Canon 40D or Nikon D300???

Hans.Jacobs · Post by **Hans.Jacobs** » 19 Feb 2008, 10:32

Hi Guys,

need some serious advise. After 2 years, i have decided to replace my Pentax IST-DL with Sigma 170-500mm. I want to buy something good...

After having visited several shops, I am trying to choose between the:

Nikon D300 with Nikkor 80-400VR and the
Canon EOS 40D with Canon 100-400IS.

Looking at the prices, it's around the same. People who i have spoken to say that for sports photography the Nikon is much better.

I'm using it mainly for aircraft, so does anyone have experience with these cameras and which one do you recommend. Its a big purchase, so appreciate your feedback!

Thanks!
Hans.

evhest · Post by **evhest** » 19 Feb 2008, 11:02

I have used the Canon 40D for two months now and all I can say it's a great camera. It's autofocus is very, very fast and spot on.

I haven't tried the Nikon, but to say it is more suitable for sportphotograpy is a bit senseless to me. Both the Canon and the Nikon are perfectly suitable for fast action photograpy. The difference between Canon and Nikon is more a question of taste in my opinion. In my eyes Canons are more user friendly and more flexible then Nikons.

The Canon 100-400IS is supposed to be a fine lense, but a bit soft at maximum zoom.

Whataver you choose, have fun with it!

Tom Tiger · Post by **Tom Tiger** » 19 Feb 2008, 11:12

Have to agree on the 100-400 L, it gets a bit softer at 400 but not much, it still is one of the most used "airshow" lenses around. It simply is a great lens.

I'm getting a 40D in a few months or so (selling of parts of my cameracollection) I've played with it and it is an improvement over my 300D (duh...)

For me the reason to choose Canon over Nikon was that I could use my old M42 lenses (yes the screw in ones) on my Canon (Ring M42 to Eos) and that meant a lot to me. Also I like the choices in lenses I have.

If you have the chance try it out. A friend of mine specificly chose Nikon because to him the menu and holding the camera was nicer than Canon.

If you have no legacy lenses you are pretty much free in choosing. Go to a camerashop and ask if you can hold the cameras (any good camerashop has a demo model)

and just as important, see what your lensoptions are, how expensive are the lenses you want for Nikon, and for Canon.

L8tr... Tom

DrDree · Post by **DrDree** » 19 Feb 2008, 12:05

Hans,

Did you already had a look at DPReview for a side-by-side review of both camera's

Regards,

pjgross · Post by **pjgross** » 19 Feb 2008, 12:59

Hans if you check the professional photographers at football matches you will see for 75% those (ugly) white Canon lenses. So professionals choose Canon.

I have Canon equipment as well, it is super although I find the build-quality of Nikon bodies better, less plastic, heavier and more "stone".
And personally I don't like the white-grey color of my Canon lenses.

I would not advise the Canon 100-400. What others call "soft" I call just unsharp. And unsharp is just about the only thing you can not really correct in Photoshop. I had one and sold it after three months. The 70-200 2.8 IS USM is faster and much much sharper. This one will never disappoint you.

Good luck!

Paul

Tom Tiger · Post by **Tom Tiger** » 19 Feb 2008, 13:31

Hmm.... the 100-400mm L vs the 70-200 L 2.8, interesting.... But you lack the range with the 70-200... and the 70-200 is 1600 euros....

I'm not sure if comparing a 100-400 to a 70-200 is a fair comparision but I'm allways intersted in lenses. So basicly the question now becomes.

Given that the 70-200 2.8 L usm is sharper and faster (and I heard good things about this lens so I have no reason to doubt you) how will its performance become with an extender (Canon offcourse and 1.4 or 2.0)

I'm not looking into the price, because with the extender the 70-200 will come out at around 2000 euros which is a little rich for me...

Let us solely look at quality. And how about its littler brother the 70-200/4 IS L usm (940 euros) If I'm not mistaken the 70-200 is Almost optical identical (yes I say almost)

Hoping that I'm not going too far OT with this, I'm just curious.

L8tr... Tom

Post by **Key** » 19 Feb 2008, 13:52

Have had my hands on the D300 and can assure you it's a great camera. I'm a Nikonian but I won't point you in that direction just because it's my taste. As for handling and flexibility, I have always been able to pick up any Nikon (D)SLR and start shooting right away. The concept definitely works for me.
Dunno about the 40D specs but the D300 has a high pixel density, big display, 'live view' mode, shooting banks and of course compatibility to nearly every lens in the inventory.

As for the tele, I am not a fan of long range zooms, period. Especially since we're talking digital here, I would rather shoot with a razor sharp prime 300mm and crop, than fill the frame at the limits of what such a zoom can do.

Erik

Koen L · Post by **Koen L** » 19 Feb 2008, 14:29

With the upcoming cashback promotion (150 Euros cashback) the 40D will cost about half the price of a D300. Money you can spend on an extra lens perhaps?

EHAM · Post by **EHAM** » 19 Feb 2008, 14:40

Some numbers about sharpness (scroll down until MTF):

Canon 100-400
Nikon 80-400

Leeuwarden · Post by **Leeuwarden** » 19 Feb 2008, 15:07

Koen L wrote:With the upcoming cashback promotion (150 Euros cashback) the 40D will cost about half the price of a D300. Money you can spend on an extra lens perhaps?

What cashback?

Leeuwarden · Post by **Leeuwarden** » 19 Feb 2008, 15:14

Used to have Nikon camera's. I think the D300 is a big step forward from the D200...

The 80-400 is a nice lens. I had two of them. But they are slow... very slow.
I couldn't work with this lens. I understand the D300 does a better job with the 80-400...

If you are going to buy a D300 my advice would be to buy a 70-200 f-2.8 and a 300 f-4. Also buy a Nikkor 1.4TC. (maybe rob a bank first...)

Personally I switched from Nikon to Canon last december...

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 20 Feb 2008, 01:02

pjgross wrote:I have Canon equipment as well, although I find the build-quality of Nikon bodies better, less plastic, heavier and more "stone". And personally I don't like the white-grey color of my Canon lenses. Paul

Paul,
Just try to hold a 1D mk.. and all the above is no longer an issue

Groet, Paul.

ruudb · Post by **ruudb** » 20 Feb 2008, 08:39

The most expensive camera isn't a garantee for the best results and the price of a 1D is the same as a cheap car, so it better should be better!

[/quote]

Glidepath · Post by **Glidepath** » 20 Feb 2008, 09:37

heb je hier
http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34813
al gelezen en specifiek de verwijzing naar roland lim's site? leerzaam inzake 40d.
en kijk eens in de F+D's van de afgelopen maanden.

en de keuze, blijft lastig. ik mene dat het grauwe van de nikonsensor wat beter onder controle is gebracht, maar dat moet je zelf even zien te verifieren. (stond in F+D of een andere fotoblad dat labtesten uitvoert.)

verder
De 40 ligt dicht bij de uitlopende 30D zeggen 'ze'.
bovendien: het verschil tussen de 40D en de binnenkort te lanceren goedkopere 450D is vrij klein. zet ze maar eens naast elkaar op de canon site.

ik verwacht veel meer van de opvolger van de eos 5d. maar dan moeten ze m wel scherp prijzen. (wanneer dát ding nou s uitkomt?).

Leeuwarden · Post by **Leeuwarden** » 20 Feb 2008, 09:49

Glidepath wrote:heb je hier
(wanneer dát ding nou s uitkomt?).

Nadat ik een vraag stelde over die 5D kreeg ik van Canon het advies om even door te sparen...