Canon 40D!!!!

[Everythingisnt]

At twice or more the cost. A 40D body costs around $936.00 until mid July. For a more water tight Canon with a now famous IQ, one would pay $1,800 for a body, twice as much as a 40D.

Well I don't want to burst anyone's bubbles here but the weatherproofing on the 40d is nothing short of useless. Where the d300 has several layers of rubberized strips and anti-dust coating, the d40 seems to usually only have a few strips of foam/rubber. For what I do (Once again, this argument is just based on my needs, I'm not trying to slander the 40d or anything), I would cringe at the thought of using a 40d.

Also the d300 is much more accessible for gps devices and includes waterproof flash sync/pc control ports (which the 40d does not).

So for me, these features are more then worth the price. I would hate being on assignment and having my equipment crapping out on me.. (Especially as I am still building my reputation as a photographer..)

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well I don't want to burst anyone's bubbles here but the weatherproofing on the 40d is nothing short of useless. Where the d300 has several layers of rubberized strips and anti-dust coating, the d40 seems to usually only have a few strips of foam/rubber. For what I do (Once again, this argument is just based on my needs, I'm not trying to slander the 40d or anything), I would cringe at the thought of using a 40d.

Also the d300 is much more accessible for gps devices and includes waterproof flash sync/pc control ports (which the 40d does not).

So for me, these features are more then worth the price. I would hate being on assignment and having my equipment crapping out on me.. (Especially as I am still building my reputation as a photographer..)

Well, no bubble busted here, but the least a twice as expensive camera should have is better water resistance. By the way, I doubt that the 300D is water-proof. Try this test: place the D300 in a bucket full of water. Well, it will probably take twice as long (or more) as the 40D to fill with water, but that's it. Nobody here is arguing that the D300 is a more professional camera than the 40D, because it is. That's why you have to pay twice as much for it, and the same reason why I would have to pay twice as much for a Canon 5D over the 40D.

The original poster is happy with his 40D, and that's all that should matter to all of us.

 

[tttexxan]

I hate to say this but ISO of 3200 on the 40D is going to be messy with loss of detail....You can go up to ISO 6400 on the D300 but gets messy also...The price is great dont get me wrong but the feature set is important to people....
The 40D is a great camera but you better get fast fast primes and not push the ISO past 1600...
ISO should be important to you if you shoot anything above 800....
Sorry to say but Nikon past Canon up on the higher ISO at the moment....Canon might kick back but to keep up with the D300 and the Ausome D3 they are going to have to

Noise is important to me, I shoot drag races and once the sun goes down, it's ISO 3200 or I don't get the shot. As much as I'd prefer the lesser noise of 800 or 1600, I just can't get a fast enough shutter to get anything worth keeping. And this is using either my 135 F2L or 50 1.8... so I'm plenty fast on the Aperture.

I'm using a 20D right now and plan to upgrade to the 40D in a few weeks... and I'm very excited! And yes, the 40D can do ISO 3200, you just need to enable it in the Custom Functions menu.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I hate to say this but ISO of 3200 on the 40D is going to be messy with loss of detail....You can go up to ISO 6400 on the D300 but gets messy also...The price is great dont get me wrong but the feature set is important to people....
The 40D is a great camera but you better get fast fast primes and not push the ISO past 1600...
ISO should be important to you if you shoot anything above 800....
Sorry to say but Nikon past Canon up on the higher ISO at the moment....Canon might kick back but to keep up with the D300 and the Ausome D3 they are going to have to

Good points about Canon and Nikon. These two companies compete heavily, and will continue outdoing each other from year to year.

Keep in mind that the 40D should be compared to a Nikon D80 to be fair about it. The D300 is closer, except for sensor size, to the Canon 5D (maybe 6D in the future?) not to the 40D. I don't know the details about the 6D. Since the 5D continues selling well, it's possible that Canon won't introduce a 6D for a while. Canon upgrades entry level cameras up to and including the 40D within approximately 18 months. The 5D is three years old now, and still fetching over $1,800 after the $300.00 rebate. The 40D is a hot seller at the moment, because it's easier on the pocket for around $900.00, instead of twice as much for a 5D.

 

[Triplenickle]

Congrats! I own both the 40D and the XSi and love them both. The two bodies came in handy during my Yellowstone /Grand Teton trip last week.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Congrats! I own both the 40D and the XSi and love them both. The two bodies came in handy during my Yellowstone /Grand Teton trip last week.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages

Wow! You do have some outstanding images at your page.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Good points about Canon and Nikon. These two companies compete heavily, and will continue outdoing each other from year to year.

Keep in mind that the 40D should be compared to a Nikon D80 to be fair about it. The D300 is closer, except for sensor size, to the Canon 5D (maybe 6D in the future?) not to the 40D. I don't know the details about the 6D. Since the 5D continues selling well, it's possible that Canon won't introduce a 6D for a while. Canon upgrades entry level cameras up to and including the 40D within approximately 18 months. The 5D is three years old now, and still fetching over $1,800 after the $300.00 rebate. The 40D is a hot seller at the moment, because it's easier on the pocket for around $900.00, instead of twice as much for a 5D.

No, the 40d should not be compared to the D80. The 40d is compared favorably to the D200, the d80's older brother. The d200 was compared to the 5d in its heyday but at that point (and still now) nothing can be compared to the unique 5d.

The 40d will probably be compared to the d90 whenever its released, if its feature set matches it. As far as I'm concerned, the d300 is the 40d's closest competitor.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

No, the 40d should not be compared to the D80. The 40d is compared favorably to the D200, the d80's older brother. The d200 was compared to the 5d in its heyday but at that point (and still now) nothing can be compared to the unique 5d.

The 40d will probably be compared to the d90 whenever its released, if its feature set matches it. As far as I'm concerned, the d300 is the 40d's closest competitor.

Good points. You are correct. I completely forgot about the D200.

The 5D is indeed a fabulous camera. That's the one I was thinking of, but decided to go with the 40D because of the lenses I already have for the XT I was using. My wife has the XT now.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Good points. You are correct. I completely forgot about the D200.

The 5D is indeed a fabulous camera. That's the one I was thinking of, but decided to go with the 40D because of the lenses I already have for the XT I was using. My wife has the XT now.

I'm going to spend some quality time in the camera store tomorrow and see what catches my fancy. I just need something new...
I would greatly prefer that it be the 40d though because then I can keep the fantastic L lenses and its $600 or so less.

 

[Triplenickle]

Wow! You do have some outstanding images at your page.

Thanks!

 

[tttexxan]

Well one thing your all are forgeting about the 5D ummmm only 3 frames per second and it started selling around 2800....So for sports this is no way...This is more a wedding photographer..The D300 is more for everything...D40 is a close comparison but Nikon has alot of other bodies that come close to that....D80 D70 and such...

 

[Everythingisnt]

Yes but the 5D is a completely different camera then the D300.. Not only is it about 3 years old but it includes a full frame sensor, which makes it much more of a studio/landscape camera then anything else. I am sure that the 5DmkII will come closer to the D300 in terms of weather sealing and feature set, but as for now it's really impossible to compare the two..

As for the 40D, I would say that it's closest match is the Nikon D200 (and it surpasses the D200 in many aspects). I'm sure that the D90 will close the gap between the D300 and 40D.

 

[tttexxan]

True..

Yes but the 5D is a completely different camera then the D300.. Not only is it about 3 years old but it includes a full frame sensor, which makes it much more of a studio/landscape camera then anything else. I am sure that the 5DmkII will come closer to the D300 in terms of weather sealing and feature set, but as for now it's really impossible to compare the two..

As for the 40D, I would say that it's closest match is the Nikon D200 (and it surpasses the D200 in many aspects). I'm sure that the D90 will close the gap between the D300 and 40D.

 

[harcosparky]

Yes but the 5D is a completely different camera then the D300.. Not only is it about 3 years old but it includes a full frame sensor, which makes it much more of a studio/landscape camera then anything else. .

How does a DSLR having a full frame sensor make it of a " studio/landscape " camera?

Are you saying that for last several decades or so, all those photographers using full frame 35mm film SLR's were not using their cameras properly???

Should they have been in the studio, and not along the sidelines of sporting events?

If anything I would put a Mamyia Medium Format Digital backed camera to use in a studio, or outside doing landscape type work. Not saying a 35mm DSLR cannot do it, but the medium formats are best suited for that type of work. That's probably why you find Med Formats in studios and not around someones neck trekking through the woods. ( I know some have trekked with Medium Formats, but they are in the minority.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well one thing your all are forgeting about the 5D ummmm only 3 frames per second and it started selling around 2800....So for sports this is no way...This is more a wedding photographer..The D300 is more for everything...D40 is a close comparison but Nikon has alot of other bodies that come close to that....D80 D70 and such...

Nothing wrong with 3 fps for landscapes and portraits, which is the main reason why so many photographers use it. The IQ produced by this camera is widely known in the professional photography circle. Also, it's at least 3 years old. With Canon's instant rebate, it costs $1,800 at B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc.

As for sports, I would agree with you that it's not the fastest, but three years ago sports photographers were using Nikon and Canon cameras of the same speed.----

About the D40, regardless of how we want to see it, it's still an entry-level camera, just one step above the XT-series, and just below Canon's professional cameras. Would you consider a D300 an entry level camera? If so, then i would agree with you that the 40D is comparable to it. The primary reason why the 40D is "somewhat" compared to the D300 is because both use cropped sensors, and also because the 40D kicks on the hills of the D300. Still, the D300 leans heavily toward professional photography, while the 40D is not nearly as much.

And yes, the 5D is well known for being one of the best around relating to IQ, sharp focus, and color rendition. It's perfectly suited for wildlife photography (even at it's 3 fps speed), landscapes/cityscapes, and for portraiture work. But it's a heavy camera. Much like the D300, it's water resistant.

 

[Everythingisnt]

How does a DSLR having a full frame sensor make it of a " studio/landscape " camera?

Are you saying that for last several decades or so, all those photographers using full frame 35mm film SLR's were not using their cameras properly???

Should they have been in the studio, and not along the sidelines of sporting events?

If anything I would put a Mamyia Medium Format Digital backed camera to use in a studio, or outside doing landscape type work. Not saying a 35mm DSLR cannot do it, but the medium formats are best suited for that type of work. That's probably why you find Med Formats in studios and not around someones neck trekking through the woods. ( I know some have trekked with Medium Formats, but they are in the minority.

Wow, way to build a big fat straw man there buddy..


Notice I was comparing digital full frame to digital crop sensor.. Nothing else.

 

[tttexxan]

I see where people can say nothing wrong with the 5D in other venues, but for sports 3 frames per second is not going to get you the shot...Sure it might get one or two but your buddy with the D300 just grabed 9 frames and the D3 just grab 12 frames per second. This makes their keeper ratio 10 fold...

However I think the 5D is a great camera and has tremendous color and skin tones. Its been Canons big gun for long time but is soon to be replaced. I have a feeling the 40D is going to be replaced also. I have the inside scoop but cannot give that away just yet. Exciting times though for both camps...

For the ops sake though the 40D is a great price and you will get some fantastic images. Buy some L glass for it for sure!! the 70-200 IS is a great lens. I use the 70-200VR on my D300 90% of the time...SHARP SHARP

The other big thing to consider with Nikon vs Canon is the flash systems...If you are concerned with flashes and such Nikon hands them beat hands down...Even the Canon die hards will admit..

I still want a D3 oh please oh plaease

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I see where people can say nothing wrong with the 5D in other venues, but for sports 3 frames per second is not going to get you the shot...Sure it might get one or two but your buddy with the D300 just grabed 9 frames and the D3 just grab 12 frames per second. This makes their keeper ratio 10 fold...

However I think the 5D is a great camera and has tremendous color and skin tones. Its been Canons big gun for long time but is soon to be replaced. I have a feeling the 40D is going to be replaced also. I have the inside scoop but cannot give that away just yet. Exciting times though for both camps...

For the ops sake though the 40D is a great price and you will get some fantastic images. Buy some L glass for it for sure!! the 70-200 IS is a great lens. I use the 70-200VR on my D300 90% of the time...SHARP SHARP

The other big thing to consider with Nikon vs Canon is the flash systems...If you are concerned with flashes and such Nikon hands them beat hands down...Even the Canon die hards will admit..

I still want a D3 oh please oh plaease

The answer to your statement is easy: what did photographers use before 5 or 6 or 7 fps were available? How come professional photographers did just fine without the high speed? What you are failing to see is that while you may need all the speed possible for your photographic style, another person may be different all together. If you are into sports photography, then speed is good for you, but if another person is into portraiture, cityscapes, landscapes, etc., the extra speed does not even crosses his or her mind. How did you do before the D300, or even the D3? The 50D will replace the 40D within 20 months. Canon upgrades all its entry-level cameras every 18 months or so.

Superior flash? I believe that you are reading too much into the advertisements or comments from others. The average person seldom uses a flash other than the built-in one. I take lots of photos outdoors, I haven't had the need to use a flash so far, except of a couple of times indoors. Studio photographers use lighting systems, slaved flashes, etc. In other words most folks are not concerned with the superiority of one flash system over another. If that was the case, it would be a major selling point.

To each its own. You desire a D3 now, but someone else may desire a D40. Some folks want the newest, or the biggest, or the baddest, but that does not mean that they will be able to create better photos. For example, some very poor photographers (i would call them artists), produce impressive images with what is considered obsolete cameras, or whatever camera is at hand at the moment. To snap a photo is the easy part; to create a photo that tells a story is the difficult part.

 

[tttexxan]

That is what I have been trying to say!! For me an all around camera that can do it all is better. The D300 at 1800 can out perform the 40D and the 5D at this current stage in the game...That is for the all around camera...Speed, focusing levels, higher ISO and overall build and IQ. Thats just to name a few....51 focus points yada yada yada

The question is not how we got along in the old days but how we are going to get along and keep up today. The playing field is not the same...Its like saying why not use an old typewriter instead of a computer...It can get a letter done but not quite the same way.

You will see Canon trying to match the ISO and speed of the Nikons very soon.

Prior to 8fps photographers missed a lot of shots they wished they had!! Now they can almost capture the full entire play. Amazing.

To sum up the D40 and the 5D are great portraiture, cityscapes, and landscapes. D40 would be better for sports if important to you. D300 better for everything.

The answer to your statement is easy: what did photographers use before 5 or 6 or 7 fps was available? How come professional photographers did just fine without the high speed? What you are failing to see is that while you may need all the speed possible for your photographic style, another person may be different all together. If you are into sports photography, then speed is good for you, but if another person is into portraiture, cityscapes, landscapes the extra speed does not even crosses his or her mind. How did you do before the D300, or even the D3?

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I believe that you are all tied-up into "equipment." Photographers of the past created masterpieces that to this day can't be duplicated. They achieved such with what most of us consider "obsolete" cameras, and so the typewriters or pens used to created masterpieces in the written form. Nowadays our pockets are the limit, but don't believe for a moment that some person who is starving and no money to buy a modern camera can't do a better job than you and I can with their little point and shoot. There are people all over the world using "antiquated" equipment, and they are doing just fine. Not only that, but creating more meaningful photos than a lot of us can or ever will.

 

[harcosparky]

I believe that you are all tied-up into "equipment." Photographers of the past created masterpieces that to this day can't be duplicated. They achieved such with what most of us consider "obsolete" cameras, and so the typewriters or pens used to created masterpieces in the written form. Nowadays our pockets are the limit, but don't believe for a moment that some person who is starving and no money to buy a modern camera can't do a better job than you and I can with their little point and shoot. There are people all over the world using "antiquated" equipment, and they are doing just fine. Not only that, but creating more meaningful photos than a lot of us can or ever will.

I think you are on to something.

Decades ago, it was all done " in the camera ". Though some dodging and burning was done in the darkroom.

Funny thing is, the experienced guy on the sideline with his 5 fps camera will get the shot, most of the time. The guy in the stands with his 50 fps camera won't get as many. The experience sports photog knows where to position himself to get his shots. The guy with the 50 fps camera, we'll he'll get lucky, maybe.

People today are all about " how much camera can I buy ".

I can't blame them directly, they are just falling victim to all the hype in advertising.

It just seems that, in many areas, people are all about " look at how much I can spend !!! "

I am an Amateur Radio operator, and it is the same there. Guys are buying $10,000 HF Radios, and they are talking to the same people that guys with $500.00 radios are talking to. Go figure!

I have the 5D and 40D, but you know what ... if it is something that is important to me, I get out the old Canon F1, or EOS-1 and put it on film. But that's just me.

 

[tttexxan]

You guys are right its all about the photographer....Point and shoots are stretching it a bit ) but I understand the meaning....However it sure does make it nice having nice equipment doesn't it. Makes my photo jobs a lot easier and thats what counts these days....

In fact I have said it before...Doesn't really matter how good the photographer or the capture------------I can make it all look better in Photoshop anyway )


(my Bro just spent over 5000 on wedding photographer. We saw the proofs and the Bride was very very very very upset. Color was off, composition on several were horrible and lighting sucked. I informed sister in law that its not what you see here but what will come in the final product. I was right!!) In fact the photographer was using a 5d. Most of all the pics were flat and lifeless with horrible color. Many were also very soft. This means nothing....Her post work is hired out and for good reason....Her photographs now look top notch and the bride couldn't be happier...

 

[harcosparky]

(my Bro just spent over 5000 on wedding photographer. We saw the proofs and the Bride was very very very very upset. Color was off, composition on several were horrible and lighting sucked. I informed sister in law that its not what you see here but what will come in the final product. I was right!!) In fact the photographer was using a 5d. Most of all the pics were flat and lifeless with horrible color. Many were also very soft. This means nothing....Her post work is hired out and for good reason....Her photographs now look top notch and the bride couldn't be happier...

I really never thought proofs were supposed to be anything more than a representation of the pose. There was a time when I sent out proofs that were as good as a finished project, and they never came back. Of course they come back now, with orders. Having the words " PROOF ONLY " across the front of them makes sure of that.

I work with a wedding photographer from time to time, he always sends out 'flat' proofs and he lets the client know they are for pose selection only. He doesn't hire out post work though, he has a staff of 4-6 people who do it all in house.

He sends out proofs printed on what he calls " proof stock ", it's cheap paper. I've seen him do the same print on two different papers, and they looked like two different shots.

He does weddings with at least 3 cameras, one medium format DSLR and two Canon DSLR's. He uses an EOD 1DS MkIII, and his 'assistant' carries around the 5D. He is the reason I bought the 5D. I use my 5D when I work with him.

Bottom line - The OP opted for the 40D. Are there cameras better than that? I am sure there are. If you give a good photographer the 40D, and an amateur the best Nikon DSLR money can buy I am confident the 40D will produce the higher percentage of high quality images, out of the camera before any post processing.