fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2008 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

RalphJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

jamesf99 wrote:
Phil Askey [reviewer and founder of dpreview.com] 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...Show more →

Askey had trouble coming up with "Cons" for the 40D, too; was that BS as well? (From his review of the 40D, which had 32 "Pros" and only 7 "Cons," on the difficulty of coming up with more "Cons" for the Canon: "We're always more critical of cameras such as the EOS 40D, which come with such a strong heritage, but even with that in mind it's truly difficult to find any serious issues.")

Fwiw, it seems that more than one of the 40D's 7 "Cons" doesn't apply to the D300.

When Askey gives a positive review to a Canon, Nikon fans say he's a Canon fanboy, and the reverse is of course true as well, as shown above.

Actually, there do not seem to BE a lot of cons about the D300 - feel free to add more, anybody? - as it seems to be an excellent camera at a very fair price. (I only wish it were made by the maker of my Canon lenses!) As others have noted, Thom Hogan's D300 review was very thorough and just about as positive:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm

I don't read the forums at dpreview (although they're cited often as what a forum shouldn't be) so I don't judge dpreview on that basis. But judging from the way dpreview reviews are eagerly awaited and much discussed in a way that other sites' reviews are not, dpreview reviews remain the standard of the industry.

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 04:09 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06 AM

nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

Yes James, it's your eyes. But if you want to stare at those images on screen until the cows come home, please do so.

However, JUST because it's you. And JUST because we get along so well, I'm going to point something out to you.... you know, as a D300 owner and all, that can't possibly find fault in a Nikon camera.

5th post down.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/624921

And there's a few more tiny little things I could mention. It shows me that Phil isn't exactly a photographer, who comes across things like these.

Actually, James, I'm not going to let you spread this propaganda rubbish that Phil is biased towards Nikon, just because it doesn't suit your argument.

I don't put much faith in anything the guy [Phil] says or does (at least not for the last few years),

Is this because the past couple of years Canon doesn't have that extra edge in the cameras that it may have. Or less harshly, the competition has made some excellent cameras and Canon no longer get all the kudos that Phil use to dish out (and deservedly so).

Is it Phil's fault that Canon introduced the 400D, a rather boring upgrade to the 350D. I'll quote Phil.
Thanks to its blood line and low price the EOS 400D will no doubt be a huge success for Canon. However unlike the EOS 350D, for me it's no longer the first or obvious choice, so before jumping on the bandwagon make sure you've weighed up the competition.

Short memory maybe? Here's the 30D (which I thought tweaked an already good camera).
Phil:We have to consider every camera as a whole, the sum of its parts. Compare it to the competition and it's clear that the 30D really can hold its own. The primary competition coming from Nikon's excellent D200, a camera which in many ways betters the EOS 30D, user interface, features and flexibility are all a step up. However as we have noted there's no significant difference between eight and ten megapixels (especially considering the EOS 30D's "crisper" per-pixel sharpness) and that the D200's sensor just isn't as good as the Canon CMOS at higher sensitivities (ISO 1600 / 3200).

Nobody should...Show more →

Oh man, damn that Phil, he's so biased and hates Canon.

Hang on, here's the XT/350D....

Phil:These niggles however can't detract from what a good solid photographic tool the EOS 350D is, it starts up quickly, shoots quickly, operates without hesitation and achieves its ultimate design goal, delivering great images. Canon's winning streak can be put down to some great product design and the two killer technologies which are at the heart of the all of their current digital SLR's; the unique CMOS sensors and excellent DIGIC image processing. It's going to be interesting to see how the competition respond.

Boy, I can't wait to see the for biased D3 review.

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 05:22 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 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.

Hey Monkey,

You're the best one to judge then because I'm just looking at what Phil has posted. To my eyes, there is clearly more detail in the 40d. Do you think what he posted is misleading in your impression?

I'm also curious since I've seen some of your photos have been impressedwith what I saw, what do you think of the differences as to how and when you would use either camera?

Mar 13, 2008 at 06:40 AM

trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

PM en route.

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:05 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

nikt wrote:
Yes James, it's your eyes. But if you want to stare at those images on screen until the cows come home, please do so.

However, JUST because it's you. And JUST because we get along so well, I'm going to point something out to you.... you know, as a D300 owner and all, that can't possibly find fault in a Nikon camera.

I've been expecting and counting on it.

What took you so long.

And joined by Tim too! Hi Timmy boy!

Now where's McFadden to defend Nikon's honor

It's also a well known fact that Phil IS a Nikon guy, but that's not what this is about.

Is it Phil's fault that Canon introduced the 400D, a rather boring upgrade to the 350D. I'll quote Phil.

Short memory maybe? Here's the 30D (which I thought tweaked an already good camera).
Phil:

Oh man, damn that Phil, he's so biased and hates Canon.

Hang on, here's the XT/350D....

Phil:

Boy, I can't wait to see the for biased D3 review.

Nik, you're missing the barn door (and the point) by a mile and you're only 10 feet away. The comments are about a review that I perceive as so biased it's pathetic. How many cameras are perfect? In my 30+ years of shooting, the answer would be exactly none. not one. Zip... Yet Phil thinks the D300 is perfect because he ignores deficiencies? That is the definition of bias and his review really is a form of "specious propaganda".

Is it not a con that the 14bit files can't be shot at full speed?
Am I mistaken or is there clearly more detail in the 40d shots that are right next to the D300? Can't wait for this answer.

how is the DR glossed over when the 40d provides more shadow detail yet the D300 more highlight. Is this not discussion worthy?

As a D300 owner, you may be happy and there's no reason not to be, but if you are at all serious you have to admit that Phil's "review" is over the top.

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 07:10 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:09 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

Ben Horne wrote:
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...Show more →

Well, I'll admit to my bias that I don't respect much of what PA does or says anymore, nor have I for years. I read the review with expectations that the D300 would be great, but it doesn't seem that he's even close to reasonable.

I don't own the 40d, nor plan on buying one. I've called Canon some less than kind things for their minimum upgrade behavior and Phil has credited Canon as doing something special. I didn't agree with him then either. Nikon has raised the bar and that's good. The D300 is not a perfect camera where one has trouble coming up with cons unless one ignores the truth. If you buy one, it may well be better than your current canon gear and that's great. Nikon deserves the business for what they've done and Canon deserves to lose it.

My point is that from what I see (in his images), and what I read, it's simply not as if the camera is perfect. Read it with a lack of bias yourself (and that's hard for us all) and read other comments over there, there are lots of overlooked aspects. It's as you'd expect, the Nikon guys are going "Wow" and the Canon guys are going "Huh"?

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:26 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 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.

Tim,

My post was not a rant and is pretty mild. I save my RANTS for Canon.

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:29 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
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...Show more →

Read it and you'll see, the detail is not for high ISO, it starts at ISO 200 (the D300 can't do ISO 100).

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:32 AM

gfiksel
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

The telltales of behind the curtain strong NR in D300 are very obvious in Phil's tests. Look at the noise vs ISO graphs. They all dive after ISO 400, especially the chroma noise. The chroma noise at ISO 800 (Phil's words, not mine) is actually lower than at ISO 200.

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 07:36 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:35 AM

Peyman Kaiedi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

I have both systems and have just added a D300 to my collection. I must say that I agree with majority of his comments except

"Indeed visible noise only begins to creep into the D300 shots at around ISO 1600". I can see visible noise at iso 640.

"Very good resolution and detail without looking over-processed, even up to ISO 1600". I disagree. At ISO 800 my shots look processed.

Everything else is more or less in line with my findings. However, I still get the vibe that for the first time I have read a biased review from Phil.

Well, I could be well mistaken and its only me who has issues with D300's noise characteristics. in which case I probably need to spend more time with my new toy:-)

Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

jamesf99 wrote:
Read it and you'll see, the detail is not for high ISO, it starts at ISO 200 (the D300 can't do ISO 100).

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. They are very close even at ISO 1600/3200 if you look a the RAW results. I was expecting to see the D300 produce mush the way you carried on. At low ISO the D300 has a very slight edge.

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05 AM

nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

I have answered it. I have no idea what you're looking at to suggest that the 40D is 'clearly' showing more detail. Are you comparing the in camera jpeg sharpening (even though that is the ISO noise test page)? Where Nikon has a less aggressive approach to sharpening with 'standard' settings than the Canon. Great, you win.

But let's even it up just a bit. How about shooting in RAW.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page27.asp

Where's the 'clearly' resolving more detail here?

And I didn't miss the point. If you read my post more carefully, I said that Phil does miss things. Is not being able to shot in 14bit RAW mode at 6-8fps a big deal? Well, since I struggle to see the difference it has me leaving the D300 in 12bit mode anyway.

Do I find Phil's reviews relevant. Personally, no I don't. They have some place, but people place far too much on it. Should (or could) he have included a greater list of things in the con's. Yep.... but he could of added even more in the pro's too. But he's been generous in the pro's and con's section for many cameras, in my opinion. Have a look at Thom Hogans writings. Now there's a man that doesn't hold back.

Yes, Phil had a previous spat that he didn't get cameras in advance from Canon. I felt he was looking for special treatment, and he acted like a child about. In fact, Canon resolved that problem, he now gets them a little early. I don't see his bias against Canon in the reviews ,and I think you're reading into something.

Is the review of the top? No. It's that good. Did he miss some things, yes. Is anyone going to care? YES.... oh yes!

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:10 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:06 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm not sure what you are complaining about. They are very close even at ISO 1600/3200 if you look a the RAW results. I was expecting to see the D300 produce mush the way you carried on. At low ISO the D300 has a very slight edge.

The way I carried on

PP, you're one over the top dude that but I'll semi-politely suggest you read my post again.

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12 AM

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12 AM

gbee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

No credibility whatsoever any more and for a while actually, I'm interested in the D300 but I won't read his 'review'

jamesf99 wrote:
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

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:14 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

nikt wrote:
I have answered it. I have no idea what you're looking at to suggest that the 40D is 'clearly' showing more detail. Are you comparing the in camera jpeg sharpening (even though that is the ISO noise test page)? Where Nikon has a less aggressive approach to sharpening with 'standard' settings than the Canon. Great, you win.

But let's even it up just a bit. How about shooting in RAW.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page27.asp

Where's the 'clearly' resolving more detail here?

And I didn't miss the point. If you read my post more carefully, I said that Phil does miss things. Is not being able to...Show more →

I've looked at all the images. In every case, I can see more detail in the Canon shots and I'd be glad to post them here so no one has to travel but I'm not sure I'd get away with it.

Nik, you can read all my posts and I haven't criticized the D3 (I think that is what the 1D3 should have been) but the D300 is not the D3. I expect the D3 to get, and deserve, rave reviews if they review it.

Is it (D300) good? I don't really know. Does it have lots of features? Sure. Does the IQ prove superior to a camera that costs 50% less? I'm simply not seeing it from the detail, contrast, sharpness in Phil's posts. Does this translate to real world? I don't know that either at this point and will have to judge from other reports. I'm reading the TH review now and have more faith in what he says than anything that comes from PA.

Features - Nikon by a mile
IQ - canon by a yard (or kilometers/meter for the international crowd)

One positive thing that could come out of this review is that more people will buy the camera (D300) and leave the Canon choices sitting on the shelf. In a few years, Canon will wake up and figure out that it has to improve it's products which benefits everyone, Canon and Nikon shooters alike...

Edited by jamesf99 on Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04 PM GMT (Reason: clarified... I hope..)

Edited on Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04 PM

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25 AM

Stunnaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

I've heard many good things about the D300, and given its much higher (than 40D) price it should be a better camera. However, based on Phil's test pictures, the 40D sample pictures do look much better than the D300's. Perhaps he accidentally switched the two?

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:33 AM

nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

I'm not going to go into the justifying it or pixel peeing thing. It just take nice shots.

ISO 1000.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2310124692_35601398f8_o.jpg

Mar 13, 2008 at 08:37 AM

Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

I've been spending a bit of time looking at the alternatives from both system and one thing is very clear. Canon hasn't done a very good job of making a camera in the middle range of their line-up. Before you jump all over me, pretend that we are dealing with film bodies and that the sensor doesn't come into play. No one in their right mind would take a 40D and even less, a 5D, over a D300.

Now obviously, the sensor does come into play as do price points (which is why I included the 5D). But it is equally obvious that Canon is getting clobbered on the feature set. When taken as a total package and from a general rather than a use specific purpose, I think Phil is right when he said of the D300 that, "There is simply no better semi-professional camera on the market." Canon has some catching up to do and hopefully they will. I would really like to see Canon's sensor technology going into in better camera bodies.

As an aside, I doubt seriously that the vast majority of new camera buyers study the nuances of noise reduction in JPGs as much as people around here do. That's not intended as a barb but merely to point out that for the average person that walks into a store it isn't a high priority item.

Mar 13, 2008 at 09:22 AM

mbellot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

Hrow wrote:
As an aside, I doubt seriously that the vast majority of new camera buyers study the nuances of noise reduction in JPGs as much as people around here do. That's not intended as a barb but merely to point out that for the average person that walks into a store it isn't a high priority item.

But to be totally fair Henry, the "average" person buying a DSLR these days rarely ventures beyond the kit lens it comes with, or a super zoom with equally questionable IQ properties. (Which is fine with me, I sell more pictures)

If Phil's intent is to write for the Best Buy crowd then he's probably right on target.

If he's trying to reach the serious amateur or pro (as if they give a rat's behind about his opinion) then ignoring some of the obvious shortcomings (frame rate changes based on color depth captured), and making inconsistent comparisons (ISO NR is on for one body but off for the other, and simply saying "shot with defaults") are both earmarks of a market shill.

Personally I'd like to see a review that really details the shortcomings of various bodies rather than extolling some general features. The manufacturer's are plenty good at blowing their own horns.

On topic, but off... Has Phil ever written a really "bad" review? I can't remember one...

Mar 13, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?

mbellot,

Can't disagree with you. I am not sure I have ever seen a bad review about anything, except a movie. The D300 shortcomings are certainly there. The speed drop when going to 14 bit strikes me as really strange and as a shoe horned in technology. The JPG issue doesn't bother me too much because I never shoot JPG but that's personal and I can see how it would impact others. For me, the AF system is probably the key element and there Nikon just cleans up.

My ideal review would include a lot of different categories that I doubt we'll ever see. For instance I would have:

What I loved - What I hated - This is cool - WTF were they thinking?

Mar 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end