonite its the only non canon i ever wished was a canon of course expect to want better lenses soon but you are buying a system and imo with these 2 set ups nikon wins body wise....

and i don't know if this is what dizzy v6p had in mind but i don't think if i had no equipment i'd be inclined to go other than the c/n brands either...everyone else is just to new to the digital pack for me to base a life long system on...maybe in a few yrs it would be different, not saying the offerings so far might not be impressive, it's just to me it's too early to tell their dslr track records. obviously if i had lenses that would fit them already it'd go with them since even if the bodies end up not progressing i'd replace the body anyway down the road but i probably wouldn't sink tons of money into them yet. just my neuroticly cautious view

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that the 40D and D300 are both priced well relative to the respective merits of the bodies. If you really can't decide between Nikon vs Canon on overall lens lineups, prices, corporate philosophy, etc, then make this decision based on the lenses being offered.

The 18-200 VR is a miracle of versatility. On the downside, no one makes a 10x zoom that doesn't have significant optical compromises. What matters to you more - the convenience of having 1 lens that covers a very wide range at some cost to image quality or 1 lens that covers a much narrower range that does it better? Don't misunderstand me; the 18-200 VR isn't an optical nightmare. It's just not as good as similarly priced lenses that don't cover as much territory. There's not universal standard for which is "better", it's a choice between priorities.

 

[ukcatfan]

...everyone else is just to new to the digital pack for me to base a life long system on...

How long does it take to be considered to have experience in the DSLR making field? Pentax and Oly have been at it for five years while C&N only have seven to maybe eight. I think it is safe to say that every maker of DSLRs is doing well right now as well, so why do people still feel like those companies are just going to disappear over night? For that matter, C&N could just as easily have financial collapse as the other companies. Nobody saw the Enron collapse coming did they??? The competition is better for us anyway. The harder it is to compete, the more that they have to offer to consumers for less $$$. Do not think that these companies are your friends. You are nothing but income to them. I can see some worries about Sony based on their track record with other consumer goods, but they seem pretty dedicated to cameras right now.

I always say to get what feels the best and has what you want at the right price. The 30D felt right to me and had what I wanted, but I could not afford it, so I have a K100D and am very happy. For the budget end, it just felt better to me than the others.

Kevin

 

[GrillMouster]

Sounds like this will be your first DSLR, or you haven't had one for long. Sounds like you're still learning, and plan on being a family snapshooter, not a professional. Sounds like both cameras you mentioned will be overkill for you. You'd be better off with more of an entry-level DSLR, something you can grow into without getting frustrated. With the money you'd save, you can get other gear, like a dedicated flash and a tripod, which will help your photography more than a "pro" camera body will.

That being said, the D300 is the better camera of the two you're considering, but the Canon lens provides better optical quality. Neither of the lenses are capable of wide apertures, so I'd go with the Nikon for its larger focal range. No lens is perfect, but the Nikon 18-200 is excellent as a walk-around lens. The Canon 24-105 is good, but for that focal range, I'd want a wider aperture, like f/2.8, i.e., the 15-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8. Besides, with the crop factor, a lens that is 24mm at its widest is effectively only 36mm, which is not wide at all. If I were to get that lens, I'd definitely be buying other lenses on either side of the focal range.

 

[Gdad]

I dont know anything about the Canon but I can say first hand the D300 is an awesome camera- but I don't know if it would have suited me for my first dslr. You could go with a D80 and have a lot more money for lenses and accessories if you chose to. Also- I think you are comparing apples and oranges with your lens options. You may want to consider a fast zoom like the 17-55/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 if premium optics are a concern.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

How long does it take to be considered to have experience in the DSLR making field? Pentax and Oly have been at it for five years while C&N only have seven to maybe eight. I think it is safe to say that every maker of DSLRs is doing well right now as well, so why do people still feel like those companies are just going to disappear over night?

Have to concur (and I apologize to the OP for straying OT).

I only know Olympus but they've been in business since 1919 as a leading "glass" manufacturer of microscopes, launching their first camera and Zuiko lens in 1936. Today they are a leading manufacturer of not only microscopes, but binoculars and health care scopes and other hospital equipment.

Since their early days, ie for many decades, Olympus has been a leader in compact camera design.

Their first digital camera was developed in 1996; their first dSLR in 1997.

In 2003 they introduced the E-1 dSLR which featured two innovative firsts: 1) designed-for-digital interchangable Zuiko lenses developed in the 4/3 format (which continued their tradition of developing compact cameras, in this case making a lighter and smaller dSLR); and 2) an in-camera Dust Reduction system. In 2006 Live View was introduced on the E-300, also a first. Dust reduction and Live View are now common to many dSLRs.

Other innovations are on the horizon, such as the E-420, a dSLR designed to "fit in your pocket". (Seems silly, you say? That's what was said about Dust Reduction and Live View as well.) Panasonic and Sigma are also making 4/3 lenses now in addition to Zuiko, so selection, availability and price have improved. And lastly, there are several very active Olympus SLR and 4/3 forums around, too.

 

[DizzyV6P]

2 cameras that haven't been mentioned:
1) Canon XSi
2) Nikon D60

Both very good cameras, but oh wait, its C&N again. I didn't mean to offend the none C&N crowd, but, although I'm not a professional photographer, I do have a lot of friends who are. All of them use either Nikon or Canon. Goto any professional sporting event and check out all the white L lenses lined up in the media section..yup...Canon. Nikon is pushing hard into this arena with their new offerings as well, so Canon has to keep up on their end. Yes, competition is very nice.

I didn't make any comments to the fact that Sony Alpha, Olympus or the others will dissappear. Heck, even Sigma has a very nice DSLR out now. I recommend C&N to my friends because IMO, they have the most lens line-up available in every store you walk into and order on the internet readily available. For example, go into a Ritz and you'll see a lot more C&N lenses in stock than others. If my friends want to buy used lenses then there's a large pool of people in my immediate area where they can get them. Or they can go on POTN or NIKON CAFE and find them there. Yes, i understand and have looked at the Alpha boards (i once considered an Alpha) and other Olympus boards (I have an SW series for my winter and summer sports use) but as far as available used lenses and the plethora of options out there? Not as much as C&N.

As someone mentioned, depending on the OP's skill level, the 40D or D300 could be overkill simply because we don't know his/her skill level. Olympus and Pentax offer DSLR's that are maximized for those moving from the P&S world to the DSLR world and their designs reflect that.

Of course, this is all moot if all the OP wants is something that easy to use just like their P&S and doesn't require a huge learning curve BUT has the ability to change lenses at will. There are plenty to choose from. But if the OP wants to eventually upgrade, further a prosumer type hobby, and starts to get lens envy like many of us who are constantly on POTN or Nikon Cafe, then there's only so far they can go with the other manufactures. C&N are the top 2 DSLR manufacturers for good reason. Although the new Pentax has some interesting features, you'd be hard pressed to find many pros using them.
What I find amusing is how Nikon spent millions in marketing putting their D40 crippled DSLR (No AF Motor!) into the hands of millions of consumers when the arguably technological superior Sony Alpha, Pentax and Olympus offerings sat gathering dust on store shelves. It sucks, but that's how business goes. Forget the fact that even the Canon XTi outperforms the D40 every which way you can think of, Nikon made their menus easier, flashier and undercut Canon's pricing which convinced many people to buy it. How did they do that with the superior technology of the Pentax E series, Olympus K series and Sony Alpha with their in camera image stabilization? Marketing and lens, lens, and more lens.

Ok, now that I'm finished with my camera manufacturer dissertation, I'll get back to the OP's topic.

1) Do you have DSLR or SLR experience?
2) Do you expect this to become a new $$ hobby?
3) What are you going to take pictures of?
4) What's your budget?
5) Go out and play with a lot of the DSLR's. Find out what feels best in your hand. Which menu system is easy for you to figure out?
6) Do you have any friends w/ DSLR's? Ask them about how they like theirs. Do they go through a lot of lenses? Find out the pros and cons from them as well. Play with their cameras too.

Good luck with any camera you choose. There ARE plenty of help out on this board and many others as well. It's just a question on what you intend to do with your DSLR and how far along you expect to go with your hobby.

 

[cryssi]

D300! Oh, but I'm biased too, I suppose. We sold our D200 to someone who was going to use it as their first DSLR. Had the 18-200 been available when we bought the D200, we would have bought it. Our range is 18-70, and 70-300. We have the 50/1.8 (love it) and a few 2.8 lenses from DH's grandfather. Nikon was really the only one we would consider because of that availability of glass to us. I haven't researched the canon, but the D300's 51 auto focus points are just really fantastic...

good luck!

 

[edolyne]

I just wanted to take the time to thank everyone for their responses. I know that sometimes the Canon/Nikon debate becomes quite heated so I really appreciate everyone giving a good honest opinion.

Before I posted the question I had been considering the K20D, and the a700. In the end I weeded these out due to Sony's high cost of glass, and the K20D due to the fact that should I progress to a professional level I am not sure if the body would support that. (The K20D decision was purely based on speculation though)

Also for those who were asking about my experience with DSLR's this is not my first one as in the past I have used a 30D as well as an Olympus body. I have had some photos that are great and others which scream of a newb behind the lens.

In the end after holding both cameras and playing with them in the store I decided to go with the D300, the 18-200, and the vertical battery grip. In the end my decision came down to the fact that I am buying a body not only to learn with but I also aspire to become a professional photographer. Based on this I think that the D300 offers a great amount of advantages over the 40D as it combines some very good technology from the D3 where as the 40D does not seem to have the same in common with the 1D series. Also I know that I bought consumer grade glass instead of professional glass but I decided that upgrading glass down the line would be more cost effective than having to upgrade the body later on.

Once again thank you to everyone for your input and I hope that this topic will also help others debating between the two big names. Once I have some time to go out and do some shooting I will post some examples but as for now it's back to the daily grind of work.

~Ed

 

[YEKCIM]

Ed:

Congratulations on your new camera and welcome to Team Nikon. I'm quite sure that you'd be happy with a Canon, but you certainly won't go wrong with the D300, from everything I have seen.

Enjoy your new gear!

~Ed (YEKCIM)

 

[ukcatfan]

I also aspire to become a professional photographer.

Be sure that you are in it for the love of photography b/c there is hardly any money in it these days. It is usually at best a small second income. Many go pro just to support their lens buying habits.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Olympus and Pentax offer DSLR's that are maximized for those moving from the P&S world to the DSLR world and their designs reflect that.

That is insanity. I have to assume that you are speaking out of lack of knowledge rather than true information. Do you really think that the K20D and the E3 are built for PnS people?

And if the Pentax and Olympus cameras are built for PnS migrants, why are the Pentax DSLRs the only ones that have a top LCD on every one they've ever made (ditto spot metering, DoF preview, etc) including their cheapest entry-level models? Why do only Pentax and Olympus offer a "proper" kit lens (read: metal mount, stand-alone focus ring, non-rotating front element)? Why is Pentax's new entry-level weathersealed? Why does every Pentax DSLR work with every Pentax lens ever built including medium-format and screw-mount lenses? Is this the way you design a DSLR for PnS converts?

Look, there's nothing wrong with cameras targeted towards people moving from PnSs. That's what many entry-level DSLRs are targeted to. But c'mon. Your claim 1) seems to denigrate a PnS-friendly design and 2) indicates that this is the domain of Olympus and Pentax. Look at the D40 (and D40x and D60) - those are DSLRs specifically designed to appeal primarily to people moving from PnS cameras (complete with "help" screens), and are marketed as such. ("Anyone can take great photos.") And yes, Olympus has chased the market somewhat too with their Live View implementations, but they have had higher-line DSLRs all along that play in a higher market - and check out the new Sony line, no less than three entry-level DSLRs designed to appeal to PnS buyers - especially the A300 and A350, designed so that PnS converts never have to use that pesky viewfinder.

How did they do that with the superior technology of the Pentax E series, Olympus K series and Sony Alpha with their in camera image stabilization? Marketing and lens, lens, and more lens.

Ummm... Olympus is "E" and Pentax is "K". And only the relatively new Pentax DSLRs are K-series, earlier ones used the (terrible) *ist prefix.

Forget the fact that even the Canon XTi outperforms the D40 every which way you can think of

How's that spot metering on the XTi? Oh yeah... doesn't have it. Good thing that C/N don't build cameras designed for people migrating from PnS cameras. Then there's the kit lens, ergonomics, build quality, etc...

C'mon. Coming in here and being dismissive without knowing what the competition is up to is 1) troll behavior, 2) insulting, and 3) reflects poorly on yourself more than anything else. You obviously hate Nikon and love Canon, and this kind of behavior reflects poorly on Canon fans. The D300 is a pretty amazing camera yet you can't think of anything positive to say about it? They are cameras - we're not discussing politics or religion here, y'know.

Oh, and as for "gathering dust", Pentax has had zero problem selling all the DSLRs they can make, and the K100D Super and K10D disappeared very, very quickly when they were taken out of production a couple months ago. They also sell more than Sony or Olympus despite not being in the "big box" stories like Best Buy, Office Max, wholesale clubs, etc. They're not trying to be C/N, they compare themselves more to Subaru, who don't try to out-sell Honda and Toyota - they don't to build a car for everyone, they build a car that's perfect for those that buy them, and have incredible customer loyalty as a result. So Pentax is selling all the cameras they can make and have a happy customer base (who they listen to when designing new cameras) - sounds good to me.

Before I posted the question I had been considering the K20D, and the a700. In the end I weeded these out due to Sony's high cost of glass, and the K20D due to the fact that should I progress to a professional level I am not sure if the body would support that. (The K20D decision was purely based on speculation though)

Speculation indeed. The K20D is IMHO certainly more pro-friendly than the A700. The K20D can capture more resolution (actual detail, not just # of pixels) than any other APS-sensor-sized DSLR out there and has image quality rivaling the full-frame DSLRs and high-ISO performance that's as good as the D300 from what I've seen. It also has some of the best lenses you can buy - their line of primes are usually the best in class, especially the Limited line. The only real "issue", if you can call it that, is that it doesn't have the full machine-gun continuous shooting speed of the D300 (and to a lesser extent, the 40D) but then again, it's shooting larger photos - and if you set the D300 to capture 14-bit RAWs, it drops to only 2.5 fps. Then again, the K20D does give you a 21-fps mode but without focus/exposure adjustments and at a much lower resolution. Very cool but useful only in certain situations.

Based on your original question, though, I'd definitely go with the D300 over the 40D - even with the extra cost, and put a proper high-quality lens in front of it in order to get the best performance. Congratulations on your new camera! The problem now is that you can't blame the camera if you get some lousy photos.