Chris Langer wrote:
Just to throw some more questions into this thread... Is the D40X as good as a performer as the D40?
Thoughts?
I am impressed every day by the performance of my D40x. But to be honest, until now, I haven't tried to track any moving subjects... IQ with my 105VR and 70-200VR is very impressive. I really consider that camera as my low cost consumer grade mini-D200
dinoadventures wrote:
All of them are grey market. Specifically, it's Japan market only.
Well, since I'm out of warranty on mine and my friend's... I'll have to get service at a service place that has no problem servicing grey market stuff. Luckily I have one of those places a few miles from me that gives better turn-around time than Canon USA.
well, you wont get the colours and picture quality out of the box from the d300 that you get with your d40 if it's anything like the d200. the settings on the d200 need to be tweaked to your liking. my friend has one and it's a very cool camera.
Colors are typical over saturated consumer colors but they look nice.
Don't blame the camera. I boosted things a bit in Lightroom to the way I like them. They started as much less saturated JPGs and I always boost the "vibrance."
As for your keeper rate with the 40D and 70-200s seems to be some operator error there.
Yeah, sure. Funny how the operator error disappeared the minute I picked up a Nikon camera.
The AF is much faster than the D40 and an AF-S lens. Colors too- I get pretty much any color "look" I want.
The AF isn't faster on the 40D and I know because I owned one. Besides, faster is one thing and more accurate is another. Even if it were faster, it certainly wasn't more accurate. Too many in my recycle bin.
If you want to see some "eyes" and other quality sports shots, check out the sports forum, nearly all Canon, lots of 1Ds and plenty of xxDs as well.
Go to DPReview and search the Canon forums for BryanP. Amazing sports shots from his 30D and now 40D.
I've seen them. Been a member over there for about 8 years now. I've gotten some pretty good ones myself. Just took a lot of practice and luck. Not so much work with my one week owning a Nikon, and I like the exposure and focus SO MUCH more.
Here's the full-sized crops. Keep in mind that they're somewhat compressed, and have had some sharpening applied in Lightroom (which I'm still getting to know). They were also taken at ISO 800 which I did on purpose to test the quality at higher ISOs that I regularly use...
Here are the same crops on the original JPGs straight from the camera, with no saturation added or sharpening. The D40 was on the default color and sharpening settings... haven't messed with that stuff yet.
I got equally sharp shots with my Canon equipment (less often, though). The problem was that there wasn't enough detail.
For example, on the Nikon shots, even at ISO 800, I'm seeing every mark on the arms (cuts, bruises, etc.), but on the Canon I see just the skin with no detail and horrible blown highlights everywhere with no detail at all. Always got that. I'll try to find a 100% crop of a comparable Canon shot to show you what I mean.
