WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Video and Photography (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87667)
-   -   New Set Up (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554558)

esako 03-07-2008 6:14 AM

I am looking at getting a new set up but I don't know which camera to get. Should i go for the Nikon d300 or the Canon 40D?

richd 03-07-2008 6:55 AM

They are both great systems although many don't think comparing the 2 is fair since the 40D is at a much lower price point. The only downside to the Nikon d300 for me is it's inability to maintain a high burst rate when shooting in RAW mode. If $ isn't a factor I'd say get the Nikon. From what I'm hearing & reading the 40D is much improved in the auto focus dept.

joshturner 03-07-2008 8:38 AM

Rich keep in mind that the burst rate is only decreased when shooting in 14bit raw. you can change the setting back to a 12bit raw format and retain the full shooting speed on the d300. <BR> <BR>EMS personally i would go with the d300. If you are just starting out with a new system do A LOT of reseach. there are a couple really good sites to review the camera bodies and lens. for me the lens options on both systems are very good and very comparable, but for me the big difference is the nikon is much more user friendly. changing settings is a lot easier and there is a lot less scrolling through menus, plus if you ever get into the lighting systems nikon's is WAY better. <BR>previous to the d300 nikon was critisesed for it's excess noise at high ISO. with the new cmos sensor that has been amazingly improved. <BR> <BR>i love nikon, but it may not be for you. do your research and try to think of what kind of shooting you will be doing the most and then see which overall system suites you best. <BR> <BR>also keep in mind that the d300 does not come with user friendly auto presets on it so if you dont have a clue about photography beware that it will take a bit of tinkering getting used to it. it demands a bit more overall knowledge, because you cant just turn a dail to the little man that looks like he is running when you need to shoot sports. rather you have to know what settings you need and set them in. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.dpreview.com" target="_blank">www.dpreview.com</a> - great for body information <BR><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com" target="_blank">www.fredmiranda.com</a> - great for lens and body reviews

richd 03-07-2008 9:18 AM

It's such an obvious difference that I'll never own a body that doesn't shoot 14bit RAW again, it's that much better but thanks for clarifying that. <BR> <BR>I'm curious why you think changing the settings is so much easier on the Nikon? I've played with the D2X and D200 and while it's different I didn't really think that was a real advantage one way or another. I guess it gets down to what you're used to. But as you point out the d300 doesn't have the idiot dial on top so in reality the 40D might be an advantage for the beginning shooter. I would agree the general consensus is that Nikon flash systems are better and I like the LCD better on the d300 then Canon's current offering. The 1.5/6X crop sensors are a turn off for me but of course that's a moot point when comparing those 2 bodies. <BR> <BR>As far as Nikon lenses go there are some real gems, I'm seriously considering getting that 14-24 f2.8 and an Nikon to EF adapter so I can use it on my mkIII, it's that good.

peter_c 03-07-2008 9:35 AM

You can not go wrong with either camera <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Are you ready to drop $4000+? If so go and hold them in person and decide for yourself. I went with the Nikon D300. FWIW make sure you purchase from a reputable place. If you need more info on where to purchase equipment from just ask.

bakes5 03-07-2008 10:36 AM

I am a biased Nikon guy so take this for what it is worth. <BR> <BR>Don't worry about not being able to figure out the D300 controls. My first DSLR was the D200. Sure there was a little learning curve but you will rapidly learn it. Also, for me I just like the feel of the Nikons better. <BR> <BR> Don't worry about the price point of the body. Once you start adding things up you will kick yourself for not spending the extra few hundred dollars and getting what you really wanted. <BR> <BR>A couple-a few pro quality lenses, a nice tripod, CS3, lightroom, a speedlight or 2, computer upgrades, data back-up, and the camera bags/backbacks will end up at least tripling or quadrupling the cost of the $1800 or so D300. <BR> <BR>One thing to note with the Nikons though is the frequent limited availability of their good stuff. I have only seen the 70-200VR in stock 1 time at any local camera shop (so I of course bought it right then and there) while they almost always have the Canon 70-200IS. Even B&amp;H has trouble keeping the 70-200VR in stock. <BR> <BR> Anyways, I love my D200 and everyone says the D300 is even better. <BR> <BR>B&amp;H is the best place to order things from. Broadway photo is, in my opinion, the worst. <BR> <BR>Good Luck <BR> <BR>Bakes

richd 03-07-2008 10:59 AM

Owning a S---load of lens and other equipment does tend to make one biased a lot. The fact that Nikon is now firmly "toe to toe" with Canon with both having small advantages only in some areas is only going to make it better for all of us. My friend Dave Rhodes, who is Nikon's rep for NorCal, keeps telling me to come back from the "darkside". I keep asking for a D3, 14-24 and 70-200 to try out first! <BR> <BR>But just because Nikon can't make lenses fast enough don't kid yourself, the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS is the sharpest 70-200 zoom on the planet, even you Nikon guys should know that! (BTW the reason some Nikon lenses are in such short supply is a testament to the number of new users buying the DXX bodies and the d200/300.)

esako 03-07-2008 1:37 PM

thanks for the advice


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:13 PM.