Canon D40 or Nikon 700 for action and night photography?

<p>Hey guys, I have been a dabbler in photography so far. Did some work on Nikon F10 some time ago for a coffee-table bbok.<br>

Now I want to take up photography seriously. I am interested in sports action, night scenes, and wide angle photography. After studying Nikon, Sony and Canon, I have come to the conclusion that Canon 40D/50D or Nikon 700, coupled with 70-200mm/ f2.8, 50mm/f1.4 or 1.8 and a ultra wide, will be the best for me.<br>

I want to go with Nikon, but Canon 40D plus lenses are much cheaper. But then Canon 40D/50D has low ISo versus Nikon 700's.<br>

Since it will be a long-term investment because of lenses, I want your suggestions. Thanks </p>

<p>Two different beasties entirely...</p>

<p>sports action: 40D has a machine-gun shutter and a very functional user interface.</p>

<p>night scenes: D700 has a larger sensor and achieves higher ISO and/or lower noise</p>

<p>wide angle: How wide? If 10mm on a crop frame or 16 mm on a full frame are wide enough, then either camera will do. If you need wider, you'll have to do it with full frame (the D700). If you're talking about fisheye lenses, then that's another subject entirely.</p>

<p>You might also consider a 5D or 5DII, which would be similar to the D700.</p>

<p>This forum is replete with comparisons between Nikon and Canon as camera manufacturers. Differences include design philosophy, lens availability, support of consumer vs. pro (a difference that has all but disappeared), and equipment pricing. I'll send you to the archives to find more (See "search" box in upper right of window. Select "all of PhotoNet," or else Adorama will try to sell you a Canon or Nikon.)</p>

<p>Both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras and lenses used by outstanding photographers to produce wonderful photographs - either is fine as a brand.</p>

<p>Your night scenes (assuming tripod?) and wide angle photography (again, landscape or something else?) might suggest a full frame camera from one of thes manufacturers. However your sports action interest is more suggestive of a cropped sensor camera, since they tend to be available at lower price points with faster burst modes, and because the IQ issues of cropped sensor cameras may not be tested as much with this sort of work.</p>

<p>There is a lot for you to think about here since you are trying to cover a lot of ground with a single body.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Thanks Sarah and Dan for your suggestions. I am coming to the conclsuion that Nikon 700 is great for night scenes and wide angles (I am not interested in fisheye lenses). <br>

How about a battery grip with 700 (which will boost it to 8fps) to serve my purpose for sports/action photography as well?<br>

I feel 5D and 5DII are slow camera for action photography.</p>

<p>A 5D2 would be even better for those purposes. The faster fps of the Nikon could be useful for you. The answer to the "is the 5D2 fast enough for sports?" question depends on what sports, how important the sports work is compared to the other work, and how you like to shoot sports.</p>

<p>Shot with a 5D:</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2301-2/SantaRosaSprint20080218.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2289-2/PackEntersSJ_Cipolini_20080220.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2318-2/HeadingIntoSurf20080308.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I don't think a battery grip would affect frame rate. Frame rate is more a matter of how fast the camera can process the digital information and write files to the card. A grip is more of an ergonomic thing than anything else. Either you like them or you hate them. Personally I hate them.</p>

<p>I would echo Dan's recommendation for a 5DII. It's quite a bargain for all the features you get. Canon really did this one right, and the ball is now in Nikon's court. I'll also say that you probably can't go wrong with either manufacturer. The important thing is to select the right *type* of camera for what you do, and full frame vs. crop is a major factor. If you're going to be shooting your sports images at a distance, with a very long lens, I'd definitely recommend a crop camera. Taking advantage of a full frame sensor with extreme telephoto optics would cost more than most mortals can afford. Instead, you can take advantage of the crop factor to give you more reach. For instance, if you were to use a 40D with an EF 70-300 IS lens (excellent optics, average build, great value), you would have the 35mm equivalent of 480mm of reach. I'm sure Nikon has a similar lens, but I don't know their products as well.</p>

<p>"I don't think a battery grip would affect frame rate." - wrong.</p>

<p>Nikon D700 has 5 fps rate without grip, and 8 fps with the optional MB-D10 grip. <br>

This grip/camera design was borrowed from the older D300 camera.</p>

<p>Has much better low noise at high ISO - perhaps better for sports since you can user faster shutter speed. D700 has full size like film size sensor. <br>

"Two different beasties entirely, "sports action: 40D has a machine-gun shutter " - not as fast as D700. Yes, these 2 cameras, the D700 and 40D are in different class. </p>

<p>Oh for Pete's sake!</p>

<p><em>Of course</em> the 40D is faster than the D700 - 6.5 fps vs. 5 fps - faster, and without the need for another $240's worth of add-on gadgetry - no matter how you try to spin it in the Noink's favour.</p>

<p>And - be in no doubt - that for the OP's stated interests, a 40D would be absolutely fine.</p>

<p>I use my 40D at 3200 ISO and beyond without any qualms whatsoever: converting 40D RAWs in Capture One 4 provides images that are as clean as a lot of stuff I've seen from the D3/D700 - and I can run them through Neat Image, too.</p>

<p>Properly processed, 40D files are as good as anything out there, and in terms of overall versatility, performance and bang for the buck, the 40D has no equal today.</p>

<p>Frank, I'm sure you're correct about the frame rate difference, and I hope you will have patience with any ignorance of Nikon features on this Canon EOS forum. However, I'm curious why the higher frame rate with the grip?</p>

<p>Anyway, depending on what one is shooting, a crop can still be advantageous. If it's necessary to crop down a full frame image, for lack of enough telephoto reach, then all that great resolution and processing effort, not to mention extra storage, is wasted. It's better to use a crop body with perhaps a higher pixel density, smaller files, and less horsepower requirements. If it must be a Nikon, then fine. No problem. I do agree with Keith, though. My factory refurbished 40D was quite the bargain at $600, and I've seen them even cheaper. Its high ISO capabilities are reasonably good (although not as good as my 5D's), and it is a well-featured machine. No complaints. I'm as happy with it as can be.</p>

<p>When comparing frame rates it is important to remember that one is not comparing no burst rate to, say, 6.5 fps. While there are situations in which 6.5 might be fast enough and, say, 5 fps would not, they are rare.</p>

<p>Actually, much slower burst rates are really pretty effective for most users, even with fairly active subjects.</p>

<p>Gurbally, sure the 40d is a lot cheaper than the d700, but then so is a Toyota Camry compared to a Porsche. There is no comparison, as they are in a different league, and that means no disrespect to the Canon. The question is whether you need the number #1 feature of the Nikon, it's astonishing high ISO capabilities - if you do you have to spend the money. Remember though, that not so very long ago ISO 400 film was deemed a godsend, now the 800 or even 1600 ISO (depending on how large you want to print) that the 40d is perfectly capable of, are supposed to be unacceptable.<br>

There are further questions you should look into. If you intend to carry the gear aroung doing your "night scenes", the d700 with the grip is going to be double the weight of the 40d. Also, Canon has more of a choice especially with regard to stabilized lenses and f4.0 (which are a good compromise where f2.8 might be to heavy or expensive). It is always a good idea to put down a list of lenses one would like to use, and then look for the brand/ model that offers these choices.</p>

<p>Hendrik</p>

<p>"<br>

Frank, I'm sure you're correct about the frame rate difference, and I hope you will have patience with any ignorance of Nikon features on this Canon EOS forum. However, I'm curious why the higher frame rate with the grip?"<br>

Sarah, the grip uses a high capacity battery which can provide the high drive current required to actuate the mirror at 8 fps. The regular battery that comes with the camera has sufficient current for 5fps only.</p>

<p>Hendrik and Sarah, my point is this: if I can get the kind of work I am looking for (sports and night photography) from D40 with superb L lenses, I have the choice to move to better canons (5D2, or ID MarkIII) later.<br>

I am told ID MarkIII is a pretty all-round camera with very good high ISO results and the highest fps. Your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"from D40 with superb L lenses, I have the choice to move to better canons (5D2, or ID MarkIII) later.<br />I am told ID MarkIII is a pretty all-round camera with very good high ISO results and the highest fps. Your thoughts?"<br>

You are comparing cameras intended for different purposes, 40D is an advanced 1.6 crop sensor camera, 5DMKII is an enthusiast full frame camera for landscapes and 1DMKIII is professional sports camera with 1.3 crop factor with no ultra wide angle capability. What do you want to use the camera for, what are your photography needs?</p>

<p>"Your thoughts?"</p>

<p>I don't honestly know much about the 1DIII. It's not really my type of camera. I'm more of the full-frame, moderate-pixel, high-ISO sort of photographer who could care less about frame rate. ;-) The 1DIII is more of a sports/press type camera.</p>

<p>I think the 5DII is more than just an "enthusiast's" camera. The 5D lineage also seems to be fleshing out as a viable series for lower-demand professionals doing full-frame work. Not all pros run around in the rain, pushing and shoving their way through gaggles of other photographers, using their cameras to beat off competitors, and then turning them loose in rapid fire to get the perfect grimmace of some politician/crook. Some of us shoot relatively few frames in relatively tame conditions and simply don't need the durability and weather sealing of a 1 series camera. I think the 5D and 5DII both offer excellent value and image quality, and the MkII is quite full-featured. Whether the 5DII achieves an adequate frame rate for your needs is a question only you can answer.</p>

<p>One observation: You are very fixated on high frame rate, and you may very well need just that feature. It really depends on what you're doing. Do you want to make sure you get that expression of victory when some high-profile olympic athlete wins the gold? If you have to capture these critical, fleeting sorts of images, then you might want the high frame rate. On the other hand, are you simply wanting to shoot pics of kids running around on a soccer field for the parents? If so, then you can do that with just about any camera. Even my 5D (a relatively slow camera) would be just fine at roughly 3fps. Heck, even my old 10D would have been up to that job.</p>

<p>No single DSLR will be the best camera for all jobs. You have diverse enough needs that you need to decide what needs are critical and what other needs can tolerate compromises. If you really need the most cutting edge of "do-it-all," it's probably going to be expensive, big, and heavy. Of course many, including myself, would argue that small and light are important requirements too. If you agree, then no single camera will be truly perfect for your needs. If this appears to be too much of an obstacle, then remind yourself that you don't have to have only one camera body. I have two (not counting film bodies) -- a 5D and a 40D, and the two of them tackle jobs that the other is not as well equipped to tackle. I might even add a Digital Rebel Xxx someday, as a tiny, lightweight camera to throw in my purse. For now, I'm lugging around my 40D.</p>

<p>Sarah, thanks for your post.<br>

Yes, you are right I am fixated on high fps because I am a journalist by profession based in Toronto.<br>

Having produced a top English newspaper as chief sub-editor/news editor for some years, I know how important ``action'' pictures to grab attention of readers/observers.<br>

I think I must go with D40, and later add 5D/sDII and ID MarkIII.<br>

Thanks </p>