40D seems great...

...but seems underwhelming compared to what the competition already has or is preparing.

I'd still take a D200 over it, if I wasn't a Canon owner and fan. D300 on paper makes me drool...40D, not so much. It sounds more than $500 better.

What is up with Canon? They ruled the market 2 years ago - when the 30D was released I was a bit worried that it wasn't really pushing forward in a competitive way (in terms of what was getting released from the competition), and now the 40D - while great - isn't exciting enought to move from my 20D.

Convince me otherwise - I have a lot invested to switch.

I found it exciting enough to switch from a 30D. But if the specs don't convince you I don't know how I can. All I can say is that I love it.

Play with one. I made that mistake tonight and played with one for close to 45 minutes. Live view is amazing for still shots as you can zoom in on the live picture and capture EXACT focus. The colors it gives when you slightly boost the saturation in the jpegs is amazing. The viewfinder is brighter and it includes what ISO youre shooting at (important to me, atleast). The "weather sealing" although, not as good as a 1-series, is still better than nothing at all. The rear LCD is a HUGE (no pun) improvement over the tiny screen found on the 20d. It doesnt seem important now, but once you see it in person, you fall in love with it. It has spot metering, 6.5 fps, 14-bit color (which doesnt really matter in today's terms, but its still nice), and DIGIC III. It's quick, responsive, and the controls arent that far off from the 20d, so the learning curve is easy.

All in all its a great overall camera and well worth the switch from a 20D, in my opinion. I know if I still had my 20D when this came out, I would hve made the switch. For $1200, its a good upgrade.

I upgraded to one earlier this week. The difference is like night and day. I'm going to use it as my primary camera until spring when the successor to the 5D comes out, and then relegate it to backup status. And I have a feeling that the 5D successor is going to really rock Nikon's world when it's released. Canon has a tendency to do that to them. It's kind of fun to watch.

Who gives a damn what you do? Why should you ask here? You have $4000 worth of gear. Make your own decisions. The D200 sensor sucks even compared to your 20D. Everyone is talking about the D300 like it is nirvana. No one has even tested it yet, but you are talking about being willing to sell your gear and buy a $2000 camera body. For what? What exactly is it about this untested camera that is causing such grief in your life? 2 more MP? more focus points? Will you be better photographer with it?

For me, canon caamera are much more logically arrayed and feel more natural in my hands. Their lenses are more reasonably priced and I love the ones I have. I didnt buy a 5D because of how much I love the 17-55 and 10-22. Until the verdict is in on nikons cmos sensor in the D300, it still might be as big a piece of crap as the D200. If it's great, well, then, great. It will be priced between the 40D and the 6D, right where it belongs. Nikon users will be happy. Maybe canon will work harder on the 50D.

For $1299 the 40D is an amazing camera and is quite an upgrade from my 20D, which served me faithfully for 20,000 images.

elader wrote in post #4076335
Who gives a damn what you do?

Geez. Did the OP pee in your cornflakes this morning or something?

-js

I love my 40D, great in every way

Maybe Elader is familiar with the D200, JS - it really is a POS (I've owned two) and I for one gag at the suggestion that it has anything over the 30D, much less the 40D.

It does not.

And I think there is a valid question as to the motivation of the original posting, which was guaranteed to be provocative, being full of unfounded assumptions and groundless complaint.

You have to decide how much you value each difference. How much would each benefit you and the type of photography you do. Instead of focusing (pardon the pun) on how competitive it is, evaluate how it helps you get the images you want. If your tool lets you do what you want, it doesn't matter as much what else is out there.

Maybe if you can say, "Now matter how much I try, the 30D isn't letting me quite get what I want, and features X and Y on the D300 seem like they would help me much more than anything I see on the 40D."

It will be worth it for some to switch, not worth it to others. From what I can tell - and again this is something everyone has to decide for themselves, IQ and high ISO are about the same depending on subject and conditions. I have seen a number of very good shots from the new Nikons and Canons.

If you are primarily a sports shooter or otherwise a high action shooter, you should definitely consider the D300 - with its 51-point AF it is likely much better for tracking a subject, though the 40D has shown to perform very well there. I haven't seen D300 tracking samples yet.

I don't think the advantage are so clearcut otherwise. It will more breakdown to personal preferences for specs and ergonomics.

In my opinion, $500 is a lot of cash relative to the overall prices, and for me the D300 is at best, worth $500 more, and frankly (this is just what they are worth to me), I'd put it closer to around $300-$350.

But then, I have always preferred Canon's ergonomics. With the new changes, especially the Custom dial settings and My Menu, the 40D really suits me much better. And with sRAW, Canon may have not been listening to me, but they appear to have been listening to some similarly minded photographers.

I just sold my 1Dino and 10D to have enough money for the 40D, and it should arrive on monday. I was also looking at a used Mark II, but I realised, after having used a 1-series for a year, that I don't really need the speed and build, not even for soccer and other sports. 6.5 fps on the 40D is more than enough for me.

You can switch to the Nikon system, but their zooms really stink compared to Canon. With Canon you can shoot with a middle of the price road zoom like the 70-300 IS and get sharp pics. The Nikon equivilent 70-300 VR is about on par with Canon's consumer 75-300 lens, meaning it is very soft beyond 200 mm. And they have no other option. Their 80-400 is soft and although it costs as much as Canon's 100-400 L the difference is night and day. They do make great primes, but at 5 grand a pop they're not worth it unless you are a pro. So without even knowing how the d300 will do you can make the decision to stick with Canon just by considering the lenses you'll have to shoot with if you switch to Nikon.

As one who upgraded fron nikon to canon...
I will NEVER forget how those poxy nikon lenses hunted in anything below full daylight.

Go buy a nikon system...
Sell all your canon kit for half what you paid for it...
Just don't forget the box of Kleenex!!!

Yes, I did in fact pee in Elader's cornflakes. Take it down a notch!

I don't think that is a groundless complaint - I read 10 posts a day asking for a mirror-lock up button and for Canon to get rid of the "direct print" button. I don't respond that I don't give a "damn" about those posts...I am just saying a $1800 - $1900 well-specced, more-rugged Canon would be nice.

I do think that build and certain other features need to make it onto a Canon that is priced between a 5D (or successor) and 40D. Using list prices, a $2000 or so gap between those two bodies guarantees that Nikon can continue to place well-specced cameras in between them and pick up more business (which is working).

Correct, the D200 sensor is not the equal of the Canon's. But they're getting better.

But I stand on my original comment that two years ago they were in a position to mop-up, and now they are playing a little catch-up.

Nobody's giving you a hard time here, DM, but - seriously - this is a Canon forum, you've made some comments about the 40D which have no basis in reality, suggested that the D200 is a better camera, and demonstrated that you're capable of being utterly conned by the BS of vapourware (the D300).

You must be a marketing man's dream...

[QUOTE=dmstraton;40774​03]Yes, I did in fact pee in Elader's cornflakes. Take it down a notch!
quote]

Sorry, I apologize. Its just been overwhelming the number of posts that are like this. Don't people have search buttons? arent there enough of these posts already?

I have a question that might be fun to consider. Nikon is a big, public company, worth billions. They make way more than just dSLRs, right? Thousands of employees, worldwide company, great reputation, conservative approach, etc. Dont you find it unusual that they should have a press release for a camera MONTHS before anyone is allowed to touch it? I suppose canon is guilty here too with the 1DSIII, but Nikon went full tilt here, with a mainstream prosumer model.

Were the D3 and D300 that was shown empty shell?s?? playdoh prototypes? Obviously not, but its now been at least a month past the announcement. An announcement that was plastered on every forum. Has anyone been allowed to touch these cameras yet? To take an ISO3200 shot??

Clearly, Nikon, at the highest corporate levels OKd the release of the info on these camera waaaayyy before they would normally have done so. Just to diffuse Canon's announcement? Can you imagine the conversation in the board room in Japan?? "Ai we must save face. Kill 8 junior managers and release news immediately"....I really pity them if, after months of official hype (not rumors, official hype) , these cameras don't perform as well as we all anticipate.

Again, my apologies to the OP. Lets get out there and shoot some pictures with our crappy 40Ds.