Valid comparison . . .?

Nick_C wrote in post #3901335
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)

Yes I see, but what I'm comparing are Nikon D300 and Canon 5D because they are in the same price range.
People that think Nikon is better because all new features, better AF system and so on will chose D300, people like me that do love FF capabilities will choose 5D.
I don't see why some people are comparing Nikon D300 vs. Canon 40D; for sure D300 is better but it costs a lot more!

bidimagic wrote in post #3902649
Yes I see, but what I'm comparing are Nikon D300 and Canon 5D because they are in the same price range.
People that think Nikon is better because all new features, better AF system and so on will chose D300, people like me that do love FF capabilities will choose 5D.
I don't see why some people are comparing Nikon D300 vs. Canon 40D; for sure D300 is better but it costs a lot more!

The reason people compare the D300 and 40D against each other is because they are the latest generation crop cameras from Nikon and Canon and are both aimed at the prosumer market. The 5D is a FF camera aimed at wedding and landscape photographers where speed is not as important. Canon chose the incremental upgrade path while keeping the cost down while Nikon chose the more radical upgrade along with it's higher price tag. Time will tell which strategy worked.

Just thought I'd share an interesting, and timely for this post, little article on the Rashomon effect inevitable in comparisons, in Outdoor Photographer and available online here.

Nick_C wrote in post #3899798
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,

yeah bit like comparing the 400D to the 40D, just imagine if one of the was not made by Canon but by Noink....
where would te arguement go, how would it go...?

I Simonius wrote in post #3906378
yeah bit like comparing the 400D to the 40D, just imagine if one of the was not made by Canon but by Noink....
where would te arguement go, how would it go...?

I agree with the other comment on here, what if the 5D was the same price, I wonder how many would be choosing to go fullframe then, I like cropped bodies for telephotos, just not wideangle.

Nick_C wrote in post #3906453
I agree with the other comment on here, what if the 5D was the same price, I wonder how many would be choosing to go fullframe then, I like cropped bodies for telephotos, just not wideangle.

definitely cropped for Tele

I do find I don't use tele as muchas WAbut if I did then I would save up my pennies for the 40D

As it is I amsaving my pennies for either the 5Dmk2 or...1Dsmk3 (doubt I'll ever get there though..

I Simonius wrote in post #3906491
definitely cropped for Tele

I do find I don't use tele as muchas WAbut if I did then I would save up my pennies for the 40D

As it is I amsaving my pennies for either the 5Dmk2 or...1Dsmk3 (doubt I'll ever get there though..

Same here, I was going to get the 70-200 f/4 IS, but on a 5D 200 isnt that much reach, I didnt want the extra expense of a TC & when I thought about it I realized that I dont actually get as much enjoyment out of telephoto's as I do wideangle, so I ended up getting a compromise, a 70-300IS, plenty of reach & pretty sharp.

I find the 24-105L absolutely perfect on the 5D, no suprise there as its bundled with 5D's now, so obviously Canon think its a perfect partner too, my copy is insanely sharp even wideopen, I actually dont need to use USM anymore at all, I was quite suprised at that, its wider than a 17-55IS on a 1.6x body & has more reach & of course is built much better which makes it more of a joy to use.

I find for landscapes its plenty wide enough, if I take a few images & stitch together, this not only gets me a fov like a 12mm lens but gives me images that are over 40 megapixels, zooming in to 100% reveals some incredible detail which ive never been able to achieve before now, im not talking about panoramics here btw, when I take images of churches & architecture I find the extra focal range combined with the IS simply superb.

For me the 5D is doing everything I want it too, all this talk about better AF & all these new bells & whistles is fine, but I am honestly getting a massively high keeper rate right now, out of say 100 images I may have 1, possibly 2 out of focus ones, but usually due to the fact I had let the shutter speed drop too low & didnt have IS on at the time, AF accuracy is absolutely spot on target, all the time, my images are always insanely sharp, sometimes a little too sharp, they pop out at you with vibrant colours & in low light ive never experience any problems wirth AF.

I don't see how could I possibly improve upon this..

irishman wrote in post #3899692
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.

That is right, comparing D300 to 40D is not fair.

bidimagic wrote in post #3899727
I agree, and the price of the D300 is closer to the 5D so why we can't
compare them instead ?

The price is not closer, the 5D is $1,000 more than the d300 and that is the point. The d300 lies between the 40D and 5D on the scale. The problem is, with the d300's specs it compares very favorably if not superiorly to the 5D. But to be fair, the 5D is two years old and due for an upgrade. Hopefully, Canon will not drop the ball with the upgrade and move it way past the d300 in features and specs.

Well feature-wise, the 5D lies more in between the D3 and D300. The most expensive component in a dSLR is its sensor. I think it's good for Canon and Nikon that they're making different camera offerings. From a sensor standpoint, the 5D's only competition with Nikon is the D3.....which is way more expensive, is bulkier, and doesn't have native ISO100. The D3, though, is more then likely going to be favored by sports shooters because of its speed. From an intended market standpoint, I think the D300 compares more with the 40D....and for what sports photographers want, the D300 certainly has more appealing features: all be it more expensive price.

So it looks like Nikon has done a good job making cameras that cater to sports shooters. Sometime soon, the sports fields may not just have white lenses anymore!

Nick_C wrote in post #3906570
S I don't see how could I possibly improve upon this..

excellent endorsement for the 24-105!

Jon_Doh wrote in post #3906663
The price is not closer, the 5D is $1,000 more than the d300 and that is the point.

Here in Italy prices are (body only):
40D: 1100 EUR
D300: 1900 EUR (+800)
5D: 2200 EUR (+300)

That's why I said D300 price is closer to 5D than to 40D.