on the 40D design ...

The 900 dot screen on the back of the d300 is dots, not megapixels. In megapixels it works out to about 307K mp's compared to 230K on the 40D, the same 230K that was on the 2 1/2 inch 30D screen. What Nikon did was increase the mp count when they made the LCD larger so the picture would stay sharp and viewable outside. What Canon did was enlarge the screen, keep the mp count the same to save money and turn the brightness up which will drain the battery. Another bone head move by Canon on this upgrade.

Can't wait til the cheap foam tape begins breaking off and their goes the "weather sealng". They should have dropped the price of this dud to under $1000 with all the cheap components they put in it.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #3894649
The 900 dot screen on the back of the d300 is dots, not megapixels. In megapixels it works out to about 307K mp's compared to 230K on the 40D, the same 230K that was on the 2 1/2 inch 30D screen. What Nikon did was increase the mp count when they made the LCD larger so the picture would stay sharp and viewable outside. What Canon did was enlarge the screen, keep the mp count the same to save money and turn the brightness up which will drain the battery. Another bone head move by Canon on this upgrade.

Can't wait til the cheap foam tape begins breaking off and their goes the "weather sealng". They should have dropped the price of this dud to under $1000 with all the cheap components they put in it.

Nikon might be using some fuzzy math with their LCD, but so has Canon. The 230K of the 40D is actually only about 76K x 3 colors = 230K pixels. So it's 307K vs. 76K--still 4 times more resolution.

Nothing wrong with the 40D's price vs. features though. I think it's very well placed there. It would kill everything else around at $1000, but I think it's positioned just right price-wise for its feature set.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #3893843
Nevermind the peanut gallery. Some people's answer to a statement of dissatisfaction with Canon's products will always be, "Don't like it? Buy Nikon."

And why not? Why would you spend so much money on a product you feel is so vastly inferior? What's the alternative? Buy a product you hate and moan about it for the next two years?

I agree that the Nikons are powerful entries to the marketplace. The D300 does offer a lot more than the 40D. But, I don't think so much so that it is out of line with the price. I do commend them for bringing a pro-level tracking AF to the lowest price yet, and even being innovative by using meter information to aid in tracking.

I do want more from Canon in the 40D. But, that is much different than claiming that the design is a total failure. Those who feel that way, really, why would the logical thing be to buy Nikon?

"Oh, I as so much glass." Well, you can unload that inside of a month for close to what you paid for it. Why stick with the failure?

The Hardcard wrote in post #3894952
And why not? Why would you spend so much money on a product you feel is so vastly inferior? What's the alternative? Buy a product you hate and moan about it for the next two years?

I agree that the Nikons are powerful entries to the marketplace. The D300 does offer a lot more than the 40D. But, I don't think so much so that it is out of line with the price. I do commend them for bringing a pro-level tracking AF to the lowest price yet, and even being innovative by using meter information to aid in tracking.

I do want more from Canon in the 40D. But, that is much different than claiming that the design is a total failure. Those who feel that way, really, why would the logical thing be to buy Nikon?

"Oh, I as so much glass." Well, you can unload that inside of a month for close to what you paid for it. Why stick with the failure?

I agree. If Canon offers no benefits to you, then by all means look seriously at using other brands. But I was referring to the fact that it seems to be almost a reflex for some to tell any dissidents to go ahead and jump ship instead of wanting more from Canon, even people who only have relatively small complaints in the grand scheme of things. I feel that Canon is holding too much back in terms of features from the xxD and 5D lines, but I don't think either are complete failures. I'm probably close to how you feel about Canon's current offerings. I just don't appreciate it when instead of offering up rebuttals or counter-arguments, all people do is to tell others to switch to another brand instead. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but that kind of thing bothers me. This is a nice community we have going here. We should be helping each other realize the benefits and drawbacks of Canon's cameras and offer up carefully considered advice, not making callous comments urging fellow users to leave.

But I disagree that jumping ship is such a simple and easy thing to do. Personally, I feel that I've invested a lot of time and effort into learning the Canon system, and am very comfortable with the user interface, settings, terminology, flash system, etc. I don't have to think anymore to change most shooting settings, which is crucial in fast-paced shooting situations where I don't have time to think too long about how to set my camera a particular way. I don't want to throw that all away and learn a whole new system. Not to mention that mm-for-mm Canon's lenses are almost universally less expensive, so it's not just the cost of the body but extra glass costs as well.

I don't think I've ever seen this level of whining and sniveling about a Canon release. I don't know what you guys thought the 40D was going to be but I think you set your expectations way too high.

There was no way Canon was going to make the 40D a "middle grade" 1D or 1Ds. It's just not good business strategy. The one thing you don't do is create a product that's going to be in direct competition with your high-end flagship product at a lower price point. It would be like General Motors putting all the luxury features of the Cadillac Escalade on the Chevy Equinox and then marketing it at the usual Equinox price.

Why don't you guys just accept the 40D for what it is... A nice, progressive upgrade in a very good series of cameras. Now go out and take some pictures...

On the grip. What is so bad about it? I read about the Nikon grip and the only advantage I see is that it allows you to use the camera battery in addition to batteries in the grip. A nice advantage, but in my eyes doesn't relegate the BG-E2N to joke or piece-of-you-know-what status?

Is their a big price differential, or am I missing something?

As far as other points, the Nikon LCDs are much better, but the 40D does what I need it to do. For me, I use the LCD to check exposure and to reevaluate composition (try to avoid pole coming out of head type errors.) Nikon edge here, but not a big one for me.

Live View: Nikons live view focusing just uses contrast detection. Yes, it is better than nothing, but for real use of the AF system you have to do the same thing as with the Canon, let the mirror flip down. Again, Nikon advantage, but not a big one.

On the AF, the thread with the very shallow DOF cycling shots shows that the 40D AF system is fantastic. Maybe the pro AF systems do better with a lot of criss-cross motion, but for straight up tracking, you'll be hard pressed to show an advantage of the pro AF systems - be they Nikon or Canon. Also William Castleman did a tracking test on semis coming at him at freeway speeds. Out of 50 servo shots, 47 40D shots had sharp, correct focus - versus 48 for the 1D Mk II and 40 for the 20D.

Things to consider.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3895420
On the grip. What is so bad about it? I read about the Nikon grip and the only advantage I see is that it allows you to use the camera battery in addition to batteries in the grip. A nice advantage, but in my eyes doesn't relegate the BG-E2N to joke or piece-of-you-know-what status?

Is their a big price differential, or am I missing something?

I didn't like the BG-E2 before the D300 came around, so it's not a matter of it being ok before but suddenly awful because something better comes along.

AFAIK the BG-E2 is mostly plastic, whereas the D300 grip is magnesium alloy. I think the D300 one also has a nice rubber layer on it that matches the rubber on the D300 itself.

The D300 grip allows the use of D2X/D3 batteries. As I said in the "D300 preview" thread, imagine being able to use 1DIII batteries in the 40D grip. Ingenious, I say.

The curve of the D300 grip also looks very similar to the D300's built-in grip to match it in terms of handling and comfort, whereas the BG-E2's isn't as comfortable as the 20D/30D's built-in grip, or the 40D's I'd imagine.

Lastly and least of all, it just looks like it belongs on the D300 because it's molded to follow the contours, whereas the BG-E2/N looks like it's a haphazardly stuck on box. I wish I could say, "BG-E2--they're boxy, but they're good," but I can only get as far as "they're boxy."

Of course with all the metal in there the D300 grip might cost $200+. Who knows.

I'm pretty excited about the AF on the 40D--supposedly 30% faster AF calculations than the 30D and all AF points are cross-type. This is a big step up, although I'm still not a fan of the diamond layout.

I have to consider the 40D from two major points:

1. Is it a worthwhile upgrade to the 30D.

I think the answer to that is yes.

2. Is there a better DSLR out there at the $1250 price point?

And to that I feel the answer is No.

Could Canon have done a better job? Sure. Do I feel like they let me down with the 40D? The answer there would be, for the money, no.

IMHO the answer is yes. Canon seem to be walking and the rest are running, except Nikon who seem to be sprinting. But when you have spent a fortune on glass, they now you have to stick with them or take a big loss.

JWright wrote in post #3895164
I don't think I've ever seen this level of whining and sniveling about a Canon release. I don't know what you guys thought the 40D was going to be but I think you set your expectations way too high.

There was no way Canon was going to make the 40D a "middle grade" 1D or 1Ds. It's just not good business strategy. The one thing you don't do is create a product that's going to be in direct competition with your high-end flagship product at a lower price point. It would be like General Motors putting all the luxury features of the Cadillac Escalade on the Chevy Equinox and then marketing it at the usual Equinox price.

Why don't you guys just accept the 40D for what it is... A nice, progressive upgrade in a very good series of cameras. Now go out and take some pictures...

D300.
'nuff said.

Asmodeus wrote in post #3895931
I have to consider the 40D from two major points:

1. Is it a worthwhile upgrade to the 30D.

I think the answer to that is yes.

2. Is there a better DSLR out there at the $1250 price point?

And to that I feel the answer is No.

Could Canon have done a better job? Sure. Do I feel like they let me down with the 40D? The answer there would be, for the money, no.

I think the question is: if canon had something up to the D300 and at the same price. would you be ready to put the extra money to get this one instead of the 40D ...

well I am sure that for many of us the answer is a big "yes" followed by a huge "immediately"

petiot111 wrote in post #3898444
I think the question is: if canon had something up to the D300 and at the same price. would you be ready to put the extra money to get this one instead of the 40D ...

well I am sure that for many of us the answer is a big "yes" followed by a huge "immediately"

Chances are a 5dii will be close!

EOSAddict wrote in post #3898450
Chances are a 5dii will be close!

close maybe. late for sure

petiot111 wrote in post #3898486
close maybe. late for sure

Well product development cycles are what they are.. Canon has been ahead of the game for years.. it should come as no surprise that Nikon got back in the game. Unless you are a committed 'first adopter' there should be no ssue in waiting for the 6 months til the 5D II comes out... asumming it does...

Our existing DSLRs did not suddenly turn into a pile of craop overnight!

EOSAddict wrote in post #3898498
Our existing DSLRs did not suddenly turn into a pile of craop overnight!

They didn't?

*Looks at 30D*

What a piece of junk...

Just kidding.

I love my 30D, actually, but want to upgrade to the 40D because of its autofocus points, 5D-like grip, and its viewfinder (which I'm hoping can be seen in its entirety though my glasses).

If the 40D meets all the above expectations of mine, I won't have need to upgrade to anything (except maybe a fullframe body) for quite some time.