gr?

The D300 and 40D aren't even meant to be direct competition. Both Nikon and Canon have stated that the cameras are meant for a different market. You can say the D300 is superior but it better be for $500-600 more. You can't compare the D300 to the 5D or 1D MKIII since they are meant for a different market, also, plus the plus range is different.

As far as Nikon's 51 point autofocus system, it's still unproven against the Canon AF system. More AF points doesn't mean it's superior. I can pretty much guarantee that Canon's 45 point AF system on the 1D MKIII is better than Nikon's. Canon has had 4+ years on this system and have tweaked it over the last several years. It's been proven to be the best in class (sports, wedding, portraits, wildlife).

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

Well, when you say they are in different markets, you will be wrong. A market is any place where buyers and sellers meet, and their price difference is only five hundred. Its just an extra week of savings. their price ranges are different, but not enough to put them into separate markets. not to mention that they do appeal to the same semi-pro/prosumer camera enthusiast. separate markets would be a luxury SUV and a hard core racer (like the atom, similar prices, different appeal). enough of the macro-economic lecture. Remember, they are both DSLR's. Their dimensions are similar, the only thing that isn't is the mega pixels, the lcd screen resolution (the nikon's is amazing), and some other little stuff like that. just depends on whether you want to spend 500 on a nice lenses, or 500 on some nonsence.

gr?

you can nitpick the English language all you want but the two bodies aren't meant for a direct comparison/competition.

Both Canon and Nikon know what they're doing when they design their product lines and create their price points. Each manufacturer has a specific niche market that they target, may it be a sports photographer, nature, portrait, wedding photographer, semi-pro/enthusiast, amateur, etc.

Both companies use their entry level product line to draw in consumers that wouldn't normally use an SLR body. They use their semi-pro bodies as a step up for those same enthusiasts that don't want to spend an arm and leg on a pro body that they most likely don't need all the features that a pro body offers. Camera manufacturers aren't stupid. They know their consumers are generally loyal so they design their products with a gradual progression in features and price points. There isn't a huge market for new consumers that will jump right into a prosumer body and spend $1400-2000 right off the bat.

If you get credentials any at random event, you'll end up chatting with a few of the other photographers. You're almost guaranteed that most started on a basic body (either film or digital) and upgraded to something better. Most of the automotive photographers I shoot with that own a 1D MKII or 1D MKIII now, upgraded from a 20D. Those who are shooting with a 20D/30D/40D started out on a 300/350D. Those who shoot with an entry level body now will most likely upgrade to a 30D/40D in the near futre. The same goes for Nikon owners, just swap out the Canon product line for the Nikon product line. You won't find many that will want to jump from a 40D to a D200 (or now a D300) or vice versa.

bhendjol

^^ true

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

Instead of argueing endlessly until i eventualy look like an idiot repeating myself, i admit defeat and thank you for your information. Nice points "gr?"
Unfortunatly, i just found out about the Sony DSLR-A700... and now im even more confused. Im getting a camera before december 15th, and i need somthing with power, but under 2 grand for the body and a decent lense.
Nikon D300 is out, too pricey.

Canon 40D is option 1. I havn't heard much about the Canon's 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens. Under 1500 for the lot.

Sony DSLR-A700K is option 2. Sony has an interesting lense, 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Wide-Range Zoom Lens. All this will be under 2k with the discount for me.

By the way, im moving up from a film camera, the Canon EOS Elan 7E. I've had plenty of experience shooting film, just sick of making the prints.
Sooo... anyone have any ideas?
(for those even a bit interesting in the sony, look at this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...rToReadReviews)

iStan

iTrader: (29)

Check out fredmiranda.com for reviews... Mmmmm IS lens...

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

^^^^^^^
Excellent site, but dosn't have anything about the sony lense. Thanks for the link though.

jmark

iTrader: (1)

D300. Either will do the job.

gr?

A used 30D or used D80 - put the leftover money into a good lens. The majority if your shot will be based upon the lens and your camera settings (aka skill). The body itself will have little factor on still shots. The camera capabilities really start shining for specific situations (ie low light, action/motion).

The Sony bodies are okay but if you look at the lenses, both new and used, you'll spend an extra ~ 20% over Canon or Nikon.

MR_X

iTrader: (5)

This thread made me think of upgrading my D70s. I looked at the 40D, D80, Sigma SD14 and D300/200. D200/300 is to much for my level of expertise so I took them out. SD14 to little I know about it. D80 is getting outdated. So far the 40D seems good but there should be an upgrade for the D80 coming out soon so that is what I am waiting for so I don't have to change gear.

VandyZ

iTrader: (2)

Let me tell you I just went from my EOS Elan to the 40D about 2 months ago. I wanted to get away from my point and shoot digi. Stick with canon. The 40D is great and if you still have your EOS lenses from the elan, even better.

I would not buy anything but Nikon or Canon. I am sure the sony is a great camera, but i think in the end canon (or nikon) gear is better and more abundant. There is more user support and used gear for these products.

Here are some of my test shots from various lenses.

50mm 1.4





28-105 f3.5-4.5





70-200 f2.8L

jmark

iTrader: (1)

Nice shots VandyZ. I agree. If you already have a stash of good glass (lenses) stick with that brand. In my case I have Nikon lenses. Really spending the $ on good glass is important. The DSLR bodies you can always upgrade. The glass will be carried over. I am toying with selling my D200 & getting a new D300.

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

Thanks for the info. I accualy was using my brothers Elan, but i can probably buy it off him. He never used or uses it. plus i think i need a 35mm for my college photo classes.
Great photos by the way.
Thanks for all the info guys. I think the 40D will be a good choice, and eventualy, ill move up to the 1D, but that with time and money...

james840a

iTrader: (7)

Hi, i recently got the Canon 40D with the 28-135 IS USM lens. Its a great camera and good lens, just one thing i noticed on the lens the front has a little play when it is extended out in zoom. But i use my sigma 24-70mm lens

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

Finaly something about the Canon lense!!!! THANK YOU!!!! and thanks for the recommendation.
Im buying the Elan 7E off my brother first. He has three lenses, and im getting that camera and the lenses for 350Z dollars (money). the lenses are 35-70mm, and i cant remember the other two, nor can i find them.
Now to get a 40D... and the huge amount of money that costs...

VandyZ

iTrader: (2)

For the additional kit price of $200, there is nothing that can touch that 28-135 IS USM. When i got my 40D, the only place that had the kits were the retail electronic stores (Best Buy and Circuit City). I really didnt want to pay sales tax here (about $150) and I had other lenses so i just got the body online with no shipping or tax and had a discount coupon. If ever offered the lens for $200, I will buy it.

gr?

To be honest, the 28 135 is overpriced for what you get as far as image quality. It's a versatile lens but it's fairly soft, especially around the edges. Center sharpness isn't anything to write home about. It's also quite slow at the longer focal length (f/5.6 iirc). For the same price, if you're willing to sacrifice some reach, the Tamron 17 50 2.8 for Canon 17 40 4.0L are faster and much sharper than the 28 135.

DMK

iTrader: (6)

Isn't it a good kit zoom lens though?

breakyoselfvq35

iTrader: (5)

well, one of the lenses that i already have is a 75-300 canon, but its a piece. i much rather prefer clarity to distance. thanks for the recomendation.

A lot of people use that lense. Is that the lense you would recommend as a direct replacement, making it the only (other lenses kindof blow) lense for a while? I want to do a lot of action shooting, but do not consider zoom as important. AF speed and clarity are my two most important features.

james840a

iTrader: (7)

For the extra $200, id get the kit. Its good to have an extra len in the bag