p.1 #1 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
DPR has done a "review" on the D300 and comparing it to the other "competitive" cameras. Apparently price was the selector so it compares mid range cameras and the "competitive" cameras are all less expensive. The 40d is the least expensive of the group..
I'm saying "review" in quotes because after a quick reading it appears so heavily biased it's troubling (Phil Askey is a Nikon guy who hates Canon because they stiffed him by not providing him with a camera back when they were starting to crack down on leaked info, so it's been open warfare since). I don't put much faith in anything the guy says or does (at least not for the last few years), but apparently he loves the D300 so much that he had trouble coming up with some "cons", which anyone should realize instantly is BS, but that's Phil for you. You can read that yourself in his "conclusion" which is a sham.
The real thing I'd like to know is what others think of the picture comparison. I look at the D300, compared to the other cameras in the field and see the typical Nikon smudging going on.
Note: This is not sour grapes on my part; I don't own a 40d, have never shot one, have no plans to buy one, and have taken Canon to task regularly here, but the detail looks far better to me in the shots he provided. All the 40d images look clearer with better detail. I'm not talking about noise here (N.B. remember when Nikon couldn't produce a clear shot at ISO 800 to save its life, and to Phil noise was never a big problem, but now... well, you get the irony...) I'm talking about sharpness, detail, contrast, etc. The 40d looks like the best of the lot and Phil is wetting his pants over the D300. It's a little unseemly.
Other facts are simply over looked in favor of the D300. Facts such as not being able to shoot 14bit files at full speed. Is that not important? Tests are done at 12bits because it can't keep up and it might prove disadvantageous to the D300 otherwise. The DR section appears slanted as well.....
I think it's great that Nikon built a decent camera with some excellent features (albeit for 50% higher cost than the 40d), but this appears so biased it's not funny. I had hoped for better but I guess Phil is too angry to say anything rational anymore.
I'm interested in your comments once you've reviewed the images and his biased "review". Tell me what I'm missing here....
Edited by jamesf99 on Mar 12, 2008 at 07:59 PM GMT
p.1 #2 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
I had just finished reading it and was waiting for the "the Nikon exhibits less noise at ISO 800 and above over the 40D, but at the cost of detail" line and it never came. Yes, the D300 has less noise at high ISOs, but it's losing a fair amount of detail to get that low noise.
Overall, the D300 looks to be a fantastic camera, but I did notice a few of the things that I would have at least pointed out were pretty much glossed over.
p.1 #3 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
It's ironic that he essentially ignored his opportunity to really pan Canon on the 1D MkIII, even after it was publicly available. To this day, he still has not released a full-blown review.
p.1 #4 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
I gave up reading that review when I took a look at the list of specs of the D300 compared to the 40D and Sony model... no mention of the different frame rate for 12-bit and 14-bit files (just gives the highest D300 frame rate (which is for 12-bit only), and he said the 40D did not have any dynamic range enhancing feature. Except it does. Two glaring inaccuracies that turned me instantly off the review.
I do think the D300 is a good camera and its high-ISO performance is pretty good (particularly the lack of chroma noise, as Phil's tests showed). The 40D arguably retains a bit more detail at 1600 and 3200 but I doubt it's noticeable in real-world situations.
p.1 #5 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
jamesf99 wrote:
...... but apparently he loves the D300 so much that he had trouble coming up with some "cons", which anyone should realize instantly is BS,....
I think the first "con" I see is the missing detail from ISO 800 on up. Yes, the 40D gives up some also, but not nearly as much to my eyes. The D300 is an improvement over the D200 in this area, but I think that there's still work to be done if it can be done.
I like Phil's tests, even though his text doesn't always say what the evidence shows. I appreciate that he actually shows the evidence. There are a number of photography magazines that tend to hide all that information.
p.1 #7 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Too often Nikon guys like biased reviews that support their cameras; and, Canon guys like biased reviews that support their cameras. As if we are looking for reviews that support our opinions or equipment.
Unless you are buying a new camera, is there any value in any of these reviews? The Canon forum seems obsessed with Nikon reviews, pro or con--especially those that compare Nikon to Canon.
p.1 #8 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
I shoot both the 40D and the D300 and hold them in high esteem. Lens selection is KEY,
the trick is finding what lenses work well with what body combinations. Each brand brings
a different "look" to the table. The smart shooter will find the best of both worlds and tailor
the tools to the shoot. 'monkey be workin' on just that.
p.1 #9 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
It looked like a good review to me. I fail to see why tempers flair, and fingers are pointed when a camera gets a good review. Somehow Phil loves Nikon, and despises canon? That's ridiculous. What cameras are he suppose to compare the D300 to? I'm pretty much on the fence between Canon and Nikon. I currently own Canon gear, but I think Nikon has the advantage in many ways right now. Nikon got a lot of stuff right on the D300, and the reviews show it. This is not politics.... If any bias is being shown here, it's toward the better product. Isn't that the point of a review?
p.1 #10 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
pipspeak wrote:
I gave up reading that review when I took a look at the list of specs of the D300 compared to the 40D and Sony model... no mention of the different frame rate for 12-bit and 14-bit files (just gives the highest D300 frame rate (which is for 12-bit only), and he said the 40D did not have any dynamic range enhancing feature. Except it does.
It does? What feature does the 40D have that 'enhances' the dynamic range? I own one, but don't consider Highlight Tone Priority to increase the DR in any way, if that's what you refer to. Trade one end for the other, take your pick, but you don't get any extended latitude from the sensor.
If only Canon made a D300-like camera, perhaps the review would seem more 'fair' to some...
p.1 #11 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Actually many Nikonians liked (my own impression based on my readings) Thom Hogan's review of the D300 even though Thom was more critical compared to Phil Askey.
p.1 #12 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Agree the 40D shot shows more detail; whether that's a consequence of glass or not isn't important - the "sharper image" is evident. Is a biased interview worth ranting about? no. Would I really jump on a canon equivalent of the d300? most likely. Am I going to sell all my gear and get a d300? heck no. The d300 has only been out for a few months, and while canon wasted their time (and arguably ours) making the 40d less than it should have been I am willing to give them a chance to respond with a similar camera.
p.1 #13 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Every single review in every single magazine and website I've seen has said the D300 is the best non-professional camera bar none. So what if the D300s detail at high ISO is a bit less than the 40D, does any really think that would stop 99% of people buying one and would you see it in a print anyway?. A camera is more than it's high ISO performance and overall the D300 is a better camera than the 40D, which nonetheless puts up a good fight at least as far as IQ goes. Heck if the tables were turned and it was the 40D had the D300 specs and was slightly worse at high ISO, I would have bought the 40D the minute it was released. The D300 is so good for the money I was almost going to run a dual setup. I've decided to give the 40D a go and see how I like it. To me though I'd rather the 40D had the AF and other features of the D300 than cleaner ISO 1600 or ISO 3200.
Phil may be many things but I've found his reviews to be very good, although I haven't read this one yet.
p.1 #14 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Getting upset over a DPR review is like getting upset over the USA Today movie reviews. It is better to chuckle and move on.
That said, I do appreciate the data in the form of comparisons provided by DPR, but I learned a while ago to pretty much not pay any attention to anything written on that site by P.A. and his team or anyone else in the forums. The forums there are kind of like a lot of monkeys chasing one football.
p.1 #16 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Since I had the 40D and D300 at the same time, I disagree with Phil's ISO/DR analysis.
1) The D300 may have more (slightly) DR, but NOT at ISO 100. It's base ISO is 200. At ISO 100 it loses a stop of DR and clips skies pretty easily. The D300's shadows weren't that great either.
2) The 40D has its max DR at ISO 100 and is cleaner than D300 at ISO 100.
If you shoot ISO 100 on both cameras, the 40D will have more DR and cleaner images. To get the D300's added DR, you're at ISO 200 and it's not clean IMO. Phil and MR talk about 'essentially no noise'. BS. There's noise and the shadows are full of it along with the backgrounds in the bokeh.
I get that most people are more interested in the higher ISO's, so I'm not going to debate those. But if you're an ISO 100 shooter - the 40D is cleaner with more DR. Easy choice for landscapes and such. If sports and such is your area of interest, then I'd probably get a D300. Its AF is really, really nice.
p.1 #17 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
trenchmonkey wrote:
I shoot both the 40D and the D300 and hold them in high esteem. Lens selection is KEY,
the trick is finding what lenses work well with what body combinations. Each brand brings
a different "look" to the table. The smart shooter will find the best of both worlds and tailor
the tools to the shoot. 'monkey be workin' on just that.
Hush Mr Monkey,
speaking like that spoils their fun
Tim
p.1 #18 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Relying on a reviewers opinion is foolhardy, make your own from the VAST amount of information DPR lays at your feet. DPR is a great source of comparative info, look through it and come to your own, not some guy that made bank by selling his sou...err site to Amazon.
DPR = encyclopedia, not gospel.
p.1 #19 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
John Black wrote:
Since I had the 40D and D300 at the same time, I disagree with Phil's ISO/DR analysis.
1) The D300 may have more (slightly) DR, but NOT at ISO 100. It's base ISO is 200. At ISO 100 it loses a stop of DR and clips skies pretty easily. The D300's shadows weren't that great either.
2) The 40D has its max DR at ISO 100 and is cleaner than D300 at ISO 100.
If you shoot ISO 100 on both cameras, the 40D will have more DR and cleaner images. To get the D300's added DR, you're at ISO 200 and it's not clean IMO. Phil and MR talk about 'essentially no noise'. BS. There's noise and the shadows are full of it along with the backgrounds in the bokeh.
I get that most people are more interested in the higher ISO's, so I'm not going to debate those. But if you're an ISO 100 shooter - the 40D is cleaner with more DR. Easy choice for landscapes and such. If sports and such is your area of interest, then I'd probably get a D300. Its AF is really, really nice....Show more →
ISO 100 shooter? That sounds like Nikon shooters before the D300 and D3.
IMO, it takes pixel peepers to differentiate high-end cameras at low ISO. I doubt you can tell the difference in noise levels between a D300 @200 and 40D @100, or point out significant DR gain in a 40D. BTW, the D300 and D3 don't have true ISO 100's. But, to each his own, I prefer the D3's ISO from a faux 100 to a faux 25,800--I'm not an ISO 100 shooter though.
p.1 #20 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
timbop wrote:
Agree the 40D shot shows more detail; whether that's a consequence of glass or not isn't important - the "sharper image" is evident. Is a biased interview worth ranting about? no. Would I really jump on a canon equivalent of the d300? most likely. Am I going to sell all my gear and get a d300? heck no. The d300 has only been out for a few months, and while canon wasted their time (and arguably ours) making the 40d less than it should have been I am willing to give them a chance to respond with a similar camera.
It is exactly what it should have been. More features=more money. Let Canon make a model inbetween a 40D and 1D. If it ends up being the 5D replacement, then that's what it is.
