Valid comparison . . .?

Of the two "40's with a D", I'm of the opinion that Canon's is far superior to Nikon's offering. Sure, they both have 10MP but, but the comparisons get rough from then on for Nikon. Canon's new offering has a 3.0" LCD screen compared to 2.5 from Nikon, AND Canon has Live View. The Canon can also shoot over TWICE as fast as the Nikon---6.5 to 3 fps. Construction and ergonomics favor the Canon so much that it would be embarrasing to go into details. If you have the extra $500, buy the Canon for sure.

Am I being facetious? Yes, but my point is that the Canon 40D is FAR superior to the Nikon D40X, and its $500 more expensive. Yet for that same price difference, people will be comparing the Nikon D300 to the Canon 40D. In my opinion, Canon has yet to introduce a direct competitor to the D300, and any comparisons seem invalid. I'm not a brand loyalist, but fair is fair.

I agree, and the price of the D300 is closer to the 5D so why we can't
compare them instead ?

mm canon 40d £800 body - Nikon D40x £384 body
i would exspect the Canon to be a little better
eddit thats aprox $825 diffrence Uk price's
Rob

yeah comparing these 2 cameras is not accurate, compare the D40X to the XTI is a better comparison, and in that one then the D40X wins in many people's eyes

right now Nikon does not have anything comparable to the 40D, they have the D200 which is comparable but obviously its old and canon has the upper hand. The D300 is slightly more expensive but I will give that one to Nikon it looks like a great camera.

I think it is valid to compare any cameras that you can afford. So the 40D with either camera. Whatever camera best allows you to do what you want is the one to get, within your budget. As such, all will get sales.

In my opinion, outside of 40DX vs. 400D/XTi and 40D vs. 350D/XT none of the Nikon and Canon offerings directly compare. D80 to 40D to D300 to 5D to1D Mk III to D3 to 1Ds Mk III all involve some vertical as well as sideways motion.

Your hardly going to get an unbiased view on the Nikon here, post the same thing on the Nikon forum & it will be reversed, everyone will think the Nikon is king

GyRob--yes, right! Your making my point for me without understanding my concept. The comparisons between the the 40D and the D300 will happen, yet for $500 you would expect the Nikon to be better! When Canon introduced the Rebel XTI, Nikon respoded with the D40. The Rebel killed it in sales, so Nikon, being a much smaller company and able to retool very fast, came out with the D40X in response even before reviews had hit the photo magazines of the D40. Now, 6 months later, Canon has responded to the D40X with the 40D.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3899769
I think it is valid to compare any cameras that you can afford. So the 40D with either camera. Whatever camera best allows you to do what you want is the one to get, within your budget. As such, all will get sales.

In my opinion, outside of 40DX vs. 400D/XTi and 40D vs. 350D/XT none of the Nikon and Canon offerings directly compare. D80 to 40D to D300 to 5D to1D Mk III to D3 to 1Ds Mk III all involve some vertical as well as sideways motion.

That was the point I was trying to make on another thread, those comparisons are correct what you have said, but we are seeing the 40D compared to a 5D, its like comparing the 400D to the MKIII, its not a valid comparison.

irishman wrote in post #3899779
GyRob--yes, right! Your making my point for me without understanding my concept. The comparisons between the the 40D and the D300 will happen, yet for $500 you would expect the Nikon to be better! When Canon introduced the Rebel XTI, Nikon respoded with the D40. The Rebel killed it in sales, so Nikon, being a much smaller company and able to retool very fast, came out with the D40X in response even before reviews had hit the photo magazines of the D40. Now, 6 months later, Canon has responded to the D40X with the 40D.

Yep it will happen, but its pointless, let us say that a 40D can produce images close to a D300 for a fraction of the cost, if I was getting a D300 I would be getting it for a particular reason, would I want a 40D instread? certainly not, its like the 40D vs 5D comparisons, I went fullframe for good reason, would I have chose the 40D instead? possibly if it had a FF sensor & was 12.8mp, but its not, so comparing both is a little strange.

Comparisons should stay to camera classes & prices, 1.6x bodies should be compared against other 1.6x bodies in a similar price band, same goes for the D300, if that is going to be in the same price band as a 5D, then compare it to that, not a 40D, otherwise why not compare it to a 400D!

Some very good points made in this thread. Those that are drawing close comparisons are comparing apples and oranges.

Brand loyal or not, if you just take the 40D for what it is, what is costs, and the feature set, it appears to be a fine camera that can hold its own. Whether it is a suitable upgrade or sidestep or reason to switch brands is completely subjective and will differ from person to person.

If you buy a 40D and you're not happy then sure, maybe you should have gotten a different camera or spent more on one, but maybe that would be a 5D rather than a Nikon.

For me, I'm going to stick with Canon for numerous reasons but one very important one is the shape of the body. I have relatively small hands. I had the opportunity to shoot with a Nikon D70 prior to buying my 30D. I absolutely didn't like the Nikon and didn't have fun shooting with it because it forced my hand and fingers into positions I simply did not like. When I picked up the 30D and shot with it I felt like it was made for my hand. So regardless of what I'm told about the new Nikons I can see that the body design is the same and would still not be a comfortable fit for me.

I am referring to the right side of the body with the grip, shutter and jog wheel. It is noticably taller and blockier than the contour of the Canon bodies. The push button controls also don't feel comfortable for my hands whereas the Canon's button layout really works for me. This is HUGE. If I were just going by the numbers and the reviews I might be persuaded to think the Nikon's are better but you always have to ask yourself if you actually need better (assuming you tuly know it is better) and at what cost.

For me price matters. If in the same price class a vendor has a full frame camera and another vendor a crop one, why they can't be compared ?
A customer normally has a budget, so with it in mind he has to choose a camera that fit his needs and he can afford.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3899769
I think it is valid to compare any cameras that you can afford. So the 40D with either camera. Whatever camera best allows you to do what you want is the one to get, within your budget. As such, all will get sales.

I agree.

I think an apples to oranges comparison would be to compare a DSLR to a Video Camera but not a DSLR to DSLR comparison. One could have obviously better features, but that's why you compare by what's within your budget.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3899769
I think it is valid to compare any cameras that you can afford. So the 40D with either camera. Whatever camera best allows you to do what you want is the one to get, within your budget. As such, all will get sales.

In my opinion, outside of 40DX vs. 400D/XTi and 40D vs. 350D/XT none of the Nikon and Canon offerings directly compare. D80 to 40D to D300 to 5D to1D Mk III to D3 to 1Ds Mk III all involve some vertical as well as sideways motion.

Exactly. Aside from the D40x vs. 400D and D3 vs. 1DIII, there are no direct competitors from the two camps in terms of price. D80 vs. 40D vs. D300 vs. 5D--there's enough price difference between each step to not make them direct competitors, per se. However as stated above, most shoppers start with a budget and work from there, but some of those shoppers can also be enticed to move up a step if the features are right--stretching their budget, if you will. That's why it's laughable to say that the D300 and 40D absolutely can't be compared because they're not the same price. Yes, they're different enough in price to be 2 different product tiers, but you can bet that anybody with up to a $2000 budget and no brand attachment will be looking at both as the top-of-the-line cameras from each manufacturer in this price segment. Both cameras are very good options at their respective prices, but the price difference isn't a barrier to comparing them.

As an aside, don't you think Nikon users will be looking hard at both the D300 and D3 to see which one will fit their needs better? They are very similar in a lot of their features, yet the price gulf is a whopping $3200! I believe that's not going to stop users from comparing the two and deciding between them. Obviously some will need/want the super high framerate of the D3, the fullframe sensor, etc., but others who can afford the D3 might find enough capability in the D300. This is analogous to all those "30D or 5D" threads we've seen in the past. The price gulf there is $1000+, so why compare them at all, right? Because it's all about what features you need/want and how much you're willing to pay for them, not about restricting yourself to only comparing cameras with identical prices.

Yohan, I'm not much of a businessman so I'll accept much of what you have to say. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. To me, as a hobbyist, the $500 price difference is substantial. But for the market they are aiming for, the semi-pro who makes money from his work, it may not be.
All of this niggling over specs is so much mental masturbation because photography is 25% science and 75% art. Regardless of his gear, the guy who knows his equipment like the back of his hand is going to get the better images. The guy who is willing to drag himself out of bed at 4:30 am to get the best light wins. The guy who is willing to drag around and use his tripod, "work" the location for the best compsoition, set his mirror lock-up, bracket his exposures, compensate his exposure, master Photoshop, and understand color management will always be ahead of guys like me, regardless of what they shoot with.

bidimagic wrote in post #3899874
For me price matters. If in the same price class a vendor has a full frame camera and another vendor a crop one, why they can't be compared ?
A customer normally has a budget, so with it in mind he has to choose a camera that fit his needs and he can afford.

Well you can compare them, but people choose fullframe over 1.6x crop for certain reasons, it works the other way around too.

This is why I feel its stupid to compare the 40D to a 5D, not only do they have completely difference sensors, they are designed for different markets & the price isnt even comparable, so where are the simularites? (pardon my spelling, my brain seems to have died on me tonight)