please help me choose

[donald_williamson]

I cannot decide what camera to get between the Canon 40D with the EF 28-135

f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or the Nikon D300 with the 18-200mm ED-IF AF-S DX VR II. I?m

new to SLR cameras and not sure to get. Is it worth the extra $1,000 for the

D300 kit. I have read every thing I can get my hands on and the D300 looks

like the best but I don?t have the hands on experience to truly decide if the

difference is worth it. I?ve gone to the stores and played with them both and

like them both. Please help.

[leicaglow]

Either are great cameras, but I believe the D300 is a bit newer than the 40D, and I think image quality might be a tad better with the D300. I own both Nikon and Canon (more Nikon than Canon), but you can't go wrong with either. If I had to pick one, personally I'd take the D300 if you can afford it, though I've not shot with that lens to know what kind of quality it gives.

[rainer_t]

Make sure you understand the impact of the different lenses.

 

Since you intend to buy one of these two kits (body with lens), its important to understand, that 28mm will not give you any wideangle on the 40D, whereas the 18mm on the D300 will.

[steve_justice]

The Camera does not matter...I repeat the camera does not matter. Either will let you take pictures and share them, make prints or whatever. The bigger factors are editing techniques, exposure, lighting, and lens choice. With that said, I prefer canon lenses, they offer faster and cheaper lenses then Nikon. I own the 40D and my personal opinion is to wait for the new rebel Xsi. Technology changes every year for digital cameras, and it makes more sense to buy the rebel and splurge on really great lenses since thats what really matters anyway. Plus the rebel will give you better image quality anyway, it uses the same digic chip and has a 12mp sensor. Just don't get caught up in thinking the camera will do all the work for you. The camera's are supposed to make what you already know easier, thats all. If you don't know what you need specifically out of a camera then just grab whatever is cheaper. All I know is I want something that is fast, has a large LCD screen, a bright large viewfinder, and good low light autofocus performance, which pretty much every new digital SLR will have.

[kari v]

$1000 buys you some excellent glass and you can have even more if you get Rebel XSi or Nikon D40X. Image quality will be very good no matter what you choose, it's more about the glass, your Photoshop skills and shooting technique.

 

If you decide to buy Canon, then check out the new kit lens with IS. It's supposed to be very very good for the money and it'll give you wide angle.

[larrybc]

<br>donald williamson wrote:

<br>

<br>> I cannot decide what camera to get between the Canon 40D

<br>> with the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or the Nikon D300 with

<br>> the 18-200mm ED-IF AF-S DX VR II. I?m new to SLR cameras and

<br>> not sure to get. Is it worth the extra $1,000 for the D300

<br>> kit.

<br>

<br>The worth of those values can only be decided by you. Some people, such as myself, find the D300 to be very much worth the money. Some people do not.

<br>

<br>Without knowing your needs and your priorities, it is very hard to provide you with an answer.

<br>

<br>Based on image quality only, I think the 40D will match or at least be very, very close to the D300. It might even be better in some cases. For all intents and purposes, you could consider their image quality to be equal.

<br>

<br>You really need to base your decision on the features that are important to you (eg: wireless flash, frame rate, build quality, Live View modes, etc). Also look at the two systems' lens catalogues, if you're planning on buying additional lenses.

<br>

<br>As already mentioned, there's a big difference between 28mm and 18mm on these cameras.

<br>

<br>Steven Steinhardt wrote:

<br>> The Camera does not matter...I repeat the camera does not

<br>> matter.

<br>

<br>Actually, the camera DOES matter. But in this case, in terms of image quality, they are closely matched enough to be considered equal.

<br>

<br>[snip]

<br>> lenses then Nikon. I own the 40D and my personal opinion is

<br>> to wait for the new rebel Xsi. Technology changes every year

<br>> for digital cameras, and it makes more sense to buy the

<br>> rebel

<br>

<br>If the camera doesn't matter, why not buy the 400D since its price should be dropping quite a bit when the 450D hits the shelves.

<br>

<br>> and splurge on really great lenses since thats what

<br>> really matters anyway. Plus the rebel will give you better

<br>> image quality anyway, it uses the same digic chip and has a

<br>> 12mp sensor.

<br>

<br>Again, if the camera doesn't matter, why say the Rebel will give better image quality? And also, better image quality than what?

<br>

<br>Camera bodies are improving more often than lenses, so I can understand why some people recommend spending less on the body than the lens. But if the better body gives you better image quality or some other feature that will improve your odds of getting the shot, then it can be argued that buying the better body is a logical choice. Also consider that for a lot of uses, the performance improvements in higher quality glass isn't necessarily going to be visible in the final print.

<br>

<br>IMO it's better to figure out your priorities and buy your gear to serve those priorities. I recently upgraded from a D200 to a D300, as well as from a Sigma 18-50/2.8 to a Nikkor 17-55/2.8. I found the body upgrade to produce a much more noticeable improvement in printed image quality than the lens upgrade, plus the new body enabled me to shoot in conditions where I couldn't before.

<br>

<br>larsbc

[steve_justice]

never listen to anyone named larry...they are lying to you. Seriously now though, what I'm saying is it's the wizard, not the wand. Give Jimmy Hendrix a $100 guitar and he will rock out just the same. Any shortcomings that any camera has can easily be overcome, the camera wont do anything for you, you have to do it yourself, thats why I say lenses matter more, I thought everyone new this... there is really no argument here. I'm just trying to save you all some green, why spend the extra $1000 on the D300 when you could just buy the Rebel and get some L lenses with money left over.... Go to the store right now and hold the rebel and the 40D if the 40D feels $600 better, then be my guest. I'm speaking from personal experience because I currently own the 40D, I like it. But I'd rather have more L lenses.

[kari v]

Larry, I don't think a newcomer should spend ~$2000 in a camera body. That's just an absurd pile of money for something he doesn't know he needs or not.

 

Thousand dollars also buys a flash, tripod, memory cards, bag, perhaps a new monitor, software...

 

Ok, I must confess I find the XTi a bit small and light when things start to happen or I'm shooting in low light but the battery grip takes care of that problem and when you want to travel light you can take the grip off. Something like Xti + 35/2 is actually quite enjoyable to carry around hanging on your neck.

[lauren_macintosh]

You will get more for your money is to consider getting into the Pentax system They have the K10D which better weather sealed than any canon model up to the Eos 1"s and cheaper Pentax just brought out the new K20D which is a up grade over the K10d . The K20D has

appro9x a 14 mpx sensor : Your call I just put info out:

[donald_williamson]

Thank you all very much for your input. The reason I don?t won?t the Rebel XSi or Nikon D40X is they fill to small in my hands. I have not tried them with the battery grip on them. I completely understand that it?s mostly about the person behind the camera, and the lens. Next I will be getting the AF-S VR zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM depending on what camera I get.. There are some things I really like about the D300 like the 51-point auto focus with 3D focus tracking, I really like the help button on the camera it self, and the magnesium-alloy construction. I plan on keeping the camera I get for 4-5 years so I want to get one that will last.

[tonybeach]

Hi Donald,

 

I'm slightly perplexed by the lenses you are comparing. You could save a few hundred dollars by buying the Nikkor 18-70 for your "kit" lens, and then get the Nikkor 70-200 VR for the long end and you are covered very nicely for awhile. Nikon just announce the 16-85 VR and it will likely be a kit lens for the D300, and I would consider that focal range to be more useful than the 28-135 focal range you are considering for the 40D.

 

Steven's point about fast wide angles for Canon is a valid point, but those fast wide angles are not as fast and not as wide when they are put on a cropped sensor. Consider that for the price of a couple of stops you can pick up the best wide angle zoom anyone has, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8, although its biggest drawback (aside from its exorbitant price) is the lack of a filter thread.

[tonybeach]

Addendum:

 

I should have been more specific about lenses not being as "fast" on a cropped sensor. Since the aperture is the same the focusing speed and faster attainable shutter speeds are the same, it's just the narrow DOF which is effected if you step back and frame the same as you would using a larger format. All very technical, but I know someone will object (and that is understandable), so I am compelled to clarify my meaning.