I have Canon stuff, but if I didn't and was just starting, I'd have to look very carefully at the Nikon D300. The new issue of Popular Photography has a mini review of it, and they found its high ISO performance to be really outstanding. It also has a lot of other good features and performance; enough that they named it their camera of the year for 2007.
But as everyone points out, camera bodies are only one element in the picture (so to speak); the lens selection is possibly even more important. It's a pretty large investment to buy a whole system, so it makes sense to do lots of research before signing the line...
I have a 40D and it is a definate improvement over the 20D that I had before. Quicker and more accurate auto-focus, nicer LCD, quieter shutter release and a very good value.
TallyHo Films wrote:
I was thinking of the 5D also but there is the obvious argument of 2year old technology vs current technology. Id also like to get more into pet photography and I also have a baby on the way so my thoughts were that the 40D is a faster focuser from what i've read.
Of course i'm open to having my mind changed
I own both (5D & 40D) 5D focusing speed is almost same as 40D, especially on L prime lenses like 135L, 35L, 24L I am using.
Only one lens I feel focusing bit faster is 100mm macro (non L). But not as super faster, just some bit of additional speed.
However 40D can't beat 5D in IQ and noise level. It is noisier on high ISO. Most toys they add to 40D like live view, 3 inches lcd etc - I don't care much. Really like 6.5fps and probably 14 bit raw - that is basically all I need from 40D.
jvarszegi wrote:
About a 10% resolution difference is not huge, and it does not give extra flexibility, just a little more resolution. The image quality of the 40D is also excellent.
The OP is rightly concerned about the performance of the 5D's outer AF points. I have already suggested other work arounds, this is another one... Bottom line: the 5D has more resolution (maybe not huge, but still it offers more room to crop in comparison to a 40D file) and that doesn't take into account any cropping on 40D files (if so, the difference would be even greater).
Maybe a matter of taste, but I have not been impressed by the IQ of 40D RAW files (in comparison to 5D RAW files)...
Daan B wrote:
The OP is rightly concerned about the performance of the 5D's outer AF points. I have already suggested other work arounds, this is another one... Bottom line: the 5D has more resolution (maybe not huge, but still it offers more room to crop in comparison to a 40D file) and that doesn't take into account any cropping on 40D files (if so, the difference would be even greater).
Maybe a matter of taste, but I have not been impressed by the IQ of 40D RAW files (in comparison to 5D RAW files)...
No, the difference would be... about 10%, the resolution difference. The difference is purely in resolution.
