D300 AF tracking vs 40D

I've been shooting wildlife on a recent trip with some difficulty with AF tracking using a 40D & 100-400USM. Will the

D300's 51 points make AF tracking more reliable. Seems obvious but I have no experience with Nikon bodies.

However I don't want better tracking at the expense of fast focusing and good low light focusing which the Canon

handles very well. How does the D300 fare. Thanks.

Anesh, I have never used the 40D other than playing around with one at a camera store. However, Canon has not improved their basic consumer AF system much since the 20D. As a result, the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 5D and 5D Mark II all use essentially the same AF system with minor improvements.

 

Nikon's D300 uses the same AF system as their top-of-the-line D3 and D700: the Multi-CAM 3500 has 51 AF points, 15 among them cross type. That should be compared to Canon's top-of-the-line one on the 1D Mark III. Therefore, I would assume that you'll see significant improvement in terms of AF performance if you switch to a D300.

 

However, Nikon does not have a lens that is equivlanet to Canon's 100-400. Nikon has a 80-400mm AF-D VR; AF on that lens is well known to be slow. I have tried that myself and experts such as Thom Hogan have pointed that out also, but quite a few owners of that lens in this forum tend to deny it.

Thanks for that. Theres really no point in 51 AF points with slow lenses. I actually had the 80-400 VR in mind.

I should point out again that there are a lot of disagreement on whether the AF speed on the 80-400 is sufficient or not. I think it has to do with different expectations. This topic was debated a few times in the last 2 months. Ultimately, it'll be your individual decision.

 

Personally, I think Nikon should upgrade this lens to an AF-S, but who knows when that will happen.

Anesh, what Shun says about the 80-400 VR zoom stirring up some debate is true. See the following thread and links...

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QjA6

 

I decided to by this lens for my D300 for shooting wildlife and I have used it for sports. It uses the older AF system depending on the in camera motor and screw drive. If you use the focus limiting switch and know ahead of time your approximate distance it's pretty fast on the D300. I'm sure that the AFS in the 200-400 VR is faster, but it also is about $4000 more.

I cannot imagine why anyone would buy a top-notch body (such as a D300 or D3) for wildlife photography and wishes to settle on a non-AFS lens.

<br>

The speed of AF is dependent on:<br>

<ul>

<li>AF subsystem of the camera body

<li>lens

<li>amount of light

</ul>

 

If you truly want the best AF you can get, you cannot skip the lens component.

Arthur, I agree with you. The factor in my case was money, plain and simple. My next long lens will likely be the AF-S Nikkor 500mm f4 VR for wildlife which will also work well with a 1.4 teleconverter. As for me, I'm having fun and learning a lot with the 80-400 zoom. And it seems from my reading that I am not alone. Also, the 51-point AF on my D300 locks on quickly to flying birds and keeps them locked on as long as I'm shooting in good light. Here is one example...<div></div>

Shun I don't think there is a lot of disagreement on whether the AF speed on the 80-400 is sufficient or not when proper technique for the lens is followed per Richard's comments.

 

"I cannot imagine why anyone would buy a top-notch body (such as a D300 or D3) for wildlife photography and wishes to settle on a non-AFS lens. "

 

Again, per Richard's comments, I can think of 4000 reasons.

 

Stunning shot Richard!

 

I used the 5D extensively for the past year and found it to be very fast and accurate using the center focus point. The 100-400mm is my favorite lens to use with the 5D.

 

What were your focus settings on your 40D when you were experiencing tracking problems?

Since the OP is seeking to improve AF performance, I think the 300mm/f4 AF-S is a better choice in that price range.

IMO, updates to both the 300mm/f4 AF-S and 80-400mm AF-D VR are overdue. (One of them lacks VR and the other lacks AF-S.) Therefore, if you get either one of those lenses now, you have the additional risk that once a replacement is announced, a lot of people will dump the old version for one with both AF-S and VR. If you also need to upgrade, you will likely be selling into a buyer's market.

 

The problem is that none of us knows when Nikon will update those lenses. Therefore, unless the OP has a compelling reason to switch to Nikon immediately, it is better to wait until the future is clearer.

Another lens to consider, if one is willing to go non-Nikon, is the Sigma 120-400 HSM OS. The optical stabilization is reportedly a bit aggressive - it kicks in fast and a bit furious when you hit the shutter button - but it apparently works well and it focuses very quickly from all reports. I don't own one, obviously, but have been tracking reviews of it closely.

Anesh, I have a 40D which I use for high school running events. Focus is fast and accurate with a Canon 70-200 lens. It is an excellent camera for the money, but I think its shortcommings are the 9 point focus points. The center point is accurate, but the other points are too far from center. That is fine using the center point for birds in flight, but here is no point position good for shooting runners.

 

I have never used a D300 but suspect the 51 point system if used correctly would be a huge improvement over a 40D.

 

Arthur Morris has used a 40D and his commentary on the camera is well worth reading:

http://www.birdsasart.com/

Allan, I spent a lot of time comparing image quality of the Sigma and the Nikkor 80-400 VR. I decided on the Nikon lens for it's optical quality over the Sigma even though I knew that there would be an AF compromise. Read Thom Hogan's review of the 80-400 Nikkor and check out this link...

 

http://natureandwildlifephotography.blogspot.com/2008/05/nikkor-80-400mm-vr-get-most-out-of-this.html

Anesh, if you are looking for good low light focusing, the 80-400 VR is not for you. Shun's suggestion of the 300mm f4 AF-S would likely be better and no doubt, the 200-400 f4 VR zoom would be the cadillac. As far as the D300, in good light with my 80-400 the AF is fast and spot on. The 51 points work best for me with a bland background, like blue sky. When the object you want in focus is against a complex background, like a bird against trees, the single central focus point works best for me. Sorry, if I hijacked your thread.

I have both of the cameras at hand, depends to what lens you use, Nikon doesn't have a 400 f/5.6 with AF-S or a 100-400 zoom with AF-S, so unless you will be using the 200-400 f/4 VR, Nikon AF will actually be slower than your 40D, because of the lens not the body-regarding the body I have found that D300 initial aquisition is slower than Canon but focus is more accurate (less OOF shots) you can also customize the Nikon, 40D is set for shooting priority so it can shoot even when it is no in focus.

"AF system much since the 20D. As a result, the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 5D and 5D Mark II all use essentially the same AF system with minor improvements.

"

 

Shun, this isn't true, having had 20D and 40D, 40D AF is a lot better than 20D, 20D has only a center cross type at f/2.8 vs 40D has all 9 cross type at f/5.6 and the center is dual precesion with f/2.8-Also the AF speed is 30% faster according to Canon. 50D and 40D have the same AF which is different from 5D/5DMKII.

Arash, I didn't quite say it correctly. My point was that all of those Canon DSLRs have only 9 AF points and if you want Canon's best AF system, you have to spend at least $4000+ on the 1D Mark III.

Richard - I don't doubt the quality of the 80-400. I'm just mentioning it as an optically stabilized, AFS-equivalent lens option.

"Arash, I didn't quite say it correctly. My point was that all of those Canon DSLRs have only 9 AF points and if you

want Canon's best AF system, you have to spend at least $4000+ on the 1D Mark III.

"

Very true, this is the main reason I am more tempted to buy a Nikon D700 as opposed to a 5D II, but Nikon on the

other hand want you to spend $$$ to buy super telephotos to take full advantage of the AF system-If they only had a

400mm AFS for less than $2000.

Arash, exactly, which is why I settled on the 80-400.

To answer some of your qustions the 40D's af points too far apart for tracking as Kerry mentioned. I do however find the 40D AF speed blazingly fast with the 100-400 USM and AF in very dim light achievable, just a pity Canon didn't follow the D300's example.

I hate to say this, but it has been pointed out quite a few times by good bird photographers that the 80-400 is soft on

its long end, and typically one uses this lens at 400mm most of the time. Again, do a search on Thom Hogan's

comments. Mark Chappell has discussed that countless times in this forum also.

 

If you want to reach 400mm with Nikon at below $2000, personally, I would go the 300mm/f4 AF-S + TC-14E route.

That combo is in the $1300+ range new. The TC-14E is a must buy for any long tele user anyway. That will give you

an excellent 300mm and a usable 420mm. I would use that on a tripod and monopod so that the lack of VR is not a

major issue, or I hand hold for flight shots at a fast shutter speed. The thing is, even though it is an AF-S, the

300mm/f4's AF is also on the slow side. For whatever reason, my 300mm/f2.8 AF-S focuses much faster and that is

the lens I tend to use for birds in flight.

See a lot of people suggesting D300 with better lens and see what cost would be to switch systems and get a good telephoto lens. Then compare that to the cost of just buying maybe a good used Canon 1D mark II, it has top of line focusing like the Nikon does and is an excellent camera. Arthur Morris probably most famous bird photograher out there uses it, seems to work great for him.

Canon changed their AF system in the 1D Mark III and in fact generated a lot of controversy because quite a few people found problems, but that is whole different topic. The 1D Mark II was introduced in early 2004 and is a very dated camera by now.

 

Since Arthur Morris' name is mentioned a couple of times here, I should point out that I actually know him and for a while he participated in the Nature Forum here. Morris has been sponsored by Canon since the early 1990's. I don't consider his opinions the most objective ones. By the same token, Nikon also sponsors and has a financial relationship with many professional photographers to help promote their brand. I would take their published opinions with a small grain of salt also.

 

However, as Anesh says, "I do however find the 40D AF speed blazingly fast with the 100-400 USM and AF in very dim light achievable ...." I wonder what is the need to switch brands and get a D300?

Shun, regarding the softness of the 80-400 at the long end, I'm certainly just learning all of this but this is an example of a handheld shot from the 80-400 at 400mm, lens wide open at f5.6, 1/1000 sec at iso 400 from the D300, handheld from a kayak. With my limited experience, I was pleased with this, I wonder if others would find it too soft?<div></div>

Richard, the following thread from today shows an example how I evaluate lens sharpness and quality:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj

 

First of all, I always use a tripod. And I don't evalute a lens based on samll JPEG images post to the web as they tend to hide a lot of problems. Instead, I check at the pixel level. That is what photo editors at the major publications do,

 

Since I don't own the 80-400 myself, you are probably much better off reading Thom Hogan's review on its pros and cons:

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

 

As well as Mark Chappell's comments, e.g.:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00M6Bv

 

Mark is one of the best bird photographers you'll find in photo.net and he commented on the 80-400 quite a few times. He used this lens for a while before switching to Canon several years ago because he wanted to have IS/VR on his 500mm/f4 super tele, a feature Nikon didn't provide until last year.