e_bergman

Benjamin - because the metering is so good. ;-)

It isn't just about the number of focus points, but also about AF performance and features. On that score, the D300 is also excellent. Folks are right in saying that many times having those extra focus points won't matter for static subjects. However, the D300 has some capabilities that aren't in the 40D that are relevant to shooting moving subjects. You can select a subject and the AF system can be set to follow it as it moves around. Doesn't always work, but when it does, it can help you get shots that would be harder to keep in focus with a 40D.

I was faced with this choice only a few weeks ago. I spent (too many!) months researching, lurking on Photo.net,

using friends cameras (Canon and Nikon). Ultimately I got a Nikon D300. It is a close call, some things each

manufacturer does better. You can't lose with either. What did it for me was a combination of the ergonomics and

the camera just feeling "right", so as others have suggested, you have to get the camera in your own hands to

decide.

 

One thing I really like on the D300 is the auto-ISO function. You an set your camera to (for example) change shutter

speed down to some limit when in aperture priority mode, but then start changing the ISO value if necessary so you

don't miss that great shot (and you can bounds for ISO as well). If I'm shooting in good light and then step into a

dim building and see a great opportunity I can just lift the camera and shoot and if it needs to move ISO from 200 to

3200 it will do it. I get the shot. Canon has a feature like this, but it is not at all as flexible. I've used that feature so

much I almost can't imagine a camera without it.

I'm shooting my recently purchased D300 with JPEG + RAW so I hope this question will NOT launch another string

of postings about the relative merits of each. That's not my question or intent -- I already see value in both (thus

JPEG + RAW). If a JPEG doesn't work I can fiddle with RAW, but I'd prefer not to bother for family photos of my

kids, for example.

 

My question is -- for candid photography, casual 'portraits' in my case often shot with a Tamron 17-50mm -- I'm

wondering what sharpness/contrast/brightness/hue etc settings will get the best JPEG results. Of course I can

experiment until I get the desired result -- and yes, a big part of it is personal taste. I anticipate posts pointing out

both of these things.

 

However, I figure I'll get to my destination faster by hearing from folks who've already made this journey. E.g, start

by exploring settings that have worked for others with similar tastes. My ideal responses would provide example

photos with info on the settings and why they work for you. For purposes of this question I'm not interested in the

AF and metering settings (although I appreciate how that can ultimately impact the result) -- I'm more interested in

the settings that are around how the JPEG is processed in camera.

 

As far as lighting goes -- it could be anything, but it is worth noting I'm doing a lot of relatively high ISO indoor

shooting with natural light coming in through the windows of our very tree shaded neighborhood (so there is natural

light but it is muted and indirect). Even when outdoors I'm often under trees in shade. Hmmm...well, OK I already

anticipate some fuzziness around well, what about WB or filters, etc...

 

By way of a sign-post up ahead -- I'm not really a fan of the Ken Rockwell overly vivid look, so if you aren't either

you're more likely to have found something that works for me as well...