p.3 #3 · 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.
The problem with this review, Ben, is that it is fundamentally unfair in the way the D300 has been compared to the 40D.
In the high ISO jpeg test, the 40D's in camera NR is off. That really means "off".
But you cannot fully disable in camera NR on high ISO jpegs from the D300. You just can't.
So - in reality - the noise comparison is between NR'd D300 shots and 40D images that have had no NR whatsoever.
In what possible way is that a fair comparison?
The fact that the 40D shots are so close in noise and IQ terms to the NR'd D300 shots is actually a massive credit to the 40D, yet this point is completely ignored by the review.
p.3 #5 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
I shot with an event photog's D300 during a gymnastics meet and then compared it to the 40D during the same meet. Since I had sold the 1DmkIII bodies already, I couldn't compare them to that. The results, in MY hands, were conflicting. The D300 looks excellent on paper and is built as well as it looks but the image quality is not as good as expected.
Nikon smudges the detail at 1600iso and up even with noise reduction "off". The 40D, despite the very slight resolution difference, pulled more detail at high iso settings. The AF of the D300 didn't seem any faster than the 40D AF and even seemed to be worse than the 40D under the fluorescent lights.
The images I took at that gymnastics event are strictly controlled by contract so I cannot show them; hopefully I'll have an opportunity for a controlled comparison later in the spring sports season since a news photog friend of mine recently picked up a D300 to replace a D2h.
p.3 #6 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
foghorn wrote:
It is exactly what it should have been. More features=more money.
At the end of the day, the 40D and the D300 have (very) comparable image quality. The D300 has more feature but costs more. Fair enough.
Now let's consider this: other things being equal, the D300 has a pro AF + weather sealing for $650 more over the 40D (B&H prices).
Considering that the 5D costs $2,200, what do you guys think would be a fair price for a 5D type of camera with pro AF + weather sealing?
p.3 #7 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
without even getting into the DPR review (which i thought was very good btw), i would just like to say that quite a few Canon shooters are starting to act like the Nikon shooters of a few years ago. ever since nikon released the D300 and D3, all i see on Canon forums are lines like "but....but....but... we have more details at ISO 2467327497" or "but....but.....but.... our cameras start at ISO 100" (which is just like the old "my amp goes up to 11")
i am a canon shooter and i have no problem giving Nikon the credit it deserves. it created 2 fantastic new cameras that are worth every cent. in my opinion as a person that owned a 40D, the D300 is the better camera no doubt about it. that doesn't mean that the 40D sucks or that Canon all of a sudden sucks, it just means that the D300 is a great camera.
p.3 #8 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
blonde wrote:...i am a canon shooter and i have no problem giving Nikon the credit it deserves. it created 2 fantastic new cameras that are worth every cent. in my opinion as a person that owned a 40D, the D300 is the better camera no doubt about it. that doesn't mean that the 40D sucks or that Canon all of a sudden sucks, it just means that the D300 is a great camera.
Exactly! I shoot both and as much as I'm liking the D300, it doesn't do to well with my 300 f2.8 IS
....for that gorgeous glass the 40D kicks butt.
Edited by trenchmonkey on Mar 13, 2008 at 07:04 PM GMT
p.3 #9 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
jamesf99 wrote:
Tim,
My post was not a rant and is pretty mild. I save my RANTS for Canon.
Hmm, I guess I did imply that your comments were a rant - not my intention. The ensuing posts have begun to take on a much sharper tone, although not quite rants.
As for what a 40d "should" have been, I guess what I meant is that if the d300 had a canon logo on it I would have ordered one the first day they came out. It has exactly the combination of features I was looking for, but instead I bought a used 1dmk2. The guy I bought it from went NIkon, IIRC
p.3 #10 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
timbop wrote:
Hmm, I guess I did imply that your comments were a rant - not my intention. The ensuing posts have begun to take on a much sharper tone, although not quite rants.
As for what a 40d "should" have been, I guess what I meant is that if the d300 had a canon logo on it I would have ordered one the first day they came out. It has exactly the combination of features I was looking for, but instead I bought a used 1dmk2. The guy I bought it from went NIkon, IIRC
Yes, I am sure most ( if not all ) the people who find fault with the D300 would have done the same if the camera had a Canon logo on it.
p.3 #11 · Interesting D300 review v. 40D comparison?
Jeff wrote:
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.
yeah its because he's a "canon guy" , sheesh everytime a review comes from Phil that is kind to Canon the nikon guys get miffed a bit and the converse is also true
good thing it really doesn't matter what he says as far as i am concerned
p.3 #12 · 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.
p.3 #13 · 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 toward the better product. Isn't that the point of a review?...Show more →
but he has been sticking in comments, like roughly: sadly, as much as we hoped, the sensor on the latest canon doesn't fail, maybe one day....
yeah, he's joking, but you can tell it also has a little bit of a bitter reality under it all too.
and his noise tests, i mean look at the charts on some, on some the line takes a dip at higher ISO, how can you not mention NR then??
Plus, I love how he talks about how free the nikon images are from chroma noise, well, duh, the nikon has it turned on by default, forced on, the canon you can toggle it and he never toggled it on, when on, the 40D actually handles chroma noise a little bit better thant the D300! Although granted, on the 40D, it greatly reduces the buffer size, but to be fair, mention BOTH.
not saying that nikon didn't put lots of good things into the D300, but Phil did pick up at least a little bit of an anti-canon bias.
