D40x vs D300

[g_teufour]

Greetings.

 

I'm looking for some advice on these two camera bodies.

 

I've shot film SLR's for years and learned photography on them. Then, I had to

trade buying and developing Velvia 50 for buying diapers if you get my drift.

Now, I have a unique opportunity to get into digital cameras. But with less

experience, I want to consult with those who possibly own and use these cameras.

 

My concern is as follows with the camera bodies. With film cameras, the body

really only held the film and the lens did all the work in regards to potential

image quality. Regardless of body, the film is all the same.

 

But with digital cameras, how major is the difference in how the body collects

and interprets the light? With the money I have, a D300 is the best I can go but

I want to know if the extra money is worth it over the D40x which Ive heard many

say are great.

 

I want to put weight on lenses, but I dont want to go cheap on a body if the

body is going to drag down the lens in regards to quality.

 

Question #1. Aside from the additional features found on the D300, would I be

able to capture the same amount of sharpness and quality on both bodies? I know

there's a difference in megapixels but to my understanding, megapixels only

affects how big I could print an image and not much else.

 

Question #2. Provided that the potential for sharpness and quality are the same,

would the additional features found on the D300 going to improve the number of

images I can capture in the field that will be of good quality (eg improved

focusing, focus tracking etc)

 

Question #3. Is the D300 worth the extra $$?

 

By the way, Im looking to go with the VR 70mm - 200mm 2.8 and 17mm-55mm 2.8

lenses to start (with a 1.4 or 1.7 TC). Landscapes and wildlife are my main focus.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

[niccoury]

1-2.) the difference between 10 and 12 MP is nothing to cry over. Sharpness lies more in the lenses. I shot a D50 pro for a while with great glass and it worked great. It really depends on what you're shooting,etc. A D300 has a lot more potential as it were. You can customize it a lot easier to tweak things in the camera, ISO, fps, etc. With a D40X, you're more limited, not to mention you can only use AF-S lenses.

 

The 70-300 AF-S VR is a great lens choice. It's inexpensive and produces great images. It might handle a bit better on the D40X and the larger lenses handle better on larger cameras.

[Uhooru]

The question is will the sensor make a difference in IQ with hi-end glass that you are planning on getting. I think the answer is, yes, but like shooting with slide film, it puts more onus on the photog to get good pics.It will also show up flaws more too.

 

But I do believe the better sensor will get you more out of your good glass. It depends on what you are using the camera for. I use the D200 and like it very much. The 300 is better as far as noise goes. But only you can decide what's worth it.

 

Do you know anyone that will let you use them for couple of days? or rent?

[seismiccwave]

Generally speaking digital images are "softer" than film. You have to do some post

processing to manipulate the images to get them to your liking.

 

I can't say about the D40X because I don't own one. I just ordered the D60 so may I can

give you some idea in a few days.

 

I do have the D300 and I really like it. I have a fairly comprehensive Canon setup but the

D300 is making me look at Nikon again.

 

Generally speaking you can't go wrong with the best you can afford. You don't have to

second guess yourself.

 

If you have some older Nikkor lenses you can use them in your D300 body.

[photo5]

Hansen,

 

Digital images are softer than film? What film format are you talking about? I find digital images to have more sharpness than 35mm film scans across the board.

[tonybeach]

Are you seriously asking for a comparison of the D300 and D40x?

 

Compared to the D40x the D300 has twice as many fps and its buffer is twice as large. The D300 also has MLU for more demanding tripod mounted work.

 

The D300 uses a CAM3500 AF module (51 AF sensors, 15 which are cross type) while the D40x uses a CAM530 AF module (3 AF sensors, 1 which is a cross type). Coming from a D70 and then a D200, I have seen my keepers shooting windsurfers go from 90% with the D70 to 98% with the D200 to 100% with the D300. If you are shooting birds in flight, the D300 is a no-brainer.

 

Having used the D200 extensively (I cannot comment directly on the D40x, although it shares essentially the same sensor) I can say that the D300 delivers sharper images using the same lenses at the same apertures and shutter speeds. I believe this comes from a combination of factors: a smoother shutter, more accurate AF, and greater resolution; but I suspect the most important of all of these is the smoother shutter. I can safely say that the D300 has improved the performance of all of my lenses.

 

For higher ISOs, the D300 is also in another league compared to the D40x: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//D70-D200-D300_ISO%20Comparison.jpg Some have claimed that the improved noise performance of the D300 at higher ISOs comes at the price of lost detail compared to the 10 MP sensors, but there is no truth to that: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//High%20ISO-Detail.jpg

[Dieter Schaefer]

The one feature in a DSLR that affects sharpness is the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor - this is why all digital images need sharpening. While there might be a difference between the D40X and the D300 in that regard - it likely can be overcome in post processing. Noise is another issue and from what has been published, the D300 does very well in that aspect. The decision between a D40X and a D300 IMHO should be driven more by the features on desires in a camera - AF speed and number of focus points, frame rate and buffer depths, easy access to important features etc. The D300 with 51 focus areas will be of more use in wildlife photography than the D40X with only three. I often find the 9 in my D200 lacking - in particular because only the center one is a cross-type. The AF capabilities of the D300 would be more than enough for me to choose that camera over the D40X.

[tonybeach]

"The one feature in a DSLR that affects sharpness is the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor..."

 

Hi Dieter,

 

The AA filter is not the only factor that effects sharpness; resolution and vibration are both more important factors, and the improved micro lenses on the D300 might also be playing a role. What I can say for sure though is that the D300 is noticeably sharper than the D200.

 

BTW, the D200 has 7 AF sensors, the two on either side of the center can be parsed into three separate areas each, for a total of eleven AF areas.

[dcphotography]

I love my D40, but if the D40x would be too low end, and the D300 be too much, why not get a D80? :).

[seandepuydt]

G, my wife has the D40 and I have the D300. While I really like the D40 and think it is one heck of a little camera, it isn't the same body as the D300. Having worked with both, it is my opinion that the D300 processor does a much better job with noise, and image quality. The D40 would frustrate me, as it lacks some of the basic features found on other cameras. Like going from an f3 to F5, in terms of features offered in each body. I've used the D70s, owned the D1x when it was king of Nikon's lineup.

[elliot1]

Like many, I am usually inclined to say buy the lens(es) first and then buy as much camera you can with the money you have left over. But in the case of the D300, I agree fully with everything Anthony has stated and suggest you go for the D300.

 

Like Sean, my wife uses a D40 and I recently purchased a D300. The D40/D40x cameras are excellent cameras but I suggest you don't compromise. Go for the D300. Add the lenses as you can afford them.

 

Keep in mind that either way, you won't go wrong. But yes, I think the D300 is worth the extra money for many, many reasons, but only if you can afford it. If you can't, you can always upgrade later one.

[Rene11664880918]

That sounds to me like Toyota vs Ferrari. I came from D80 and I can tell you the the D300

is amazing. I wouldn't dare to compare it to my D80. Anthony's post is really good. In my

opinion since you are planning to buy top class glass I'm sure they will perform much

better on a D300. One more thing you should consider is that if you are buying those

lenses and use them in a D40x your camera will feel so much out of balance when you

hold it. those lenses are really big. You should really give it a thought and hold both

cameras at the store with the lenses and see how you feel.

 

Rene'

[Kent Shafer]

G,<p>

 

I was in much the same boat as you except didn't do research first as you are doing. I had stopped doing serious photography for about 20 years (after moving out of a house with a beautiful darkroom and not having the energy to build another one). I had nice film cameras but quit using them because I had no darkroom.<p>

 

Then went to Costco one day to buy a new point-and-shoot digital to replace our old dead one and on a whim bought a D40x outfit instead. Then got a couple of books about Photoshop and was astounded. No regrets about the missing darkroom now!<p>

 

And very soon after that - just a few weeks after buying it - I realized the D40x had been a mistake. It can make very high quality images but for serious work suffers from the following:<p>

 

<MENU>

<LI type="disc">no mirror lockup<p>

<LI type="disc">tiny viewfinder<p>

<LI type="disc">no top display so settings visible only through the tiny viewfinder<p>

<LI type="disc">necessity for using menus to change commonly changed settings such as ISO and white balance<p>

</MENU>

 

So within a month or two after getting the D40x I bit the bullet and ordered a D300.<p>

 

You are planning to use fine lenses and can afford a D300. If you go with the D40x instead, you may be in danger of suffering the same buyer's remorse I did.<p>

 

Have fun, whichever you choose.<p>

 

Kent

[tim_knight]

G, You are spending some serious money on Pro Glass. Why stop at the camera? Get the D300 and don't look back. If the cost is to much get the D80 or D200. Have you held either camera, big difference in size. Go to a camera shop and check them out.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I used my son's inexpensive D40 (not "x" version) to shoot indoor basketball recently. I was astonished by how good the photos were (I used flash and shot RAW). So you can get excellent results from the less expensive Nikon DSLRs. But I was careful to anticipate the action - no blasting away and hoping that one is good.

 

I'd opt for excellent lenses and would compromise on the body. Superb lenses will last for decades. DSLR bodies, on the other hand, are quickly obsoleted. No, they don't stop working, but something newer and better will come along soon.

 

I've used a D200 extensively, so I am used to better AF performance and better build. And I do prefer the interface of the D200. All the same, the D40 class of cameras are very nice.

[tri-x1]

If you have a lot of film DSLR experience and have shot with a film as demanding as Velvia, you don't want to think of any model below the D300. You will love the camera.

[marcus_andrewes]

Buy the best you can afford - it will be a paperweight in 5 years anyway!

 

I am buying a D3 and relegating my D200 to second chair - but only because I can write it

off as a business expense.

 

The main reasons I am changing are better AF, better battery life and full frame use of my

Nikkors. If I had a bag of DX lenses - which I don't because I like to use an F5 sometimes -

then I'd buy a D300 and save a pile of cash!

[johnw63]

"Buy the best you can afford - it will be a paperweight in 5 years anyway!"

 

I hate it when people say that. It won't be a paper weight unless it breaks. It will still shoot just as good shots then as now. It just won't be amazing, when compared to new stuff.

 

By that logic, you shold buy the LEAST expensive body you can and still get the job done, so you don't blow as much money chasing the "gotta' have it ! " constant upgrade trail.

[eric_arnold]

some really good responses on this thread, and i tend to agree that the d300 is the best match for pro glass like the 17-55/70-200, especially with the grip.

 

owning both a d80 and a d300, i have to say the d300 takes better photos, though the d80 is certainly capable of high-quality images. it's really a case of getting the complete package, with all the bells and whistles: better ergonomics, mag-alloy body, better AF, better high ISO performance, faster fps, MLU, 2 command dials, dedicated WB/ISO buttons, live view, etc. it's a pro camera for sure.

 

nothing against the d40x, which has a lot going for it, especially at its price point. it's just not a d300. for casual photography, the d300 might be overkill. but with serious glass, a d40x might be underkill.

[tonybeach]

"...I was careful to anticipate the action - no blasting away and hoping that one is good."

 

> When the action is moving slowly you can pick and choose, but when the action is moving faster you can't. People who ridicule "blasting away" probably don't shoot the truly fast action shots that demand everything the camera can give -- professional athletes for instance are much faster and more dynamic than kids. Personally, I look forward to getting the MB-D10 grip on the D300 so it can shoot 8 fps.

 

Below is an illustration of the difference between 6 fps (D300 w/o the battery grip) and 3 fps (D40x). You can sorta pick what you want, but with a slower camera you end up unable to pick what you missed after the action starts.<div></div>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I disagree, Anthony. I've seen superb sports photos from the 1940's and 1950's that were shot with press cameras. You get about 1 fps if you are really good.

 

For your series of shots, Anthony, why not use a camcorder? You seem to feel that all moments are decisive, so capture them all.

 

FYI - basketball is not a slow game, even at the high school level.

[tonybeach]

Robert, you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

 

I am not saying all the frames are THE decisive moment, but you have a much greater chance of getting the best shot if you have more to choose from. Take a look at the 7'th and 8'th frames for instance, with the D300 you can pick which one you like better (and in the one the D40x would have missed the subject is smiling; something you could not have anticipated), with the D40x you only get one -- that's an example of how faster fps deliver better results. Also, take a look at the second shot, personally I like it better than the third shot and a client might like it better than the first shot which was the only "decisive" moment I could have gotten with a D40x.

 

For the record, I used to take shots like these with a D70 and its buffer filled up after 4 shots, but I clearly get more keepers and have more shots to choose from with the D200 and even more so with the D300.

 

As for the pace of high school basketball, it's not nearly as fast as pro or college basketball -- just compare the number of dunks and blocked shots, and that's my point.

[marcus_andrewes]

Whether it is a paperweight or not is subjective: a 5 year old cellphone probably makes

calls - but does anyone still own one?!

 

As a professional photographer, I seek gear that makes my life easier. Thus, I personally

like high speed because it makes getting that keeper shot so much easier than using a

slower camera. Ditto, I like autofocus for the same reason.

 

I have a Leica M series camera, which I love - but since I started making a living at this, it

has sat in its' case and done sweet FA. Thus it will shortly be going, along with all the

lenses I have for it (including the truly iconic Noctilux 50mm f/1.0!) to be recycled into

equipment that makes life easier.

 

Thus, the D3 in 5 years will be a paperweight (and written off by the accountant as such)

because the D5 will make my life even easier than the D3 will (whenever I eventually get it

delivered...!!). It will probably be 40Mp and have holographic autofocus or something!

[g-man1]

If it rains, you're better off with the D300.

 

The D300 will focus moving wildlife better.

 

Handling of the D300 is better.

 

I have the D300 and D40.

[johnw63]

Marcus,

 

What abour people who do NOT have the ability to "right it off" as a business expense and do NOT make a living with the camera ? Will all these brilliant shots we all are talking about be snubed as sub-par in 5 years ? It may not do a good enough job for YOU, but it will not be a paper weight.