Canon 40D or Nikon D300?

[travismcgee]

Hi All,

 

I'm stuck in the Canon vs. Nikon dilemma and can't decide which way to go. I

don't have any lenses or other equipment right now, so I can go either

direction. The only nice thing about this dilemma is that I really can't go

too wrong. Both are excellent systems, but I want my decision to be as future-

proof as possible.

 

I travel a lot and I'm looking for a high-quality body and lens combination for

landscapes, city shots and even some aerial photography. My budget is $2-3,000

for the whole enchilada, including memory cards, skylight filter, carrying case

and so on.

 

On the Canon side, I've been looking at the 40D with a 24-105 L IS lens and on

the Nikon side I've been looking at the D300 with possibly the 18-200 VR lens.

The 18-200 seems very versatile, but all the reviewers say it has distortion

issues.

 

Any general comments on the Canon vs. Nikon decision and specific comments on

my choices would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks,

Dave

[colinsouthern]

Flip a coin.

 

Both camps have models that, at each price point, are as good as identical in reality - always are, always will be.

 

Personally, I think Canon has a better lens selection.

[bkpix]

Since you're apparently not committed to a system, consider the Pextax 20D with a couple DA* zooms. Tough, weather sealed body and lenses, compact build, image stabilization, access to years of excellent Pentax glass and within your budget.

[zml]

No opinion on Canon vs. Nikon, but it will be a cold day in hell when an 11x zoom on a DSLR can be successfully used for anything even remotely photography-related: if it's made of metal, it'll probably be good for driving nails or similar jobs.

[g dan mitchell]

I'll second the "flip a coin" suggestion. Frankly, both companies make excellent equipment

that is used by excellent photographers the world over to make outstanding photography.

You cannot make a "wrong" choice here.

 

(And Bob is right that Pentax and others offer some very interesting and compelling

products as well, should their features line up with your needs.)

 

If one particular model from one company seems substantially more in line with your

expectations and needs, that could be enough to sway you one way or the other.

 

You can over-think this stuff... :-)

 

Dan

[f72]

the 40d will save some mony on your budget vs d300 and there is no in different in IQ between them.

[freelance]

I had this dilemma but I solved it considering the fact that intend to have a second SLR FF at a reasonable price. 5D is almost in budget for my present needs. Is Nikon going to follow this line? Even if I decided any day to buy a much more expensive camera (that I don't need not being a professional), the Nikon and Canon value for money are quite different today.

 

The only reason for which I would buy a NIkon should be the 14-24 lens. I stop buying the Canon 16-35 waiting for the adapter that may not ever come. Will Canon produce a lens of this sharpness any day?

[brent andersen]

Both cameras will get the job done although the Nikon is very nice and worth the extra money, at least for me. Lots of folks speculate and theorize about the 18-200 VR Nikon, but my copy is the real deal and I use it all the time while the 70-200VR and 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkors sit in the bag. I use both systems and also own a 5D. Given your budget I'd look real close at the Canon.

[chinmaya]

I would go with one of the following

 

1. 40D + 17-40mm + 70-200mm F4 IS = $2350

 

2. 40D with Kit lens 28-135mm + 100-400mm L = $2600

[douglas lee]

I am not familiar with the 40D. However, I have owned the D300 (and D3) but not the 18-

200 lens. For your stated purposes, have you considered the 5D kit which includes the 24-

105 f4 IS, extra battery and camera bag? Just a thought. Regardless, given your stated

choices, I don't think you can go wrong either way.

[colinsouthern]

"You can over-think this stuff... :-)"

 

That NEVER happens around here Dan ;)

[alexdi]

I agree, you can't go wrong.

 

There's a fair bit of cost variance between Nikon and Canon. Neither lens nor camera range perfectly overlap, so you can make arguments either way depending on the kit emphasis.

 

While I'm rarely with Colin, I'll third the "flip a coin." If you have a specific requirement in mind, we could probably offer better advice.

[david_wu6]

If you are not going to spend money in 1-3 years, then the D300+18-200 VR seems a good choice. Otherwise, go for the 5D + 24-105 Kit and get a longer lens later.

 

BTW 24-105 also has distortion issue.

[marc_mccoy1]

Go to the store ask to see a couple models, Hold them use them. see wich one feels better, The one that feels like it fits you most. Personally I like canon and have only bought canon.

[george_watters]

I went through exactly the same thing a few months ago until a pro photographer friend advised to go with the Canon. I did and couldn't be happier.

[zafar1]

Having used both Canon and Nikon (D70s, 40D, D300, and 5D), I can say that in general Nikon cameras are more full featured and at a higher price. D300 is more expensive then 40D but it is also a much better camera.

 

Consider the features:

 

0. 51 point AF!

 

1. Built-in timer/intervalometer

 

2. Master flash control with built-in flash.

 

3. Metering with old manual nikon lenses.

 

4. In-camera ability for multiple exposure

 

5. Higher usable ISO etc..

 

With canon you can match most of the features of Nikon, but at additional cost. I would gladly pay the price difference of D300 over 40D for these extra features.

 

but I have a 5D, because of

 

1. Unmatched image quality (albeit with no extra features).

 

2. Availability of relatively cheap, professional grade lenses with fast AF (for me, it means 100mm macro, 100-400mm tele, and many more choices, including nikon manual lenses.)

[alexdi]

Zafar:

 

The 40D will also meter with manual Nikon lenses. High-ISO performance is a wash. I've had no trouble tracking ice hockey players with the 9 AF points of the 40D. The remaining 42 points may be of interest to those who track birds, but the speed of the AF processor is more important.

 

A built-in timer would be nice, though.

[timothy_medrano]

here in the philippines, service for canon cameras are better.. while as nikon cameras are

non-existent without a much higher price tag. also put that in as a factor in your purchase

as both companies have established themselves already. in the case of 40d vs d300, the

nikon is clearly better on paper and specs, whether you need them or not is totally up to you.

personally, i think the 40d is 90 percent of what the d300 is yet about 30 percent cheaper. i

have the urge to shift brands even until now but always concluded that in real life

photography, nothing matters but your eye and taste.

[travismcgee]

Many thanks, everybody. Lots of good advice here.

 

It was interesting that some recommended the Canon 5D. I had pretty much disqualified the 5D because of the 12 bit A/D, Digic II and 2.5 inch LCD. Should I re-think that?

 

Over think things? Me? All the time! But I'm very good at doing my homework. The only thing I ever rushed into was getting married, and that was a disaster! <grin>

[nic_brown]

The 40D/D300/5D equation is a little tricky as none of the 3 are truly at the same price

point or feature set.

 

I have had free access to a work owned 5D for the past 6 months and the thought of going

back to a crop sensor now my contract is ending is almost unbearable.

 

I have also had a D300 to use, and frankly, if you are starting a 'prosumer' system from

scratch and don't want a full frame, then the D300 is a very good deal. If your

photography is about telephoto lenses and FPS then you will be very happy. If you are a

portrait or architectural photographer then the 5D is the state of the art prosumer DSLR.

 

I have recently purchased a 40D with 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 in anticipation of the

3D/5Dmk2/7D later in the year. I expect this new camera to have slightly uprated specs

from the 40D to bring it in line with the D300, but with a price premium over the Nikon

reflecting the fact that it has a full frame sensor.

 

All said and done, the 40D is at least 80% of the camera that the D300 is. In the UK, the

40D is ?629 on the high street but with a ?100 rebate bringing the price to ?529. The

D300 street price is ?999. As far as bodies go, the 40D is extremely good value, the D300

is superior, but at a price.

 

The D300 is a very solid camera and is more camera than most will ever need. There are

some great lenses, especially the DX only 17-55 f2.8 (despite the weight!). Primes are a

little cheaper than the Canon equivalents too. The 18-200 is not a bad answer to the

'stuck on a desert island with only one lens' dilemma, but is by nature a compromise that

lacks the final zing of lenses with a narrower purpose.

 

Canon have an affordable upgrade path to full frame, but you cannot get true 'L' glass to

suit the crop sensor cameras at the wide end. The 10-22 EF-S is a very nice lens on a

tripod (I own one) but pales compared to its constant aperture full frame older brother,

the 16-35 f2.8 (I WILL own one!). The 16-35 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 50mm prime

in the middle is as close to zen perfection as you get in lenses on a full frame system.

 

Hope this helps! Let us know which way you go.

[KenPapai]

I am late to the party here...<br>

"<i>On the Canon side, I've been looking at the 40D with a 24-105 L IS lens and on the Nikon side I've been looking at the D300 with possibly the 18-200 VR lens. The 18-200 seems very versatile, but all the reviewers say it has distortion issues."</i>

<p>

An 11:1 zoom is going to have a ton of issues. It's a beginner's lens,

not something to seriously consider. I would hope you'll quickly outgrow any notions. The Canon 24-105 has several issues too -- it's a relatively cheap, entry level L lens

(hence its inclusions as a kit lens with the 5D).

<p>

The D300 is a marginally better camera than the EOS 40D, but not $600 better by any measure.

<p>

Full disclosure: I own exactly four lens, all Canon: 85 1.8, 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 (all 2.8 L's). I've made bad lens choices in the past (a couple predate PNet) but won't anymore.

[travismcgee]

Thanks very much, Nic. It's amazing how much time I spend researching this and thinking about it. It's kinda fun, though. Cheers!

[travismcgee]

Thanks to you too, Ken. Good advice.

[travismcgee]

PS I HAVE given up on the Nikkor 18-200 notion. Even if it takes great pictures, it would bug me knowing they aren't as good as they could be.

[glenn_cummings1]

Ken...I couldn't have said it any better! I was entertaining the idea of switching back to Nikon with the release of the D300 and it's impressive specs (I was a Nikon user for 25 years before making the move to Canon 2 years ago).

 

After much research, I decided that switching systems again would be ridiculous only to achieve the D300 and Nikons 17-55mm 2.8 which is far superior to Canon's version.

 

Similar to you, I have the 16-35, 70-200, 50 f1.4 and my only ef-s lens; the 60mm macro. These are all top quality lenses which will stand the test of time. Unlike camera bodies.

 

Thanks once again for putting it all in perspective!