Digital Photo DSLR review

sadowsk2 wrote in post #4319718
COMPLETELY agree... I think the D300 is actually though marketed below the 5D but above the 40D... but if anything its more comparable to a 5D than a 40D...

Hmm.. I would think that the D300, though squeezed between the 40D and 5D price wise, matches closer to feature content and intended use to the 40D. Both are crop formats, the 5D is not, both are geared to sports shooters offering 6fps, the 5D is not, both offer a 3 inch LCD, the 5D does not, both have built in flashes, the 5D does not. The only thing the D300 and 5D have in common is mpixels and a few other things common across all three.

Did they take price into account? If so, the lower price of the 40D is a benefit. If 40D is the same price as D200, do you think the result would be different or at least a lot closer?

eel

Roy Mathers wrote in post #4279646
Sorry for not mentioning it - I thought you'd guess. It was the 40D, by quite a margin.

eelnoraa wrote in post #4321377
Did they take price into account? If so, the lower price of the 40D is a benefit. If 40D is the same price as D200, do you think the result would be different or at least a lot closer?

eel

The price between the D200 and 40D are almost identical. I think the difference is something like $100.

gjl711 wrote in post #4321432
The price between the D200 and 40D are almost identical. I think the difference is something like $100.

Ya, but you're comparing an old D200 model nearing the end of its life cycle to something brand new... I thought the D200 was more expensive earlier in its life cycle...

sadowsk2 wrote in post #4321833
Ya, but you're comparing an old D200 model nearing the end of its life cycle to something brand new... I thought the D200 was more expensive earlier in its life cycle...

Yes, but I am looking at what is available today. Say I am camera-less and walk into my favorite camera store with $1500 in my pocket. I have choices and the two currently at that price range are the 40D and the D200 so I think that comparing them is a fair thing to do. Nikon has upgraded the Dxxx series but it will be more than the $1500 when it eventually makes it out.

johneo wrote in post #4283501
Borders usually carries this magazine, at least in my area but likely if one has it, they all should. Maybe Borders online?

Sweet! Looks like I'll be going to borders to read it.

FZ Hooligan wrote in post #4323612
Sweet! Looks like I'll be going to borders to read it.

I got a question for you. Would you read the review if the 40D did not come in 1st? What if they said the Sony came in 1st? Are you just going to read the review so that you can pat yourself on the back for getting a 40D?

gjl711 wrote in post #4320035
Hmm.. I would think that the D300, though squeezed between the 40D and 5D price wise, matches closer to feature content and intended use to the 40D. Both are crop formats, the 5D is not, both are geared to sports shooters offering 6fps, the 5D is not, both offer a 3 inch LCD, the 5D does not, both have built in flashes, the 5D does not. The only thing the D300 and 5D have in common is mpixels and a few other things common across all three.

Personally, I think the D300 is aimed more at the professional photographer with many features in common with the D3 camera. The focus system, weather sealing, high resolution LCD, metering etc... It seems like the Nikon philosophy was to bring the professional features of their top camera to an affordable ( profession / prosumer ) camera. The 40D was developed to string along the 10D/20D/30D crowd into another camera which has stripped down capabilities from the Canon professional models.

The D300 compares quite well to the 1DMII cameras. Full reviews will tell us all how much they differ.

Hogloff wrote in post #4323960
Personally, I think the D300 is aimed more at the professional photographer with many features in common with the D3 camera. The focus system, weather sealing, high resolution LCD, metering etc... It seems like the Nikon philosophy was to bring the professional features of their top camera to an affordable ( profession / prosumer ) camera. The 40D was developed to string along the 10D/20D/30D crowd into another camera which has stripped down capabilities from the Canon professional models.

The D300 compares quite well to the 1DMII cameras. Full reviews will tell us all how much they differ.

Though it may share a lot of the same features the 40Dand D300 are closer cousins than the 1D to D300. For instance, both the 40D and D300 are 1.5~1.6 crops, the 1D a 1.3 and D3 a FF. Both the 40D and D300 shoot at ~6fps the D3 and 1D are 9~10fps. Both the 40D and D300 are under 2K, the 1D and D3 are over 4k. Both the 40D and D300 have a built in flash and both the 1D and D3 do not. Both the 40D and D300 weigh under 1000g and both the 1D and D3 are well over.

No question that Nikon's newest offerings are raising the bar and though the D300 may double as a pro shooter having many of the features of a pro camera, It's being positioned more for the prosumer market. One can only hope Canon is watching and starts to include some of those features in their prosumer body as well.

gjl711 wrote in post #4324431
Though it may share a lot of the same features the 40Dand D300 are closer cousins than the 1D to D300. For instance, both the 40D and D300 are 1.5~1.6 crops, the 1D a 1.3 and D3 a FF. Both the 40D and D300 shoot at ~6fps the D3 and 1D are 9~10fps. Both the 40D and D300 are under 2K, the 1D and D3 are over 4k. Both the 40D and D300 have a built in flash and both the 1D and D3 do not. Both the 40D and D300 weigh under 1000g and both the 1D and D3 are well over.

No question that Nikon's newest offerings are raising the bar and though the D300 may double as a pro shooter having many of the features of a pro camera, It's being positioned more for the prosumer market. One can only hope Canon is watching and starts to include some of those features in their prosumer body as well.

Canon and Nikon have been playing leap frog for some time. Canon creates ground-breaking classes: the Rebel, the 10D, the 5D and the 1D series have all contributed to a digital revolution in a way Nikon has not been able to achieve. But Nikon does fight back with a lot of features and qualities -- sometimes leading the way (such as Live View and Auto ISO), but also they position themselves in an in-between place: better than the latest xxD, but not ff or quite up to the 1D standards, they get an in-between bunch of people (maybe they have Nikon glass or...?), a mix of pros and amateurs who will grab on to their latest.

The thing is, they resisted going full frame for how long? In the meantime Canon has the 1Ds MkIII coming out now, and there's no way in hell that the 3D will match that, and, well, the 3D is "better" than the 5D (certainly in features but we don't know about performance) and the 5D is what, two years old? Ancient in terms of digital photography, and you know that the next 5D "generation" will be all the better...

Those who have a Canon system don't need to worry...the next camera body you buy will be great! Those who want to move to Nikon don't need to worry either -- Nikon does catch up! Don't worry, be happy!