[Soupdragon]

............. want to discuss the pros/cons 40D/D300?

[stepheno]

I don't know enough about the D300 to compare but I would suggest the argument only applies to people buying their first DSLR. Those looking to an upgrade, either Nikon or Canon, are hardly likely to ditch all their lenses and accessories to change camp. Unless they have loads-a-money

For those buying their first DSLR it's a smuch choosing a brand to go with as choosing a camera since the differences between specs is very small these days.

[Soupdragon]

I have to say, personally, given both cameras hold similar places within their respective hirachical trees; the Nikon has to be the more advanced of the two.

The thing that draws my attention the most is the VGA screen.
To date, preview screens have only been useful for composition/exposure/camera settings.
At least now there is the opportunity to check focus which has been the main reason for me discarding so many shots when post processing.

What else is truly note worthy, is the ability to save file in TIFF format.
This is a major bonus for me as all my keepers are converted from raw to tiff as a post operation.
Needles to say the overhead will be file size but, with the advent of ever larger cf card capacity, this may be a mute point.

I did not notice when reading the specs if the Canon had 100% viewfinder or not.
It is good to see the Nikon now has "what you see is what you get" as this this is my only real gripe with my D200.

The extra pixels are a bonus and now puts it on level ground with the 5D at a very reasonable price when quoted comparatively.
I would guess this to be short lived however as I expect the 5Ds or 6D to be a big pixel count step.

Needless to say, I am quite excited about the prospect of being a D300 owner one day.
Lack of finances may work in my favour here as, if and when I can I can afford one, the inevitable teething problems will hopefully have been ironed out.

[VinnyP]

Looking at them both the 40D looks excellent value for money. IQ will of course be the biggest factor and not enough D300 examples so far. On specs the D300 has it but it is more expensive, whether it is worth the extra and what the street prices are when they settle down will be the deciding factor.

[Dave Canon]

Choice of Camera is a very personal thing. Both brands are excellent so I am sure both cameras are also excellent. Based on my current experience, I would not be too concerned about:-

a. Evaluative metering (I set and use partial spot)
b. N point focusing (I normally use just the centre point)
c. Not bothered about a larger LCD screen. I cannot see it well enough in sunlight to make any serious decision though the histogram is useful.
d. Not bothered about automatic sensor cleaning. I seem to be able to deal with this OK and it is just another thing to go wrong.

What I would like is:-

a. I would probably like a pixel count of about 10 to 12 M Pixels
b. 14 bit RAW files (D300)
c. 10 frames a second


If I were looking to upgrade my Camera, I would want to be convinced that I would really notice the difference. Personally, I think that once you have a reasonable DSLR, the next most influential factor is the photographer then the lenses.

[Soupdragon]

A fair point about the dust removal system.
I was all bar useless on my 400D.
What really suprises me about Canon is, they persist in putting the infinitely useless print button on the camera.
If there was ever a function that was better placed as a menu item, it would be that.
I wouldn't mind so much if it were programmable, at least then it wouldn't just be clutter on the body.
Having said that, I suppose someone must be using it!