[Dave]

I've got the following requirements

2 x semi pro bodies
Good high ISO handling
f/2.8 24-70 pro lens
f/2.8 70-200 pro lens

Comparing Nikon to Canon I have come up with following best prices

Nikon D300 x 2 = £1800 vs Canon 40D x 2 = £1000 (incl £100 cashback on 40D's at mo)
Nikon 24-70 = £980 vs Canon 24-70 = £615 (incl £50 cashback)
Nikon 70-200 VR = £1090 vs Canon 70-200 IS = £900 (incl £75 cashback)

Saving with Canon is £800 + £ 365 + £190 = £1355

Now I love my Nikon, but that's a big difference in price I know the D300 is more advanced than 40D, but you can get 2 40D's for the price of the D300

BTW, no Nikon / Canon bashing please (did you hear that Jack !!), as we all know there will be bugger all difference in end image quality between these 2 packages

<UPDATE> Can't be bothered to read all the posts, but just want to know the conclusion ? Then follow here

[Dabhand16]

I've always thought the 40D was fantastic VFM. In the bang for bucks stakes it is unbeatable.

I think the biggest issue would be in the handling. Unlike cars that tend to have the major controls in the same places, and work in pretty similar ways, the camera controls would take a lot of familiarization, and although it is not impossible, I think there might be a lot of frustration in the change-over period.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

I've always thought the 40D was fantastic VFM. In the bang for bucks stakes it is unbeatable.

Can't argue with that. For anyone starting out with no brand loyality, it's very very attractive at that money !!!

[VinnyP]

40D is a great body and incredible value. The Nikon pro zooms perform better (Unless you plan to use your 70-200 on a D3) but Canon definitely to me has as much of an advantage in short fast primes.

The big difference for your criteria is the 40D has never claimed to be a semi pro body as far as I know, no meaningful weather sealing, no Af fine tune not a 100% viewfinder and rated for 50% less shutter actuations. It can produce images plenty good enough for pro use though I have no doubt. I do have doubts about the usefulness of scene modes on a pro DSLR.

D300 is marketed as a pro body. IQ differnces are not meaningful but the D300 will give you nearly 30% more pixels on what you see in the viewfinder that's enough for a good crop whilst still keeping the image saleable. The D300 has the better Af, better flash system, a much better screen, better auto ISO, marginally better high ISO noise, clears the buffer quicker and has a better vertical grip.

The 40D weighs less is full time 14 bit, has a histogram in live view and performs faster than the D300 at 14 bit.

[Dave]

Tx for advice Vinny

Held the 40D this morning with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Body didn't feel as nice as D300, but not a show stoppper. Quite impressed with build quality of lens, felt quite substantial & it wasn't white The histogram in live view is handy.

[labbai]

When I bought my first digital SRL body, I was always for the full-frame. EOS 5D was the only thing I could afford. My father said that I could have bought an car instead, but I said that I wouldnt have had the money to drive with that car. I was happy with my 24-105 zoom too, anyway.

[LJR69]

You state in your requirements "Good high ISO handling". If the 40D gives you the results you want at high ISO's then I think you'd have to have a compelling reason to spend more.

Looking at your existing gear you would have to also consider replacing your SB800 of course. Also perhaps you could sell the 70-300mm if you're going to get a 70-200mm? What's the difference in price if you add a flash to the 40D and sell any of the lenses you have now which will effectively be replaced?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by LJR69

You state in your requirements "Good high ISO handling". If the 40D gives you the results you want at high ISO's then I think you'd have to have a compelling reason to spend more.

Very true

Originally Posted by LJR69

Looking at your existing gear you would have to also consider replacing your SB800 of course.

Yep, speedlites with cashback are about same price as SB800.

[AQ]

A totally non objective poll.

I went to Bempton yesterday and got chatting to quite a few other togs there. All but one of those who had DSLRs and who I spoke to had the Canon 40d. The other had an earlier Canon. As far as I could see not a Nikon 300 in sight.

I have nothing but praise for my 40d. Sure you can see some noise at iso 1000 but nothing that I cannot live with given that without it I would not have the pics in the first place.

Don't know if that helps much though.

[silkstone]

I'm a long-term Canonian but really I don't think there's much to choose between Canon and Nikon in terms of IQ. Occasionally one leapfrogs the other, but not by much. The 40D is deemed 'semi-pro' by Canon, for what it matters, and qualifies for CPS entry.

However... You can't go changing horses every time there's a new race. You have other lenses which the new 25-70 and 70-200 will not replace, and of course the flashgun etc. By the time you've finished, the saving by moving to Canon may not be as much as all that.

And then, although the 40D is a great camera, you've said that you prefer the handling of the D300. That's the deciding factor for long-term satisfaction.

And anyway, £1355 is only a couple of months' depreciation on a car such as - to take a random example - a Freelander.

[JMitchell]

Originally Posted by Dave

BTW, no Nikon / Canon bashing please (did you hear that Jack !!), :

Vinny said everything I was going to say. I've seen some good shots from 40Ds around, but if it's luxuries you want, then the D300's better suited:
920,000 px LCD
8fps with grip
Much more advanced focus system

Plus as Vinny said, the 'pro options' available from a high end Nikon camera and it's accessories make it much more useable as a 'pro' camera than the 40D. I could be completely wrong, but I'm not sure I'd be finding many pro sports / events shooters with a 40D as their backup, most likely they'd have 2 MKIIs or a MKIII and a MKIIN or something, but I'd not be at all surprised if a pro had a D3 and a D300 with grip etc...

[simpbow]

Everybody to their own, its a lot of hassle i think if you've built up your collection say with Nikon as i use & then change over to Canon or vise versa, what ever way you look at it your gonna come out lighter.