Should a save some $$ and get another lens, or get the 40D. I shoot primarily indoors sports (gymnastics) high iso low light. Thanks

If you're switching, you should know exactly why you want to switch. Do some research first. Find out what your needs are and do some research as to the lenses you want and the camera bodies which best fit your requirements.

The 40D does have better high iso capabilities and a faster burst rate. If you intend on spending a few thousand dollars switching, at least spend some time to google around and learn the basics...

What cameras and lenses do you have now? What's your budget? Do you plan on selling your old gear? How do you feel your current gear lineup limits you? If anyone's going to be able to offer you any suitable advice, we'll need a bit more information.

Since you are just switching to Canon, which lenses do you have right now? Are you or do you plan on using 2.8 or better glass for your shooting style? ISO is the same in values between the 30 & 40D, so you don't gain more exposure values in the higher ISO range, but you might gain better image quality in the higher range due to Digic III sensor.

I would recommend saving the $$$, and go for a 30D. I just upgraded to a 30 from the 20, and I have already found that feature wise, the 30D does excellent for me, in various situations, including low light sports.

More information of what you are looking for whether it be information or budget to spend, might be of more assistance to those you seek information from.

Regards

For indoor low-light work the 40D AF should be noticeably better - nine two-dimensional sensors instead of mostly linear, and more sensitive to low light. I wasn't happy with mine and it is with Canon Service now, but most people seem to think it is superior to the 30D and on paper it certainly is.

The viewfinder is a little bigger. There is live view (most useful when used with a tripod or an image stabilised lens). The LCD is bigger but has no extra pixels. You get an extra 2Mpx (25%) on the image sensor - not greatly significant but it won't hurt.

As with all modern DSLR systems the camera is as important as the lenses because you are relying on AF and the image sensor to get your images right. You don't want to be extravagant with the camera at the expense of the lenses but the 40D is not extravagant.

Get hold of and read the Canon 40D White Paper. It has good info in it.

- Alan

Why switch from Nikon? Just curious

What are you shooting with now?

For indoor gymnastics you really need a 1-series for it's low light focus ability.

Michael

And the new Nikon D300 isn't going to deliver what you need? Changing systems is pretty hefty, so you'd better make sure you know there are no alternatives.

Currently I have a D50 and 85.mm 1.4D. I plan on getting the Canon 85mm 1.8, I also have a 70-200 kit lens that I do not use.

I have tried out the D80, and am not satisfied with the noise I get at high iso's. I am selling my project car (68 Camaro) and will have some money to spend on the swith...then I am going to sell my Nikon stuff and get an 70-200 2.8. What other lens do you suggest? Is a 50mm is too close to the 85

My research has been between the D200 and the 40D. I have not looked into the 30D so thats why I asked, wasnt sure what the big difference was besides 2Megapixels. The D300 isn't out and no one knows if or how much better then the D200 it will be.

For indoor sports the 135 f/2.0L is one of Canon's best, sharpest, low light lenses. It focuses super fast too. Maybe that FL is too long for you though. You can add a 1.4X teleconverter to make a nice 189mm f/2.8 lens.

i would not be so fast to jump ship just yet. with november just around the corner the new nikon models are looking faily interesting. the D300 might put a crimp in some other companies attitude.

Edited by sjms on Oct 08, 2007 at 07:53 AM GMT

The D200 has a CCD sensor, the D300 has a CMOS sensor. The D300 will have a much better high ISO performance, which shows from the D300 sample shots Nikon has provided.

So, don't just extrapolate the D200 into the D300 and discard it.

A good question, however, is if the D300 will have better high ISO performance than the D2X which has a similar 12 megapixel CMOS sensor and pretty poor high ISO. We'll see how good the D300 actually is when it comes out. I expect it to be somewhat better than the D2X, but still think that high ISO will be the Achilles heel of what otherwise looks like a great all around camera.

the operative word is similar or is it? being a cmos imager by name only puts it in a class. as was said above don't extrapolate it from a previous type. we'll see in about a week and a half at Photo+

the only thing i truely fear from nikon is the notorious (s) designation. as in D2Xs. oh we tweaked it up a notch 6 months later (s)

At a guess, an educated guess that is, expect a about full stop improvement over the D2X...

I estimate that the Sony CMOS high ISO performance close to that of the 40D, based on the fact that it may not yet be as effective as Canon is at keeping the noise low.

My guess isn't that much different. I am guessing that it will be more like a half stop improvement over the D2X and that the 40D will be noticeably better. I think that cramming 12 megapixels on an APS-C sensor was the one mistake that Nikon made with this camera and I will be surprised if the 12 megapixel D300 can equal the high ISO performance of the 10 megapixel 40D. All this if of course just speculation at this point. We will know a lot more in a month or two. For the OP, I would advice that he wait to see how it shakes out, but if high ISO is critical for his type of shooting then I suspect he might be better off with the 40D.

The D300 is definitely an interesting camera, however. It looks like it has much better autofocus on paper--but we all know how that doesn't always pan out--and if it does match the 40D in high ISO and if the autofocus works well, then it is should be easily worth the extra $500. We just don't know about those ifs yet.

If you do switch, the 40D with its AF improvements and its Live View feature is the best xxD camera yet. I've rigorously shot 10D, 20D, 30D, and now the 40D. If you shoot anything that moves, the AF is worth it. If you shoot statics, the Live View is worth it. If you can budget for it, get the 40D. I'm going to shoot my 30D riding as secondary for one or two more serious shoots, then most likely I'll get a second 40D to replace it in that role. I just want to be absolutely certain there isn't some image quality benefit to the 30D before I put it out to pasture.

Edited by chetcarson on Oct 08, 2007 at 07:19 AM GMT

I would stick with Nikon, switching costs lots of $$$, wait for the 300 comes out then make your decision.