Even then they're not really comparable, the D300 costs about 80% more (£500 vs £900 body only). Although, I wouldn't mind one
Had a play with a Nikon D300...
- Thread starter Phate
- Start date
Even then they're not really comparable, the D300 costs about 80% more (£500 vs £900 body only). Although, I wouldn't mind one
The 40D will give smoother variations in colour due to the 14 bit DIGIC III processor. 40D vs MkII is a very interesting comparison. I've got a MKIIn and I'm selling it and I've used the 40D quite a bit (I also have a 30D).
The MKII is certainly a better camera in almost every way but this doesn't mean it's the best. They take a lot of time to learn how to use properly and the sheer amount of setting can get very confusing. The biggest thing for me over my 30D was simply the sheer size of it, it's a 1.2kg brick. This means that although when I do use it I get really great pics, I've been finding that I haven't been taking it out much because it's so much of a burden when you're doing anything but dedicated photography.
I'm not going to switch any time soon
- I was merely saying how impressed I was with it 
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
well the only reason the 40D is so cheap is Canons marketing options at the moment. truly believe a new range of EOS cameras are in the pipeline. The 40D is going for peanuts and its worth so much more. Nikon don't need to sell it so cheap because that is there full range out and fully updated.
Canon have slipped behind and thus explains the semi professional cameras price tag.
Canon have slipped behind and thus explains the semi professional cameras price tag.
Yes the focusing is better on a 1D, but those saying that have you used a 40D? The focusing has MUCH improved over the 30D/20D/5D.
Also, (again comparing it to the 1D which is where my statement was made not the mk2), the high iso noise is absolutely dreadful compared to the 40D, the colours arent as good, there is a sizeable difference between an old 4mp CCD and a modern 10mp CMOS.........Yes the build quality is better, but again the 40D is massively improved over the 10/20/30/5D in that respect too.
As a practical day to day camera, the 40D hammers the 1D, and thats not coming from someone who is biased by what they own, I have had plenty of opportunity to swap to the 1D should i have wanted to, but after using both the 40D is a much better camera for end results rather than just saying "OMG 1 series".
1Dmk2n however is a much more interesting comparison, and i do have to say my 40D would be swapped straight away should someone offer it
Also, (again comparing it to the 1D which is where my statement was made not the mk2), the high iso noise is absolutely dreadful compared to the 40D, the colours arent as good, there is a sizeable difference between an old 4mp CCD and a modern 10mp CMOS.........Yes the build quality is better, but again the 40D is massively improved over the 10/20/30/5D in that respect too.
As a practical day to day camera, the 40D hammers the 1D, and thats not coming from someone who is biased by what they own, I have had plenty of opportunity to swap to the 1D should i have wanted to, but after using both the 40D is a much better camera for end results rather than just saying "OMG 1 series".
1Dmk2n however is a much more interesting comparison, and i do have to say my 40D would be swapped straight away should someone offer it
No It hasn't. It's largely the same asides from a few ergonomic differences and the very limited sealing. I've used a 20, 30 and 40D and they're all largely the same regarding build quality.
Sorry, i did mean handling more than anything, the build is nothing to be shunned anyway it's all very solid bar the CF card door still being plastic....it's a much larger camera in the hand
(i still own a 20D and had a 30D before the 40D, and regularily handle the 5D and 1DSmk3)Also the material used for the rubber on the grip does seem to be a fair bit better
The 10/20/30/5 rubber all feels very plasticy, much nicer on the hand the 40D
You're right that the high ISO capabilities are clearly better on the 40D, but I'm surprised that you feel that the colours would be better, bearing in mind that much of their accuracy is down to the metering, in which case you'll be comparing a pro-sumer set of metering to a pro.
As for the detail, really depends on what you intend to do with it. If you have a requirement to do lots of cropping or need to print seriously big, then 10mp is a good thing. I'd still argue that actually capturing the shot is a lot more important than out of focus detail that is only viewable when you pixel peep.
I guess it really comes down to personal preferences. I guess you prefer to not have to carry around another kg in weight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
Nikon D300 anyone?.... lol
nope it's nothing to do with weight, my next camera WILL be a 1 series, dont get me wrong im not anti 1 series nor do i think the 40D is the be all and end all of cameras, I just think that the 40D is better than the 1Dmk1. The 1Dmk1 is just too old now to compare with the newer much improved technology, the improved dynamic range of the newer cmos sensors vs the older CCDs etc, it's all come on leaps and bounds.
Also, the focusing on the 40D is actually very accurate, even if it does only have 9 points vs the 45 of the 1, i've yet to come accross a situation where the 40D hasnt managed to focus, on the 5/30/20 etc it was all too frequent
I had a play with the D300... and bought one!
Paired with good glass its a great piece of kit and reassuringly well built.
You just need to grow some more musles Jonny.
Nah, I was fine, just pointing out how heavy it it (though your full kit does require a fork lift)