# 40D vs. D300



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 23, 2007)

Hey, this is my first post here, hello to everyone...

I just wanted to hear from you guys about the 40D and D300, i've read some reviews on here, and els were about the two cameras, but i cant seem to find any info about witch one is better....

Is one of the two better? or are they practically the same cameras? are there any features that one has and one doesn't? 

This will be my first SLR...and i just want to know if one is better than the other. Ive always had canon's, and i am leaning towards buying the 40d...
Though i haven't seen a D300 in person yet....So let me know anything u know about which is better than the other...

...id like to hear from all of you who have anything to say, D300 owners, and 40D owners, let me know anything u think will help me make my decision! 

Thanks a lot,

Dan


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 23, 2007)

Hello Dan, Welcome to the forum. As to your question, your really comparing two cameras, that in my opinion, can't really be compared head-to-head. Canon and Nikon have a wierd strategy, in that they do not release cameras that directly compete with one another exactly. Kinda like how Intel and AMD release similar chips, but one has a slight edge over the other; and vice-versa. Both are mid-level professional grade camera bodies that more features than you will ever use. I akin the D300 to compete more with the Canon 5D. I am not sure if the D300 is out yet, I have not ran into anyone using it. My friend is on a waiting list for one, and I know he still has not got it. The D300 specs out a little higher and about $500 more than the 40D; but is the newer kid on the block. So being a bit later in, they packed it with some more features. I like the 51 point AF they tacked on it. Wish Canon did the same, but hey. I have the 40D and it is a great camera. ISO control is impressive, on par with the 5D by some estimates. Live-View is neat, but I really have not used it that much. The 6.5fps is awesome. That's what sold me on it, since I wanted a faster shooting rate than the 3fps I had on the 20D. Go to the store and play around with them. How they perform in your hands is more important than nit-picking features. I went to the store to buy a Nikon D70 but ended up with a Canon because it felt better to use. Also keep in mind the type of photography you will eventually like to do. Lens selection is a big factor also. I shoot more wildlife, so the telephoto line-up that Canon offered was important to me.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 23, 2007)

hey soylentgreen, thanks for the informative reply....and everything u said about how the camera feels in my hands is very true. I played around a bit with a 40D, and it was just awesome. a friend of mine has a D80, and its pretty nice, but when i played around with a 40d at the store, it was just impressive. Much better than the D80.........well not MUCH better, but i like the spec on it. And i too will be shotting a lot of wildlife/animals, sports, and cars. I really like the shutter speed, the D80 is only 1/4000, 40D is 1/8000, and i was very impressed by how fast the 40D's shutter is....

thanks for your help, and i will go back to the store, and play around some more...and i think the D300 is out of the question for me, since like u said its not out yet, AND i can really benefit from saving those 500$.....

one more thing.... i found this camera store on ebay, they have pretty good prices on the 40d's, with good packages, have u ever heard of them? would it be safe to buy from them? http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-D...0446782QQihZ004QQcategoryZ43454QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks,

-Dan

EDIT* i just went through some of your photos of animals, they're awesome, where did u take these pictures at?
EDIT#2* i just looked through some more of your work, awesome is an understatement, its STUNNING! the animals are just beautiful. Tell me more about your work, where do you shoot all the magnificent animals?


----------



## ilockert (Nov 23, 2007)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=canon_eos40d,nikon_d300&show=all


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 23, 2007)

ilockert said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=canon_eos40d,nikon_d300&show=all



thanks for that link ! :thumbup:


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 23, 2007)

Check out their reviews. the price seems too low for me to be legit. I got my body for $1230 to put it in pespective. The 40D is a tad higher-end than the D80, so again; head-to-head comparison is a bit unfair. 
The lenses are really not that spectacular. Will take pictures, but image quality is ho-hum. really depends on the quality you want. They lack the USM motor so AF will be slow. I prefer the  EF-S 17-85 IS for a decent starter lens. They combo it for about $1450 with the 40D body. Great lens though. Go for the faster CF cards if possible, 4GB for about $80 these days PNY 266x, Sandisk Extreme IV or Lexar 300x. You can squeeze out a couple of extra images in burst mode before the buffer is full. The 10mp really chews up memory. Especially in RAW mode. 
Those package bags and tripod are pretty much chode. IMO. Your best served going to the store and finding one that better suits your needs as you need them. There are different bags and tripod for all situations. Depending on how much you can carry and type of photography you like to take. Landscapes, panoramas use different heads on the tripod than say, wildlife photos. So your tripod should be able to adapt to your needs. I use a Manfrotto grip ball-head on my tripod for on-the-fly changes in nature photography. Landcapes may require a pan and tilt head.
Another great advantage of the 40D I forgot to mention is the viewfinder. Much brighter and larger than previous versions. Makes manual focusing much more attainable than before. 
Just play around with them. You really can't go wrong with either camera. They are very capable. Just find the one that works best for you.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 25, 2007)

soylentgreen said:


> Check out their reviews. the price seems too low for me to be legit. I got my body for $1230 to put it in pespective. The 40D is a tad higher-end than the D80, so again; head-to-head comparison is a bit unfair.
> The lenses are really not that spectacular. Will take pictures, but image quality is ho-hum. really depends on the quality you want. They lack the USM motor so AF will be slow. I prefer the  EF-S 17-85 IS for a decent starter lens. They combo it for about $1450 with the 40D body. Great lens though. Go for the faster CF cards if possible, 4GB for about $80 these days PNY 266x, Sandisk Extreme IV or Lexar 300x. You can squeeze out a couple of extra images in burst mode before the buffer is full. The 10mp really chews up memory. Especially in RAW mode.
> Those package bags and tripod are pretty much chode. IMO. Your best served going to the store and finding one that better suits your needs as you need them. There are different bags and tripod for all situations. Depending on how much you can carry and type of photography you like to take. Landscapes, panoramas use different heads on the tripod than say, wildlife photos. So your tripod should be able to adapt to your needs. I use a Manfrotto grip ball-head on my tripod for on-the-fly changes in nature photography. Landcapes may require a pan and tilt head.
> Another great advantage of the 40D I forgot to mention is the viewfinder. Much brighter and larger than previous versions. Makes manual focusing much more attainable than before.
> Just play around with them. You really can't go wrong with either camera. They are very capable. Just find the one that works best for you.



Hey, so i went to my local camera shop, and looked at some pricing/combos for the 40D. Would the EFS 28-135mm 3.5-4.6<<[if i remember correctly] IS be a good starter?....i also checked out the 70-200mm 2.8 IS.....man oh man is that an amazing lens...ill have one of those some day!


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 25, 2007)

The EF 28-135 was origianlly developed for 35mm full frame cameras. On a crop sensor with a 1.6 factor; it loses alot on the wide-angle end. Hence the EF-S 17-85, which equates to 28-135 on said crop sensor. It's a good lens though, just not wide enough on a crop sensor. I just think Canon is trying to dump out remaining inventory since DSLR sales took off.
The EF 70-200 line of L lenses are great. All of them; f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 25, 2007)

soylentgreen said:


> The EF 28-135 was origianlly developed for 35mm full frame cameras. On a crop sensor with a 1.6 factor; it loses alot on the wide-angle end. Hence the EF-S 17-85, which equates to 28-135 on said crop sensor. It's a good lens though, just not wide enough on a crop sensor. I just think Canon is trying to dump out remaining inventory since DSLR sales took off.
> The EF 70-200 line of L lenses are great. All of them; f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS.



yeah, i was reading about that factor, with the crop sensor & wide angle issue....

and so, you're saying basically that the 17-85 is equivalent to 28-135?.....and the 28-135 is actually 44-216?

if so, then ill go back and check that lens out, perhaps ill go with that one instead of the 28-135...


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 25, 2007)

Pretty much. The outer edge of the lens coverage will be loss giving a sense of a tighter zoom.


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 25, 2007)

Just don't get a 40D OR a D300 and get crappy glass. It would be such a waste to get such good camera bodies and hinder them with optics that will lower the quality o fyour pictures(your pictures may not look any different until you get good enough to truly utilize the benefits of the L's but later on when you're more advanced, the non-L limitations will drag your photos down) If you get the 40D, spend the $500 you save over a D300 with a little extra on a lens that has an "L" in its name. And a memory card. I suggest the Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L or the Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L or if you have more, get more. If you have to, get a leftover from previous stock 30D to get the better glass as a trade-off.


----------



## dpolston (Nov 25, 2007)

Muay_Thai_Dan said:


> Is one of the two better? or are they practically the same cameras?



Ford vs. Chevy, vanilla vs. chocolate, Coke vs. Pepsi? My vote; Nikon. But it's not about me.

I really think it needs to come down to what you like better. What fit's your needs. I personally shot a fashion shoot today with 3 other photographers. 2 of them had Cannons. Me and the newspaper freelance photographer both shot Nikon. All of us used my strobes and each of us got shots that were marketable. 

It's really up to you. You'll read _a lot_ both for and against each of the cameras you mentioned. Wait a few days for the D300 to come out so you can play with them both.


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 25, 2007)

dpolston said:


> Ford vs. Chevy, vanilla vs. chocolate, Coke vs. Pepsi? .


Dark or Milk chocolate? Mac or PC? Blue Ray or HD DVD? This is fun!


----------



## DWilks (Nov 25, 2007)

D300's are out, held one in my hand the other day.  Seems like a nice piece.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 25, 2007)

DSLR noob said:


> Just don't get a 40D OR a D300 and get crappy glass. It would be such a waste to get such good camera bodies and hinder them with optics that will lower the quality o fyour pictures(your pictures may not look any different until you get good enough to truly utilize the benefits of the L's but later on when you're more advanced, the non-L limitations will drag your photos down) If you get the 40D, spend the $500 you save over a D300 with a little extra on a lens that has an "L" in its name. And a memory card. I suggest the Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L or the Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L or if you have more, get more. If you have to, get a leftover from previous stock 30D to get the better glass as a trade-off.



what does the 'L' mean exactly?.....i just look up canon's lenses on their site, and i dont see any of the regular zoom lenses with 'L's.....

....the telephoto 70-200mm has the 'L'.....but none of the regular zoom lenses...

some direction to where i can see examples of these 'L' lenses? and what _is_ an 'L' lense?


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 25, 2007)

What is an L series lens? Well the answer is below, and an L does not have to be telephoto, it doesn't even have to zoom. It just means it is simply the best Canon has to offer. Click for some of the best Canon info you can get.

L-series lens explanation:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx
Canon 40D Review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(use the links at the bottom of this site to read about Canon gear)


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 25, 2007)

thanks, ill have check out those link right now....but,

i just checked out the spec on the D300......it says it can shoot 8fps...HOLY! thats fasttt!....i gotta wait till i can see one and play aorund with it...maybe ill change my mind about the 40D  hmm.......


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 25, 2007)

Muay_Thai_Dan said:


> thanks, ill have check out those link right now....but,
> 
> i just checked out the spec on the D300......it says it can shoot 8fps...HOLY! thats fasttt!....i gotta wait till i can see one and play aorund with it...maybe ill change my mind about the 40D  hmm.......



you don't need 8 fps(also the D300 drops to 6 fps when the battery charge drops a bit) if you're going to be getting bad lenses because of the price difference. The 40D is a constant 6.5 fps which is nearing 7 fps. My 20D shoots 5 fps and it's substantial.


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Nov 25, 2007)

D300's are out. My husband just got mine two days ago at Ritz, no waiting list, no pre-order. 

It's wonderful. But like someone else said don't buy a nice camera and put crappy glass on it. Get a less expensive camera and put put the rest of the money into lenses then upgrade later and you will be much happier.


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 25, 2007)

You guys are kidding me right? To start with, the EF-S 17-85 is not a crappy lens. Its fairly decent by all estimates. For a first camera and such, I would not reccommend an L lens unless you can afford it. Than why stop at the f/4? Get tthe EF 24-70 f/2.8 L. (I kid) The 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L;aka the "gateway drug" of L lenses, are great lenses price in the $550-600 range. The 17-40 is a bit short in reach for an all-around lens. IMO. The 70-200 leaves you without anything to cover close to mid-range stuff. Unless you stand a good 40-50 feet away to get to nice group photos or get both lenses and fill the gap with a 50 f/1.8. If I tote one lens around most of the time it's usually the 17-85 or 24-105. Good wide-angle and long enough reach for most non-telephoto purposes. Use the savings for other essentials first, extra battery, CF cards, bag, tripod, flash. Get use to the camera, its workings, and once you see a need for more lenses, get them.
And Dan, the 6.5fps on the 40D is plenty fast. Dunno what a 1.5fps increase will do, but at anything over 1/400 it's freaky fast. I have photos of flying hummingbirds to prove it.


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 25, 2007)

I never said the 17-85 was crappy, I just feel that if you have the budget to jump into a 40D for your first camera, then money isn't too tight for you to get just 1 L series lens. Most people make the mistake of the 70-300 or the Tamron or Sigma 18-200s or the Canon 55-200 lenses so I just saved time by saying L guaranteeing that he would get something nice.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 26, 2007)

hehe, nah i was just kidding bout the D3000, its a good minimum $500 on top of the quote i have for a 40D with EF 28-135 IS lens [$1500]....and the fps is really like you said, unnecessary, 6.5 is more than enough for me....

and to clear it up, since everyone is talking about whether i have the $ to buy a proper lens, well basically, im splitting the costs with my dad, so its okay, and we want to buy 'once', and buy the 'best', if u know what we mean...

We dont want to buy something that will either compromise the photo in any way, or the camera's abilities, nor do we want to get something 'cheap' and later realizing we need to upgrade, and spend money. Therefore, we like to buy once, and buy the best.....

This is a camera i want to buy, learn with, take good photos with, grow with, and who knows what happens down the road in terms of upgrading cameras, i think a 40D will be quite sufficient for my photography needs and wants, and will keep me happy for a very long time...

that lens that was mentioned, the EF 24-70 f2.8 L, that thing would be awesome.... especially for indoor sport photography+continuous shotting.
I'm gonna have to check the camera shop again, and see if they have one of these, so i can check it out....but even if they don't have it, i know its an awesome lens non the less.....

edit* does the EF 24-70 f2.8 L have IS?


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 26, 2007)

Everyone is holdong their breathe for a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS version. Dunno if they are going to make one though. The L lenses are a class by themselves, I usually do not reccommend them to beginners mainly due to budget restrictions. They are top of the line lenses, so there is no further upgrading from there. The glass will last you forever, even when you upgrade bodies. Keep in mind EF-S lenses only work on the crop sensor bodies. There is a EF-S 17-55 f/28 IS. Image quality is suppose to be supberb, but its not built like an L.


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 26, 2007)

muay thai dan yes! a fellow muay thai dude!!!!


i spent 3 months training muay thai in thailand and will going back in jan for 6 more months.

wheres ur gym at?


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 26, 2007)

and and buying once and buying the best means to me buying the d300  hehe, quiet canon nerds. jk.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 26, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> and and buying once and buying the best means to me buying the d300  hehe, quiet canon nerds. jk.



hahaha, yeah i guess thats kinda true, but that might be going a little too much over the top......and i not completely made of money, since it is a bit more expensive.....and i like the 40d a lot...but im going to wait till i can see the d300....

and ill PM u right now bout the thai boxing stuff, hehe, ur the only other person on any form that im on that has done/does thai boxing as well....:thumbup:


----------



## dpolston (Nov 26, 2007)

DSLR noob said:


> Dark or Milk chocolate? Mac or PC? Blue Ray or HD DVD? This is fun!



Don't get me started!   =o)


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 26, 2007)

...i just checked out that 24-70 f2.8 L on the internet, and since it hasnt got the IS, what will that affect really? is that just when im taking a photo and say im moving while snapping the pics, and the photo turns out blurry?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 26, 2007)

Feature for feature. D300 all the way.


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 26, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> and and buying once and buying the best means to me buying the d300  hehe, quiet canon nerds. jk.


 

Wrong. That would be the Canon 1DS Mark III. Touch that Nikonian!!! Again, realy can't compare them since they are all different classes of cameras.


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 26, 2007)

Muay_Thai_Dan said:


> ...i just checked out that 24-70 f2.8 L on the internet, and since it hasnt got the IS, what will that affect really? is that just when im taking a photo and say im moving while snapping the pics, and the photo turns out blurry?


 

IS is not a neccessity. Good to have, but photographers have been taking plenty of great photos without it. IS just helps you shoot in lower-light situations with a slower shutter-speed more easily. With good technique, or a tripod, you should be able to accomplish the same without IS. Not having IS is nothing for the 24-70. It is regarded as one of the best zooms in the industry.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 26, 2007)

hmm i see....how about the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens? this one is another very good lens, what do you guys think? good all around lens?


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 26, 2007)

I initially shied away from it for two reasons.
1) My intention was to upgrade to a FF camera like the 5D so it would be incompatible, but got he 40D instead since it addressed my needs for improvements.
2) $1K for a non-L lens kinda bothers me.
Has superb image quality but wish the build was more solid in construct like an L. Better moisture and dust seal etc. Other than that, there is really nothing to dislike. Fast aperature, IS, etc.


----------



## Muay_Thai_Dan (Nov 30, 2007)

are these two lenses considered "not good" lenses....

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

and 

EF 28-135mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens


----------



## soylentgreen (Nov 30, 2007)

They are good lenses. Not stupendous, but good. The 28-135 is a bit short on teh wide-angle end for a crop sensor though. The 17-85 is a really good lens. I enjoyed it before upgrading to the 24-105 f/4 L. Just a tad slow in low-light asws AF hunts for focus. But hey, its a f/4-5.6. Good range for a general purpose at 17mm-85mm. Effectively a 28-135 on a crop sensor.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 1, 2007)

A big part of the cost of any lens is definable by it's biggest aperture and ability to shoot in lower light situations. An F/4 anything doesn't really impress me much... unless its an 800 mm F/4.

Anything 200mm and under, if it cannot do an F/2,8 or better, well it drops drastically in terms of desireability for me.

In terms of what is the better camera?  Well, at least concerning the flavor of the month, this time it is without doubt the D300.  Next month?  If Canon releases something, I am sure it will have something that trumps the D300, but until then, its a no contest.


----------



## soylentgreen (Dec 1, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> A big part of the cost of any lens is definable by it's biggest aperture and ability to shoot in lower light situations. An F/4 anything doesn't really impress me much... unless its an 800 mm F/4.
> 
> Anything 200mm and under, if it cannot do an F/2,8 or better, well it drops drastically in terms of desireability for me.
> 
> In terms of what is the better camera? Well, at least concerning the flavor of the month, this time it is without doubt the D300. Next month? If Canon releases something, I am sure it will have something that trumps the D300, but until then, its a no contest.


 

Though larger aperatures are deemed more desireable, a lenses performance should not be based on that alone. Case in point, the EF 70-200 f/4 L as opposed to the f/2.8 L's. The f/4 is a sharper lens than it's f/2.8 counterpart at f/4 and f/8 and a heck of a lot lighter. At 24-70mm the 24-105 is sharper at f/4 than the EF 24-70 f/2.8. At just one f/stop between the two, the gain in performance over aperature and price is of greater concern. At least in my case. And third-party lenses that slap an f/2.8 on to there label are practically unusable at there widest aperature. Yeah the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG was a bust. They are more usable stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. Hence the premium paid for higher-end glass.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 1, 2007)

Aperture is definately not all, but it is a big part. Also comparing a Sigma is not the best. They are not known for their very high quality on every lens they market. Check out the sharpness and clarity of the 17-50 HSM at 2.8... it outperforms the Nikkor 17-55 by a good margin, and at only 1/3rd the price.

... but I mostly do agree with you, hence why I said "a big part" and not "the only thing that matters...". A company that puts out a good lens that has apertures of 2.8 or higher is going to market it as a higher quality lens compared to another lens that has a F4-5.6 rating and *in most cases* will offer the glass needed to make it work with those apertures.

It is no guarantee, but it is a very good indicator.

Obviously the bottom line is that one has to test each particular lens or refer to reviews where these lenses are compared back to back, that is the best way to know.


----------

