I'd agree with the comments on the Canon 40D. It's a perfectly good camera, but it's another Canon lukewarm upgrade that they've been getting away with for so long. Now all the other brands have come out with their bodies they really show up Canon's marketing strategy of minor upgrades. You have to do better than that in todays market to get the media interest, regardless of how solid a camera it is.
Can't agree on the E3. Olympus have great innovations and actually useful gimmicks, but they are constantly let down by their sensor. 4/3rds was promised to be smaller bodies as well, where'd that go?
You don't seem to know what you're talking about and you're making a same mistake Wesley Fink made.
D300 is not in the market to compete with 5D. It's a DX format flagship camera. 5D is a entry-level or mid-range FF camera. Where they stand in the market is just different.
Also, FF d300 a.k.a is D3 which utilizies Nikon's own sensor design.
As for the pro v. prosumer debate, the D300 is definitely in the pro league. Its basically a D3 with the bottom chopped off and a DX sensor. Add a grip, and you got an 8fps/12MP/51AF camera, which is "pro" by anyone's standards.
It does have a bit of noise in the darker areas in low isos, though. Im not sure why, but the 40D was smooth and clean. Its higher stuff is a bit better than canon, though, upwards of 1600.
If you're heavily invested into another company, then yes the price is daunting.
I bought the D80 about two months before the 300 came out. I was happy with the 80, bought a few lenses, but there was just something missing. I bought the 300 just as soon as it came out, and haven't gone back to the 80 since.
As far as trying the other brands. I tried out my buddies Sony for a couple of weeks, but my first impression when picking it up? Where is the rest of the camera? To me, it felt like a toy. Oh and great, now I have a bunch of memory sticks that I can't use in anything else.
I tried my friends Olympus, and quickly became frustrated by how unintuitive the interface was. How many steps were required just to change simple settings.
The only other camera I tried out that I could see switching to was the top Pentax. I really appreciated that I could take lenses from 20 years ago, put an adapter on, and use them. Same deal with Nikon.
I'm not really a fanboy. I jumped from Canon to Nikon... but I've never looked back. When someone asks me for an entry level dslr, I don't hesitate to show them pictures I took with a borrowed D40 and the kit lenses.
As far as the "ISO 6400 of the D300". Did the reviewer try the "HI" settings?
In fairness the primary memory for the Sony A700 is Compact Flash - just like Nikon and Canon prosumer models. The only reason for the option of Memory Stick Duo is to accommodate Sony point-and-shoot users moving up to a DSLR. I have never owned Memory Stick Pro memory but I have had no issues using Compact Flash with ANY Sony DSLR.
I am very aware of the ISO 6400 option by selecting Hi 1 on the D300. I think you may have misunderstood my comment, as I talk about ISO 6400 being available on the D300 in the comparison to the D3 which has options to ISO 25600.
Regarding the Olympus the interface is only "unintuitive" if you are a Nikon or Canon user. That's why I am careful in using the workd intuitive because too often it means "different form Canon or Nikon" and has little to do with intuition. If you moved to the E3 from another Olympus the E3 will be very "intuitive" to you.
For Nikon and Canon users shooting Olympus the easiest thing is to adjust everything through the Info button. Select Info, then OK and you can navigate through all the settings on one screen with the arrow keys and adjust almost all the settings from that one screen.
Oh I agree, everything can be adjusted through the info button. But I compare that to the D300, where nearly everything I need for a quick shot is a few turns of a wheel away. But it's true, the Olympus is just different in how they do it.
It was a good summary, and I appreciated it. What, in your opinion be the camera(s) that compare, or compete, the closest to the D300?
Since there is no camera from Canon that aims at a similar target than the D300 (and exept the Olympus E3 from no other manufacturer) - what else to compare the D300 too? The D300 is Nikons APS-C flagship, and what is Canons APS-C flagship? The 40D, right? Not that the 40D is bad - if it was at the market when I bought a Nikon D80 I would have got it instead.
The 40D is excellent bang for the buck, it frankly has all and more I can seriously want from a camera, but the D300 is a worthy flagship - the 40D isn't.
M.
I don't understand what the point of this article was. I think we've read about this camera many times before and all know how much of Nikon fanboys the guys writing the articles are.
We just got fed some garbage helping people sleep better at night knowing that they spend more money for the "best". Yet it seems like no one writing these articles has spent more than a week or so with a competitors camera.
I hope people here at anand don't purchase cameras based of what they read here, other actual camera review sites can give you a more fair comparison and analysis of potential cameras. Not an article on why they think the camera they bought was best.
Nice blog. Finaly you have seen the Nikon(tm) light :-)
I had a brief chance to try out the D3 a few weeks ago and I have to say that if D300 is only 50% of the D3, it's the best camera for a reasonable price.
But personaly I'd go Pentax K20 if I where shopping for a DSLR entry system at this time. Best package for the price. Pentax flashes are expensive, but there is still Metz to help out in this field.
...and he's not alone in his praise. Far from it, the D300 is hands-down the best reviewed, most award winning semi-professional camera on the market. There are numerous industry reviews if you want to know the details.
A camera is a tool, not a status symbol, and right now the D300 is the best overall tool in its segment (and in many cases pushes the boundaries for a semi-professional camera).
However, best overall does not mean best at everything. If you want in-body image stabilization, go with Olympus, Pentax or Sony. If you want compact telephoto lenses, go with Olympus and their 2x crop factor. If you want the most resolving power, go with Pentax and their 14MP sensor. If you want the best bang for your buck, get the Canon 40D (now under $1000).
There are lots of arguments to be made about the pluses and minuses for each camera, but the D300 with its class-leading high-ISO performance, elegant 51-point auto-focus system, and borderline professional level speed and customization makes the most convincing argument to be at the top.
Disclaimer: I'm a Nikon D300 owner, and former Canon 40D owner.
Do any of these DSLRs do what those Canon EOS film based camera had, that they could focus based on where you were looking in the viewfinder? Or are such features obsolete with the level of auto focus we have today?
Generally, yes. I think Canon did away with the eye control focus feature on its DSLR line. The thumbwheel on the 40D, 5D, and 1D now controls the focus points. Having used both systems, I prefer the thumbwheel.
I never understood the need for that feature. It only comes into play in 2 cases:
1. you have lot's of AF points
2. your camera AF is unable to track moving objects properly across the viewfinder.
Nikons have 1. but not 2. Anyway eye controlled focus required much calibration and it was dependant on factors you could not change (your eye :-)). It worked great for some people, it was a dissapointment for others.
I think the Nikon Area AF logic is quite sufficient a replacement.
I'm not here to throw rocks but I do disagree a little.
First off, I cant believe you guys loved the E-3 so much when its High ISO noise is horrendous compared to 40D, A700 & D300. There is a review of the 4 major prosumer models and I think they mentioned that the E-3's noise is comparable to entry level models; plus they showed crops of each camera from ISO 100-3200 and at 800, the picture was nearly unusable. This is simple physics due to the E-3's smaller sensor which means less light sensitivity. High ISO noise, or lack thereof, is arguably one of the most important aspects of a DSLR.
Yes, the D300 is one helluva camera, but you posit that cost doesnt matter because the D300 is soo good. Obviously, I disagree because the D300 is $500-600(50%) more than the A700 and almost twice the 40D. For those that already have an established Brand assortment, these reviews dont really matter, but for those of us looking to enter the DSLR world, they do. The large price difference can buy a great Sony lens or a great Canon lens plus flash, which matters to us who are on a budget.
Last 2 cents: I chose the A700 about a month ago after reading countless reviews on the bodies AND lenses mainly due to one reason: in-camera IS/VR. This simple feature will save me about $2000 over the next few years as I buy more lenses. Look at the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS & non-IS cost and then compare that to Tamron's & Sigma's similar offerings(800 vs 1600) and that is a huge savings due to not needing a lens with IS/VR built. I will inherently save 20-40% on lenses which will help me save for the A900. One more point: the A700 out-resolves the D300.
BTW, thanks for your post and please spend more time reviewing DSLRs for AT.
"This is simple physics due to the E-3's smaller sensor which means less light sensitivity."
Wrong. Very simple physics says that there is dependency between noise and physical size of cell ("pixel"). It means that higher count of pixels on same sensor size should mean higher noise. But this is still not whole truth, one cell is built from elements, primarily light-acceptors, signal ways and electrical circuits. Size of separate elements (and ratio between them) are different on most sensors. In last generation sensors, Oly uses "simple" trick (in real life this trick is pretty expensive) - they made light-acceptors bigger and signal and electrical ways smaller. In real, that means, that light-acceptors on 10 megapixel E-3 are same big as on 5 megapixel E-1 and the similar size as APS-C sensors with higher pixel count.
Of course, this is still not whole truth, because technology of sensor is also important - Oly MOS works different than Canon/Sony MOS, in terms of dynamic range (altough the range is similar) it has stronger capabilities in darks and shadows but limited on highlights. Translated to noise, MOS used in E-3 have a bit more pronounced noise in darks and shadows and bit less on highlights. In real life, 40D, D300 and E-3 (I am not using A700) works excellent and very similar on ISO2000 eq., on ISO2500eq. and more is D300 the best one, but not in difference of class, on ISO3200eq. it is still much much less than 1 EV. What that means? In real life is E-3 very good low-light camera itself, but if you consider, that for similar price you get faster lenses on 4/3 than on APS-C (usually 1 stop faster), E-3 is not the worse, but one of leaders (if not best with top-profi lenses). You should not forget that you really need lens to shoot with DSLR ... (and you should not forget, that noise is popular question, but less noise itself never built better camera!)
btw: I agree with original blog article, as body only D300 is probably the best universal choice in these days. But if somebody need guaranteed weatherproof and the very best lenses on the market, the E-3 should be better choice (and by me, it is my primary camera and system).
Your reason for choosing the Sony A700 is certainly a valid one. I had a long conversation with Sony Marketing at PMA and discussed two of my major conerns with them in the hope they would correct the issues in the future.
First of all, Sony has almost no motor lenses. Most of their kit and accessory lenses are screw-drive AF. As a result they are noisy and slower that Canon, Olympus, and Nikon. AF on the A700 is certainly fast, but it can also be very noisy depending on the lens.
Even Pentax is releasing motor lenses in their DA* series. I was assured Sony would be addressing this in the near future. No motor lenses is OK for entry cameras, but I think it is not so OK for prosumer and the upcoming Pro "A900" or whatever it will be called.
Second, the proprietary battery. I realize Sony is the world's largest battery maker, but if you are looking for a replacement battery for any of the new models - or extra for the grip - you will pay $50 to $70 for a battery ONLY available from Sony. I really dislike this coercion and said so to Sony. I doubt this will be fixed.
By comparison, the D300 and 40D and 5D all use batteries that are readily available as quality generics from third-party sources. The generics cost $10 or less and not $60, and usually have even better specs than the manufacturer's battery.
The sensor is the same in the Sony A700 as the Nikon D300, but the associated electronics are not. The Sony is certainly a very good camera but the lack of motor lenses is a big issue for many looking at a prosumer camera. It's an issue too few review sites even mention.
D300 is such a feature packed camera and it really deserves in-depth review. How can you just say that this camera blows your mind without giving insights? Beside some of the problems (Mostly imaging problems that a true professional camera like this shouldn't have), the overall body-wise quality of D300 is amazing and it really deserves detailed reviews. Hell, as you mentioned it's a beast that's got 421 pages of manual. Don't you think you should talk about what are in some of those pages?
If you want to do a review that you have been claiming, you should talk about features D300 provide and how they are useful in the field. Instead of what you claimed to do, you wrote a review that is just like the other reviews on the web only dumber.
In other word, here at Anandtech, would you post a review of a new CPU that it only talks about a few basic things and claim it's the best!?
This is a blog - an opinion piece - not a review. It is a report of what I am working on and what I am thinking at present. As soon as it falls from the top of the page you will find it under "What's New with Wes" blogs and not reviews.
The D300 does deserve a full review and we are working on that.
Oops! Just because it was on the front page, I thought it's the review of D300 that belongs to Digital Camera section. It is, indeed, a blog and I apologize for the mistake I made.
Oops! Just because it was on the front page, I thought it's the review of D300 that belongs to Digital Camera section. It is, indeed, a blog and I apologize for the mistake I made.
"moving to the top the D300 similarly makes the 40D look like a feeble effort at competition"
When you talk about competition, the price should be the most important factor. Considering how Canon 40D is only $940(with the $200 instant rebate) and Nikon D300 is $1700(with the $100 instant rebate), the competition isn't feeble at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have to wonder why the idea of a dedicated LCD cover and protector is such a mystery to Canon and some others
Though it's great that Nikon provides a LCD cover, I really don't see the need for it. I always carry my camera on my shoulder whenever I go out and it's been that way for more than 2 years. The result: there's not a single scratch on the LCD. I personally know about 6 people who carry Dslrs without bags, LCD cover, and none of their cameras suffered from LCD scratch issues.
BTW, the built-in LCD protection pannel can be exchanged with a tiny bit of effort and it costs less than $10.
Handling and the multitude of tweaks aside, the end result – the reason for being – is the image. Here, Nikon makes us all believers. Un-tweaked, Un-manipulated, un-Photoshopped, un-RAW-processed images are gorgeous on the D300. They are so good out-of-camera you have less work to do to get the greatest image since sliced bread – and isn’t that what choosing a camera is all about
Some of the image problems that numrous users have reported:
1. Loss of color in high ISO mode,
2. Banding noise (I think the latest firmware release fixes this issue)
3. High noise in low ISO (in dark area)
4. Tonal response clipping
5. WB shifting, shot after shot in certain situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet another Editor at AT that I would get generally positive comments from Nikon owners and some bricks from Canon owners. I also own a 40D and more good Canon lenses than Nikon, so I am not without experience with the 40D.
Frankly the XSi is a far better entry camera than the D60, which I have stated in several recent articles. Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300. There is a very good reason that Canon priced the 40D lower than any previous Canon prosumer camera - and then stuck another $200 Instant Rebate on the camera.
Today the 40D costs almost the same as the XSi after rebates, which makes the 40D an incredible value for the build quality alone. That great value, however, does not make it competitive with the D300, it just makes it a good buy for what you pay.
The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced, but no one can deny the advantage of the Canon lens lineup. The Canon 5D, which is now priced about the same after instant rebates as the D300, is a much more interesting comparison, which makes me think the 5D replacement could shake everything up once again.
It is very hard to be objective in DSLR reviews due to the commitment one has to one lens line or another. We do our best to balance this out but it is a much more difficult task in a review area where user loyalty to a particular lens line or brand is so strong.
The Olympus E-3 is also a fantastic camera, but not the equal of the D300. It is, however, much closer to the D300 than the 40D is. However, there are not as many Olympus owners out there and I got boatloads of rocks when I stated my honest opinion of the E-3. Objectivity is our goal, but that means you may not always agree with our opinions. That is your right, but please don't automatically assume we are biased or missed the boat.
It's true that "Xsi is a far better entry level camera than D60" just like how 300D is a better mid range camera than 40D. However, when you think about the price of those cameras, IMHO, d60 is a better entry level camera and the same logic applies to 40D.
I think the traditional term 'entry level' and 'mid range' is less vaild at this point. D60, I think is the true entry level camera considering the price/performance it offers. Xsi, on the other hand, seems to be more than just a entry level camera because of its current price/performance. I found it strange how Canon released Xsi with all those features in that limited entry level-like camera. Then, I came across this rumor: http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...1000d-specs-uncov...">http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...1000d-specs-uncov... which all made sense.
On the other hand, 40D is the camera that still fits into the traditional term of 'mid range.' How about D300? As Nikon Rep. said, it's a "DX format flagship camera", not a mid range camera. Sure, users and reviewers like you can say that 40D is in competition against 300D, claiming d300 is the winner, but I doubt the logic behind it because of their price and performance. Again, same logic applies to Canon 5D and Nikon D3, people do compare 5D and D3 but it's clear that they aren't really in direct competion. The examples are endless because of Nikon and Canon's what I call ".5 line up." Think about D70 back in the day, it was the camera that competed against Canon's 300D and 20D because it was in that .5 market from the view point of Canon.
Given that and based on how you said "Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300", I think it's fair to not say "...moving to the top the D300 similarly makes the 40D look like a feeble effort at competition"
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting this because I'm a Cano fanboi or anything. Instead, I'm saying it because a comment like that seems to bring Canon vs. Nikon flame war. On the other hand, if you said '...moving to the top the Xsi similarly makes the D60 look like a feeble effort at competition', I would've said the same thing.
Because of the price difference which is the most important factor.
So what was the bet for? Wear a Nikon hat for a week?
For the "full blown, in-depth review" of the D300, it would be interesting to see at least the 18-55 (non-vr and vr kit lens), the 18-200 VR, the 14-24, and maybe a 70-200VR. I am assuming the full review would also be compared against the 5D as a ringer, so it would show both strenghts and weaknesses of the D300 with this glass. However, for a fair review, it must include low light situations.
The Canon fanbois can console themselves by reading Ken Rockwell's article, comparing the D300 to the 5D (a 2-year old camera). He seems to conclude the 5D's IQ is better, but the D300's color and tones is better. Also, Nikon cheats with its noise reduction, sacrificing sharpness for less noise. This is in line with many other review sites.
Having fanned the flame wars, I do hope people understand that no matter how feature laden a camera is, it still won't make you a better photographer if you don't have the artistry and skill to be able to capture beautiful images. Bottom line--if you don't have the eye, your camera won't help (no matter how expensive it is).
I bet another Editor at AT that I would get generally positive comments from Nikon owners and some bricks from Canon owners. I also own a 40D and more good Canon lenses than Nikon, so I am not without experience with the 40D.
Frankly the XSi is a far better entry camera than the D60, which I have stated in several recent articles. Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300. There is a very good reason that Canon priced the 40D lower than any previous Canon prosumer camera - and then stuck another $200 Instant Rebate on the camera.
Today the 40D costs almost the same as the XSi after rebates, which makes the 40D an incredible value for the build quality alone. That great value, however, does not make it competitive with the D300, it just makes it a good buy for what you pay.
The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced, but no one can deny the advantage of the Canon lens lineup. The Canon 5D, which is now priced about the same after instant rebates as the D300, is a much more interesting comparison, which makes me think the 5D replacement could shake everything up once again.
It is very hard to be objective in DSLR reviews due to the commitment one has to one lens line or another. We do our best to balance this out but it is a much more difficult task in a review area where user loyalty to a particular lens line or brand is so strong.
The Olympus E-3 is also a fantastic camera, but not the equal of the D300. It is, however, much closer to the D300 than the 40D is. However, there are not as many Olympus owners out there and I got boatloads of rocks when I stated my honest opinion of the E-3. Objectivity is our goal, but that means you may not always agree with our opinions. That is your right, but please don't automatically assume we are biased or missed the boat.
"The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced.. "
Can you explain how this is? I have that camera. It's bad at nothing.
While there's a case to be made for the addition of on-camera stabilization, weather seals, and similar tangential geejaws, the fundamental camera operations are extremely solid. AF speed, sensor noise, and speed of operation are all top-notch. You can rave about the E-3 all you'd like, but when push comes to shove, the 40D is a faster camera at everything. The flash system integration is second only to Nikon, and the lens line, better even than that company.
These are kinds of things working photographers actually care about, which is why I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say the 40D lags. I won't dispute that the D300 is even faster in some ways, but at nearly double the price, it ought to be. For outright speed, the 40D still slots above every other DX DSLR.
For my part, I'd like to see a rear LCD with higher resolution and in-body stabilization so I won't have to spend 30% more on a lens with IS. Otherwise, the 40D lacks for little. Integrated with the EOS system, it's the best choice available at its price.
The 40D is a competent DSLR, but it is the flagship Canon APS-C camera and it doesn't stand out in any category. It is 10 megapixels and everything else is 12 to 14-15MP. That would be fine if the 40D still topped the IQ or noise charts, but the Pentax K20D or the Nikon D300 or the Sony A700 top all the resolution test charts, and at high ISO, which used to be Canon's forte, the D300 and A700 and K20D all go to higher ISO - some with lower noise. It's not a dramatic difference, but it is definitely there.
The D300 is faster for sports and lower noise at higher ISO and better battery life, even though it is higher res. The K20D beats resolution by almost 50% and still manages higher ISO options. The E3 has MUCH better color balance, is much better built with incredible weather sealing, has a better viewfinder, faster autofocus in most light, and that useful tilt/swivel LCD. It is the same res as the 40D in a smaller MOS sensor. The 40D is lower noise than the E3 at 3200, but below that the image quality of the E3 is better, as is the working dynamic range optimization which works on the E3 and does next to nothing on the 40D. In fact, almost every other competitors dynamic range is better than the current Canon which is starting to become an issue.
The 40D is not a bad camera; it is a very good update to the 30D and very solid and capable and easy to recommend as a great value. However, as a flagship model it doesn't stand out in anything except price, which is not what you expect from the biggest DSLR maker.
The next Canon will either make us all say "wow", which I expect, or Canon will be in some serious trouble in prosumer space. I do think the XSi and XTi are the current best entry models, the Canon full-frames are superb and I can't wait for the 5D full-frame replacement, but the 40D is not a standout.
D300 is the flagship Nikon APS-C camera as told by the Nikon rep but 40D is NOT Canon's flagship APS-C camera. So far, Canon does not have intensions to come up with flagship APS-C cameras. If you want flagship quality from Canon, your only option is 1D line.
Those two companies come out with products to fill in the gap of others. They don't compete head to head in that market. It's no woder D300 outperforms 40D because D300 is intended to be like that whereas Canon 40D intends to capture different market. Again, 40D is a mid-range level camera. I don't know where you got that idea of x0D line of cameras being flagship model.
Noise:
D300 sure has lower noise but it is so with the great loss of detail.You've made a same mistake when you talked about Sony A350.
Please, when you talk about noise, think about the detail. If you only think about noise level, even panasonic P&S would match Nikon D3.
Dynamic Rage:
When it comes down to Shadow area DR, only Fuji S5 Pro, Olympus E3 and Nikon D60 is better than 40D. 40D's weak point is highlight DR. In fact, D300 and 40D has same range of DR. The only diffference is that 40D is optimized for shadow DR whereas D300 is optimized for highlight DR. If you claim 40D's poor DR is becoming an issue, then all of the dslrs from all the brands beside Fuji are becoming an issue as well.
Keep it mind that DR has two ends. Left and right. Don't just look at one side and come up with something silly.
(BTW, E3 that you seem to praise is also optimized for shadow DR and has poor highlight DR, even worse than 40D)
BTW, if you really want to maximize the DR of Canon cameras, use neutral picture style or step down contrast/saturation values of Standard picture style.
Here's dynamic range. The 40D leads the pack. "D-Lighting" is a tone curve. It has little to do with DR, it's just a convenience for people who don't post-process that you can emulate with a Curves preset. The highlight priority on the 40D actually expands the dynamic range by about a stop.
Those are the noise charts for the four cameras you list. The Olympus lags badly, the Sony lags somewhat, and the D300 and 40D differ only in processing priorities. I prefer Nikon's style of NR, but in RAW, the two cameras are indistinguishable.
Nor would I place much stock in "ISO options"; Canon has more stringent parameters for the ISOs they allow than any other manufacturer. ISO 6400 isn't there because it would look like ISO 6400 on the D300 and the K20D; garbage. If you need that much speed, you underexpose a stop and bring it up in RAW.
As to battery life, the 40D has more of it. Canon rates it for 1100 shots. Reichmann at Luminous Landscape attains 800 with his. Thom Hogan, 500 with his D300. I'd be happy with either number, and I have no idea why you brought this up.
As to AF performance, you're literally the only person I've seen who asserts the E-3 has better AF. Here's Camera Labs:
"...subjectively, it didn’t feel as consistent as rival AF systems. When the E-3’s AF system was happy, it could be astoundingly quick, but at other times, it would search a little while rival systems tested alongside had no problems. For example we found it less consistent when it came to tracking moving subjects than Canon and Nikon’s semi-pro models. In our test of tracking vehicles approaching face on at around 50kph, the E-3 only reliably locked-onto about half of them, when the EOS 40D and D300 enjoyed a much higher success rate."
And DCResource:
"The E-3 is a fast-focusing camera in most situations, though it doesn't necessarily feel like the "fastest focusing camera in the world", even with the much-vaunted 12-60 mm lens. Low light focusing was just the opposite -- sluggish -- even with the flash-based AF illuminator."
As to the D300, the various reviews have found the 40D better at acquisition when the lights dim. Focus tracking is excellent for both. In fact, that's why I bought one; I shoot indoor ice hockey. My in-focus percentage is upwards of 80%, and that's shooting through plexiglass flat out.
Anyway, what you've done is to list features from a collection of cameras. Half are inconsequential as above, and none appear in a single body. The K20D shoots at 3fps; resolution aside, it's automatically out of the running for people who shoot sports. The E-3 has the worst interface I've seen on any DSLR since the Kodak/Nikon amalgams from years ago, and focus tracking is again a weakness. Only the D300 is convincingly better on the whole, but again, rarely in areas that matter.
I won't dispute that people who don't post-process would be better served by some other camera. The dividing line between a "professional" body and everything else, however, has always been speed. It's often the difference between getting a workable but imperfect shot, and missing the scene completely. Geejaws aside, nothing but the D300 can keep up.
I strongly recommend to verify these "reviews" by yourself (and there are also reviews, which shows you - exactly measured - how fast should be E-3 and A700).
If you are interested, I had 40D, D300 and E-3 at same time in one place to try (for hours) what their AF's are capable to do in bright and dim light. In single AF, E-3 with 11-22/2.8-3.5 (without SWD) easily smokes away 40D with 17-40/4L and D300 with 17-55/2.8. And trust it or not, D300 was the slowest. In continuous AF, D300 was the clear winner, 40D and E-3 where pretty similar (and I trust that some reviewers found E-3 the slowest, but they probably do not configure it for best performance - settings of this camera is very complex and pretty difficult).
It is true, that E-3 AF performance is sometimes inconsistent, but it means, that if you try "blind AF test" (random tries of AF lock-on everywhere), E-3 is sometimes the fastest and sometimes similar as 40D. But if you try to focus on edges (the right way for contrast detect AF), E-3 should be the fastest on each try. Last but not least, E-3 has (as only DSLR I know) user-selectable AF area. This means you could select, if AF works in surrounding area of AF point indicator (as standard everywhere) or exactly in (much smaller) area of AF point indicator. In real life usage this provides absolutely exact focusing and ability to fast focus in situations, where is AF by others "press-and-prey" (covering FG and BG - like face behind grass, repeating patterns, etc.) and this feature doesn't mean any performance decrease.
So just talking about AF speed my results are clear - D300 is best in tracking subjects (works excellent!), E-3 in single AF, decision what camera has "better AF" is just about what you prefer. 40D is not bad at all, but I could not imagine, that somebody could find its AF speed or accuracy as something interesting in comparison.
btw: I am pretty surprised, that - when discussing speeds - nobody mentioned write speeds. While both D300 and E-3 are stars here (both able to write at ~30 MBps using best UDMA cards and A700 should be the same), 40D is soooo slow.
I'm glad you like your Canon 40D, and you have given us many of the reasons and logic you used in choosing the 40D. If you are invested in the Canon system the 40D is a very logical choice. It is also currently a great choice for value.
I have just one simple question. If the 40D is so good and so competitive then why is Canon doing a $200 Instant Rebate right now on top of all their other 40D discounts that gets the price below $1000 and only a little more than the entry XSi?
When the 20D was the top of the performance heap we didn't see discounts like this until the end of the model life. The 40D was already the cheapest of the prosumers, and now it is the cheapest by far, and far below its introduction price late last year.
Car Dealers lower price to move product that isn't moving, so could it possibly be that the 40D is not selling as well as Canon would like in today's more competitive environment?
"If the 40D is so good and so competitive then why is Canon doing a $200 Instant Rebate right now on top of all their other 40D discounts..."
Ask Canon. They also rebated the 5D in 2006, less than a year after it was introduced. That camera remains competitive even now. The 2008 rebates also encompass over a dozen Canon lenses and the most popular Canon flashes. I'm certainly not in a position to discern Canon's corporate motives. There's little point in staring at the tea leaves when I already know what the camera can do.
Even though I am a happy owner of a 40D, I have no reason to doubt your impartiality just because you stated the obvious--the D300 is a better camera than the 40D. I am heavily invested in Canon pro lenses, which I'm very happy about, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon because it just came out with the latest hot camera. Camera bodies will come and go, but my lenses will last me a lifetime. It's a pity, though, other readers can't put things into perspective because they get so wrapped up with brand loyalty.
This is inherently one of the problems with objective camera reviews. They appeal to pixel peeper types who probably can't take a decent photograph under any set of circumstances with any type of camera gear. Nonetheless, keep the good articles coming.
It is not without egg on our face that we report that we were absolutely blown away by the D300.
Wes - Thank you for making my day. After witnessing this column mature from the "what is a digital camera" to now, it is a pleasure to read this unbiased review.
Disclaimer: Lord 666 is a happy D300 owner since it came out. Previous to that, the D70 and D80 filled my DSLR needs. But it was only until the D300 I could say "Wow!"
I loved my two D70s but when the D200 came out I had to jump on it. The D200, while a great camera, it challenged your technique and made you really think about what you were doing. Still, I loved the D200 and purchased a second body about a year ago.
About 5 months after D200 number two, I had an opportunity to handle a D300 for a few hours. Of course I now have two D300s. The D300 is a significant improvement ove the D200 and seems more forgiving (unless of course the D200 helped me get my technique back in shape.) Now I have to figure out what to do with two almost new D200s.
If you are looking for a real serious DSLR the D300 should be on the top of your list, unless you want a full frame sensor and money is not an issue, then go for the D3.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
41 Comments
Back to Article
Maxington - Friday, May 30, 2008 - link
I'd agree with the comments on the Canon 40D. It's a perfectly good camera, but it's another Canon lukewarm upgrade that they've been getting away with for so long. Now all the other brands have come out with their bodies they really show up Canon's marketing strategy of minor upgrades. You have to do better than that in todays market to get the media interest, regardless of how solid a camera it is.Can't agree on the E3. Olympus have great innovations and actually useful gimmicks, but they are constantly let down by their sensor. 4/3rds was promised to be smaller bodies as well, where'd that go?
eternalkp - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
not fullframe. still lose to canon's technology.look at the aged canon 5D, nikon should be embarrassed.
Deadtrees - Friday, May 30, 2008 - link
You don't seem to know what you're talking about and you're making a same mistake Wesley Fink made.D300 is not in the market to compete with 5D. It's a DX format flagship camera. 5D is a entry-level or mid-range FF camera. Where they stand in the market is just different.
Also, FF d300 a.k.a is D3 which utilizies Nikon's own sensor design.
tripleR6 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
As for the pro v. prosumer debate, the D300 is definitely in the pro league. Its basically a D3 with the bottom chopped off and a DX sensor. Add a grip, and you got an 8fps/12MP/51AF camera, which is "pro" by anyone's standards.It does have a bit of noise in the darker areas in low isos, though. Im not sure why, but the 40D was smooth and clean. Its higher stuff is a bit better than canon, though, upwards of 1600.
FreeTard - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
If you're heavily invested into another company, then yes the price is daunting.I bought the D80 about two months before the 300 came out. I was happy with the 80, bought a few lenses, but there was just something missing. I bought the 300 just as soon as it came out, and haven't gone back to the 80 since.
As far as trying the other brands. I tried out my buddies Sony for a couple of weeks, but my first impression when picking it up? Where is the rest of the camera? To me, it felt like a toy. Oh and great, now I have a bunch of memory sticks that I can't use in anything else.
I tried my friends Olympus, and quickly became frustrated by how unintuitive the interface was. How many steps were required just to change simple settings.
The only other camera I tried out that I could see switching to was the top Pentax. I really appreciated that I could take lenses from 20 years ago, put an adapter on, and use them. Same deal with Nikon.
I'm not really a fanboy. I jumped from Canon to Nikon... but I've never looked back. When someone asks me for an entry level dslr, I don't hesitate to show them pictures I took with a borrowed D40 and the kit lenses.
As far as the "ISO 6400 of the D300". Did the reviewer try the "HI" settings?
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
In fairness the primary memory for the Sony A700 is Compact Flash - just like Nikon and Canon prosumer models. The only reason for the option of Memory Stick Duo is to accommodate Sony point-and-shoot users moving up to a DSLR. I have never owned Memory Stick Pro memory but I have had no issues using Compact Flash with ANY Sony DSLR.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
I am very aware of the ISO 6400 option by selecting Hi 1 on the D300. I think you may have misunderstood my comment, as I talk about ISO 6400 being available on the D300 in the comparison to the D3 which has options to ISO 25600.Regarding the Olympus the interface is only "unintuitive" if you are a Nikon or Canon user. That's why I am careful in using the workd intuitive because too often it means "different form Canon or Nikon" and has little to do with intuition. If you moved to the E3 from another Olympus the E3 will be very "intuitive" to you.
For Nikon and Canon users shooting Olympus the easiest thing is to adjust everything through the Info button. Select Info, then OK and you can navigate through all the settings on one screen with the arrow keys and adjust almost all the settings from that one screen.
FreeTard - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Oh I agree, everything can be adjusted through the info button. But I compare that to the D300, where nearly everything I need for a quick shot is a few turns of a wheel away. But it's true, the Olympus is just different in how they do it.It was a good summary, and I appreciated it. What, in your opinion be the camera(s) that compare, or compete, the closest to the D300?
mschira - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Since there is no camera from Canon that aims at a similar target than the D300 (and exept the Olympus E3 from no other manufacturer) - what else to compare the D300 too? The D300 is Nikons APS-C flagship, and what is Canons APS-C flagship? The 40D, right? Not that the 40D is bad - if it was at the market when I bought a Nikon D80 I would have got it instead.The 40D is excellent bang for the buck, it frankly has all and more I can seriously want from a camera, but the D300 is a worthy flagship - the 40D isn't.
M.
Vesuvius - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
I don't understand what the point of this article was. I think we've read about this camera many times before and all know how much of Nikon fanboys the guys writing the articles are.We just got fed some garbage helping people sleep better at night knowing that they spend more money for the "best". Yet it seems like no one writing these articles has spent more than a week or so with a competitors camera.
I hope people here at anand don't purchase cameras based of what they read here, other actual camera review sites can give you a more fair comparison and analysis of potential cameras. Not an article on why they think the camera they bought was best.
haplo602 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Nice blog. Finaly you have seen the Nikon(tm) light :-)I had a brief chance to try out the D3 a few weeks ago and I have to say that if D300 is only 50% of the D3, it's the best camera for a reasonable price.
But personaly I'd go Pentax K20 if I where shopping for a DSLR entry system at this time. Best package for the price. Pentax flashes are expensive, but there is still Metz to help out in this field.
Looking forward to your D300 review.
jpeyton - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
...and he's not alone in his praise. Far from it, the D300 is hands-down the best reviewed, most award winning semi-professional camera on the market. There are numerous industry reviews if you want to know the details.A camera is a tool, not a status symbol, and right now the D300 is the best overall tool in its segment (and in many cases pushes the boundaries for a semi-professional camera).
However, best overall does not mean best at everything. If you want in-body image stabilization, go with Olympus, Pentax or Sony. If you want compact telephoto lenses, go with Olympus and their 2x crop factor. If you want the most resolving power, go with Pentax and their 14MP sensor. If you want the best bang for your buck, get the Canon 40D (now under $1000).
There are lots of arguments to be made about the pluses and minuses for each camera, but the D300 with its class-leading high-ISO performance, elegant 51-point auto-focus system, and borderline professional level speed and customization makes the most convincing argument to be at the top.
Disclaimer: I'm a Nikon D300 owner, and former Canon 40D owner.
sprockkets - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
Do any of these DSLRs do what those Canon EOS film based camera had, that they could focus based on where you were looking in the viewfinder? Or are such features obsolete with the level of auto focus we have today?pinto4402 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Generally, yes. I think Canon did away with the eye control focus feature on its DSLR line. The thumbwheel on the 40D, 5D, and 1D now controls the focus points. Having used both systems, I prefer the thumbwheel.haplo602 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
I never understood the need for that feature. It only comes into play in 2 cases:1. you have lot's of AF points
2. your camera AF is unable to track moving objects properly across the viewfinder.
Nikons have 1. but not 2. Anyway eye controlled focus required much calibration and it was dependant on factors you could not change (your eye :-)). It worked great for some people, it was a dissapointment for others.
I think the Nikon Area AF logic is quite sufficient a replacement.
specialk - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
I'm not here to throw rocks but I do disagree a little.First off, I cant believe you guys loved the E-3 so much when its High ISO noise is horrendous compared to 40D, A700 & D300. There is a review of the 4 major prosumer models and I think they mentioned that the E-3's noise is comparable to entry level models; plus they showed crops of each camera from ISO 100-3200 and at 800, the picture was nearly unusable. This is simple physics due to the E-3's smaller sensor which means less light sensitivity. High ISO noise, or lack thereof, is arguably one of the most important aspects of a DSLR.
Yes, the D300 is one helluva camera, but you posit that cost doesnt matter because the D300 is soo good. Obviously, I disagree because the D300 is $500-600(50%) more than the A700 and almost twice the 40D. For those that already have an established Brand assortment, these reviews dont really matter, but for those of us looking to enter the DSLR world, they do. The large price difference can buy a great Sony lens or a great Canon lens plus flash, which matters to us who are on a budget.
Last 2 cents: I chose the A700 about a month ago after reading countless reviews on the bodies AND lenses mainly due to one reason: in-camera IS/VR. This simple feature will save me about $2000 over the next few years as I buy more lenses. Look at the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS & non-IS cost and then compare that to Tamron's & Sigma's similar offerings(800 vs 1600) and that is a huge savings due to not needing a lens with IS/VR built. I will inherently save 20-40% on lenses which will help me save for the A900. One more point: the A700 out-resolves the D300.
BTW, thanks for your post and please spend more time reviewing DSLRs for AT.
jan3X5 - Sunday, June 1, 2008 - link
"This is simple physics due to the E-3's smaller sensor which means less light sensitivity."Wrong. Very simple physics says that there is dependency between noise and physical size of cell ("pixel"). It means that higher count of pixels on same sensor size should mean higher noise. But this is still not whole truth, one cell is built from elements, primarily light-acceptors, signal ways and electrical circuits. Size of separate elements (and ratio between them) are different on most sensors. In last generation sensors, Oly uses "simple" trick (in real life this trick is pretty expensive) - they made light-acceptors bigger and signal and electrical ways smaller. In real, that means, that light-acceptors on 10 megapixel E-3 are same big as on 5 megapixel E-1 and the similar size as APS-C sensors with higher pixel count.
Of course, this is still not whole truth, because technology of sensor is also important - Oly MOS works different than Canon/Sony MOS, in terms of dynamic range (altough the range is similar) it has stronger capabilities in darks and shadows but limited on highlights. Translated to noise, MOS used in E-3 have a bit more pronounced noise in darks and shadows and bit less on highlights. In real life, 40D, D300 and E-3 (I am not using A700) works excellent and very similar on ISO2000 eq., on ISO2500eq. and more is D300 the best one, but not in difference of class, on ISO3200eq. it is still much much less than 1 EV. What that means? In real life is E-3 very good low-light camera itself, but if you consider, that for similar price you get faster lenses on 4/3 than on APS-C (usually 1 stop faster), E-3 is not the worse, but one of leaders (if not best with top-profi lenses). You should not forget that you really need lens to shoot with DSLR ... (and you should not forget, that noise is popular question, but less noise itself never built better camera!)
btw: I agree with original blog article, as body only D300 is probably the best universal choice in these days. But if somebody need guaranteed weatherproof and the very best lenses on the market, the E-3 should be better choice (and by me, it is my primary camera and system).
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Your reason for choosing the Sony A700 is certainly a valid one. I had a long conversation with Sony Marketing at PMA and discussed two of my major conerns with them in the hope they would correct the issues in the future.First of all, Sony has almost no motor lenses. Most of their kit and accessory lenses are screw-drive AF. As a result they are noisy and slower that Canon, Olympus, and Nikon. AF on the A700 is certainly fast, but it can also be very noisy depending on the lens.
Even Pentax is releasing motor lenses in their DA* series. I was assured Sony would be addressing this in the near future. No motor lenses is OK for entry cameras, but I think it is not so OK for prosumer and the upcoming Pro "A900" or whatever it will be called.
Second, the proprietary battery. I realize Sony is the world's largest battery maker, but if you are looking for a replacement battery for any of the new models - or extra for the grip - you will pay $50 to $70 for a battery ONLY available from Sony. I really dislike this coercion and said so to Sony. I doubt this will be fixed.
By comparison, the D300 and 40D and 5D all use batteries that are readily available as quality generics from third-party sources. The generics cost $10 or less and not $60, and usually have even better specs than the manufacturer's battery.
The sensor is the same in the Sony A700 as the Nikon D300, but the associated electronics are not. The Sony is certainly a very good camera but the lack of motor lenses is a big issue for many looking at a prosumer camera. It's an issue too few review sites even mention.
Deadtrees - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
D300 is such a feature packed camera and it really deserves in-depth review. How can you just say that this camera blows your mind without giving insights? Beside some of the problems (Mostly imaging problems that a true professional camera like this shouldn't have), the overall body-wise quality of D300 is amazing and it really deserves detailed reviews. Hell, as you mentioned it's a beast that's got 421 pages of manual. Don't you think you should talk about what are in some of those pages?If you want to do a review that you have been claiming, you should talk about features D300 provide and how they are useful in the field. Instead of what you claimed to do, you wrote a review that is just like the other reviews on the web only dumber.
In other word, here at Anandtech, would you post a review of a new CPU that it only talks about a few basic things and claim it's the best!?
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
This is a blog - an opinion piece - not a review. It is a report of what I am working on and what I am thinking at present. As soon as it falls from the top of the page you will find it under "What's New with Wes" blogs and not reviews.The D300 does deserve a full review and we are working on that.
Deadtrees - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Oops! Just because it was on the front page, I thought it's the review of D300 that belongs to Digital Camera section. It is, indeed, a blog and I apologize for the mistake I made.Deadtrees - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Oops! Just because it was on the front page, I thought it's the review of D300 that belongs to Digital Camera section. It is, indeed, a blog and I apologize for the mistake I made.Deadtrees - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
"moving to the top the D300 similarly makes the 40D look like a feeble effort at competition"When you talk about competition, the price should be the most important factor. Considering how Canon 40D is only $940(with the $200 instant rebate) and Nikon D300 is $1700(with the $100 instant rebate), the competition isn't feeble at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have to wonder why the idea of a dedicated LCD cover and protector is such a mystery to Canon and some others
Though it's great that Nikon provides a LCD cover, I really don't see the need for it. I always carry my camera on my shoulder whenever I go out and it's been that way for more than 2 years. The result: there's not a single scratch on the LCD. I personally know about 6 people who carry Dslrs without bags, LCD cover, and none of their cameras suffered from LCD scratch issues.
BTW, the built-in LCD protection pannel can be exchanged with a tiny bit of effort and it costs less than $10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Handling and the multitude of tweaks aside, the end result – the reason for being – is the image. Here, Nikon makes us all believers. Un-tweaked, Un-manipulated, un-Photoshopped, un-RAW-processed images are gorgeous on the D300. They are so good out-of-camera you have less work to do to get the greatest image since sliced bread – and isn’t that what choosing a camera is all about
Some of the image problems that numrous users have reported:
1. Loss of color in high ISO mode,
2. Banding noise (I think the latest firmware release fixes this issue)
3. High noise in low ISO (in dark area)
4. Tonal response clipping
5. WB shifting, shot after shot in certain situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
I bet another Editor at AT that I would get generally positive comments from Nikon owners and some bricks from Canon owners. I also own a 40D and more good Canon lenses than Nikon, so I am not without experience with the 40D.Frankly the XSi is a far better entry camera than the D60, which I have stated in several recent articles. Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300. There is a very good reason that Canon priced the 40D lower than any previous Canon prosumer camera - and then stuck another $200 Instant Rebate on the camera.
Today the 40D costs almost the same as the XSi after rebates, which makes the 40D an incredible value for the build quality alone. That great value, however, does not make it competitive with the D300, it just makes it a good buy for what you pay.
The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced, but no one can deny the advantage of the Canon lens lineup. The Canon 5D, which is now priced about the same after instant rebates as the D300, is a much more interesting comparison, which makes me think the 5D replacement could shake everything up once again.
It is very hard to be objective in DSLR reviews due to the commitment one has to one lens line or another. We do our best to balance this out but it is a much more difficult task in a review area where user loyalty to a particular lens line or brand is so strong.
The Olympus E-3 is also a fantastic camera, but not the equal of the D300. It is, however, much closer to the D300 than the 40D is. However, there are not as many Olympus owners out there and I got boatloads of rocks when I stated my honest opinion of the E-3. Objectivity is our goal, but that means you may not always agree with our opinions. That is your right, but please don't automatically assume we are biased or missed the boat.
Deadtrees - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
It's true that "Xsi is a far better entry level camera than D60" just like how 300D is a better mid range camera than 40D. However, when you think about the price of those cameras, IMHO, d60 is a better entry level camera and the same logic applies to 40D.I think the traditional term 'entry level' and 'mid range' is less vaild at this point. D60, I think is the true entry level camera considering the price/performance it offers. Xsi, on the other hand, seems to be more than just a entry level camera because of its current price/performance. I found it strange how Canon released Xsi with all those features in that limited entry level-like camera. Then, I came across this rumor: http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...1000d-specs-uncov...">http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...1000d-specs-uncov... which all made sense.
On the other hand, 40D is the camera that still fits into the traditional term of 'mid range.' How about D300? As Nikon Rep. said, it's a "DX format flagship camera", not a mid range camera. Sure, users and reviewers like you can say that 40D is in competition against 300D, claiming d300 is the winner, but I doubt the logic behind it because of their price and performance. Again, same logic applies to Canon 5D and Nikon D3, people do compare 5D and D3 but it's clear that they aren't really in direct competion. The examples are endless because of Nikon and Canon's what I call ".5 line up." Think about D70 back in the day, it was the camera that competed against Canon's 300D and 20D because it was in that .5 market from the view point of Canon.
Given that and based on how you said "Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300", I think it's fair to not say "...moving to the top the D300 similarly makes the 40D look like a feeble effort at competition"
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting this because I'm a Cano fanboi or anything. Instead, I'm saying it because a comment like that seems to bring Canon vs. Nikon flame war. On the other hand, if you said '...moving to the top the Xsi similarly makes the D60 look like a feeble effort at competition', I would've said the same thing.
Because of the price difference which is the most important factor.
haplo602 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
I can only second this.D300 replaces the D2 and D200 line of cameras as it is the top of the line APS-C camera from Nikon. D3 created a new line in the Nikon lineup.
Similarly D300 cannot be compared to A700, K20d and such, because they are competitors for D200 which is now in the 0.5 line in the Nikon range.
All this is getting realy confusing :-)
Deadtrees - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
"It's true that "Xsi is a far better entry level camera than D60" just like how 300D is a better mid range camera than 40D"should be changed to
"It's true that "Xsi is a far better entry level camera than D60" just like how 300D can be considered as a better mid range camera than 40D"
Lord 666 - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
So what was the bet for? Wear a Nikon hat for a week?For the "full blown, in-depth review" of the D300, it would be interesting to see at least the 18-55 (non-vr and vr kit lens), the 18-200 VR, the 14-24, and maybe a 70-200VR. I am assuming the full review would also be compared against the 5D as a ringer, so it would show both strenghts and weaknesses of the D300 with this glass. However, for a fair review, it must include low light situations.
In the meantime, for those looking for a full review with credit card ready to buy, check out Ken Rockwell - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm
pinto4402 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
The Canon fanbois can console themselves by reading Ken Rockwell's article, comparing the D300 to the 5D (a 2-year old camera). He seems to conclude the 5D's IQ is better, but the D300's color and tones is better. Also, Nikon cheats with its noise reduction, sacrificing sharpness for less noise. This is in line with many other review sites.Having fanned the flame wars, I do hope people understand that no matter how feature laden a camera is, it still won't make you a better photographer if you don't have the artistry and skill to be able to capture beautiful images. Bottom line--if you don't have the eye, your camera won't help (no matter how expensive it is).
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
I bet another Editor at AT that I would get generally positive comments from Nikon owners and some bricks from Canon owners. I also own a 40D and more good Canon lenses than Nikon, so I am not without experience with the 40D.Frankly the XSi is a far better entry camera than the D60, which I have stated in several recent articles. Just as frankly the 40D is not in the same league as the D300. There is a very good reason that Canon priced the 40D lower than any previous Canon prosumer camera - and then stuck another $200 Instant Rebate on the camera.
Today the 40D costs almost the same as the XSi after rebates, which makes the 40D an incredible value for the build quality alone. That great value, however, does not make it competitive with the D300, it just makes it a good buy for what you pay.
The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced, but no one can deny the advantage of the Canon lens lineup. The Canon 5D, which is now priced about the same after instant rebates as the D300, is a much more interesting comparison, which makes me think the 5D replacement could shake everything up once again.
It is very hard to be objective in DSLR reviews due to the commitment one has to one lens line or another. We do our best to balance this out but it is a much more difficult task in a review area where user loyalty to a particular lens line or brand is so strong.
The Olympus E-3 is also a fantastic camera, but not the equal of the D300. It is, however, much closer to the D300 than the 40D is. However, there are not as many Olympus owners out there and I got boatloads of rocks when I stated my honest opinion of the E-3. Objectivity is our goal, but that means you may not always agree with our opinions. That is your right, but please don't automatically assume we are biased or missed the boat.
alexdi - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
"The 40D really lags behind most of the other prosumer models that have been recently introduced.. "Can you explain how this is? I have that camera. It's bad at nothing.
While there's a case to be made for the addition of on-camera stabilization, weather seals, and similar tangential geejaws, the fundamental camera operations are extremely solid. AF speed, sensor noise, and speed of operation are all top-notch. You can rave about the E-3 all you'd like, but when push comes to shove, the 40D is a faster camera at everything. The flash system integration is second only to Nikon, and the lens line, better even than that company.
These are kinds of things working photographers actually care about, which is why I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say the 40D lags. I won't dispute that the D300 is even faster in some ways, but at nearly double the price, it ought to be. For outright speed, the 40D still slots above every other DX DSLR.
For my part, I'd like to see a rear LCD with higher resolution and in-body stabilization so I won't have to spend 30% more on a lens with IS. Otherwise, the 40D lacks for little. Integrated with the EOS system, it's the best choice available at its price.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
The 40D is a competent DSLR, but it is the flagship Canon APS-C camera and it doesn't stand out in any category. It is 10 megapixels and everything else is 12 to 14-15MP. That would be fine if the 40D still topped the IQ or noise charts, but the Pentax K20D or the Nikon D300 or the Sony A700 top all the resolution test charts, and at high ISO, which used to be Canon's forte, the D300 and A700 and K20D all go to higher ISO - some with lower noise. It's not a dramatic difference, but it is definitely there.The D300 is faster for sports and lower noise at higher ISO and better battery life, even though it is higher res. The K20D beats resolution by almost 50% and still manages higher ISO options. The E3 has MUCH better color balance, is much better built with incredible weather sealing, has a better viewfinder, faster autofocus in most light, and that useful tilt/swivel LCD. It is the same res as the 40D in a smaller MOS sensor. The 40D is lower noise than the E3 at 3200, but below that the image quality of the E3 is better, as is the working dynamic range optimization which works on the E3 and does next to nothing on the 40D. In fact, almost every other competitors dynamic range is better than the current Canon which is starting to become an issue.
The 40D is not a bad camera; it is a very good update to the 30D and very solid and capable and easy to recommend as a great value. However, as a flagship model it doesn't stand out in anything except price, which is not what you expect from the biggest DSLR maker.
The next Canon will either make us all say "wow", which I expect, or Canon will be in some serious trouble in prosumer space. I do think the XSi and XTi are the current best entry models, the Canon full-frames are superb and I can't wait for the 5D full-frame replacement, but the 40D is not a standout.
Deadtrees - Friday, May 30, 2008 - link
D300 is the flagship Nikon APS-C camera as told by the Nikon rep but 40D is NOT Canon's flagship APS-C camera. So far, Canon does not have intensions to come up with flagship APS-C cameras. If you want flagship quality from Canon, your only option is 1D line.Those two companies come out with products to fill in the gap of others. They don't compete head to head in that market. It's no woder D300 outperforms 40D because D300 is intended to be like that whereas Canon 40D intends to capture different market. Again, 40D is a mid-range level camera. I don't know where you got that idea of x0D line of cameras being flagship model.
Noise:
D300 sure has lower noise but it is so with the great loss of detail.You've made a same mistake when you talked about Sony A350.
Please, when you talk about noise, think about the detail. If you only think about noise level, even panasonic P&S would match Nikon D3.
Dynamic Rage:
When it comes down to Shadow area DR, only Fuji S5 Pro, Olympus E3 and Nikon D60 is better than 40D. 40D's weak point is highlight DR. In fact, D300 and 40D has same range of DR. The only diffference is that 40D is optimized for shadow DR whereas D300 is optimized for highlight DR. If you claim 40D's poor DR is becoming an issue, then all of the dslrs from all the brands beside Fuji are becoming an issue as well.
Keep it mind that DR has two ends. Left and right. Don't just look at one side and come up with something silly.
(BTW, E3 that you seem to praise is also optimized for shadow DR and has poor highlight DR, even worse than 40D)
BTW, if you really want to maximize the DR of Canon cameras, use neutral picture style or step down contrast/saturation values of Standard picture style.
alexdi - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
I'm sorry, but quite a lot of your information is wrong.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.a...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.a...
Here's dynamic range. The 40D leads the pack. "D-Lighting" is a tone curve. It has little to do with DR, it's just a convenience for people who don't post-process that you can emulate with a Curves preset. The highlight priority on the 40D actually expands the dynamic range by about a stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.a...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.a...
Those are the noise charts for the four cameras you list. The Olympus lags badly, the Sony lags somewhat, and the D300 and 40D differ only in processing priorities. I prefer Nikon's style of NR, but in RAW, the two cameras are indistinguishable.
Nor would I place much stock in "ISO options"; Canon has more stringent parameters for the ISOs they allow than any other manufacturer. ISO 6400 isn't there because it would look like ISO 6400 on the D300 and the K20D; garbage. If you need that much speed, you underexpose a stop and bring it up in RAW.
As to battery life, the 40D has more of it. Canon rates it for 1100 shots. Reichmann at Luminous Landscape attains 800 with his. Thom Hogan, 500 with his D300. I'd be happy with either number, and I have no idea why you brought this up.
As to AF performance, you're literally the only person I've seen who asserts the E-3 has better AF. Here's Camera Labs:
"...subjectively, it didn’t feel as consistent as rival AF systems. When the E-3’s AF system was happy, it could be astoundingly quick, but at other times, it would search a little while rival systems tested alongside had no problems. For example we found it less consistent when it came to tracking moving subjects than Canon and Nikon’s semi-pro models. In our test of tracking vehicles approaching face on at around 50kph, the E-3 only reliably locked-onto about half of them, when the EOS 40D and D300 enjoyed a much higher success rate."
And DCResource:
"The E-3 is a fast-focusing camera in most situations, though it doesn't necessarily feel like the "fastest focusing camera in the world", even with the much-vaunted 12-60 mm lens. Low light focusing was just the opposite -- sluggish -- even with the flash-based AF illuminator."
As to the D300, the various reviews have found the 40D better at acquisition when the lights dim. Focus tracking is excellent for both. In fact, that's why I bought one; I shoot indoor ice hockey. My in-focus percentage is upwards of 80%, and that's shooting through plexiglass flat out.
Anyway, what you've done is to list features from a collection of cameras. Half are inconsequential as above, and none appear in a single body. The K20D shoots at 3fps; resolution aside, it's automatically out of the running for people who shoot sports. The E-3 has the worst interface I've seen on any DSLR since the Kodak/Nikon amalgams from years ago, and focus tracking is again a weakness. Only the D300 is convincingly better on the whole, but again, rarely in areas that matter.
I won't dispute that people who don't post-process would be better served by some other camera. The dividing line between a "professional" body and everything else, however, has always been speed. It's often the difference between getting a workable but imperfect shot, and missing the scene completely. Geejaws aside, nothing but the D300 can keep up.
jan3X5 - Sunday, June 1, 2008 - link
I strongly recommend to verify these "reviews" by yourself (and there are also reviews, which shows you - exactly measured - how fast should be E-3 and A700).If you are interested, I had 40D, D300 and E-3 at same time in one place to try (for hours) what their AF's are capable to do in bright and dim light. In single AF, E-3 with 11-22/2.8-3.5 (without SWD) easily smokes away 40D with 17-40/4L and D300 with 17-55/2.8. And trust it or not, D300 was the slowest. In continuous AF, D300 was the clear winner, 40D and E-3 where pretty similar (and I trust that some reviewers found E-3 the slowest, but they probably do not configure it for best performance - settings of this camera is very complex and pretty difficult).
It is true, that E-3 AF performance is sometimes inconsistent, but it means, that if you try "blind AF test" (random tries of AF lock-on everywhere), E-3 is sometimes the fastest and sometimes similar as 40D. But if you try to focus on edges (the right way for contrast detect AF), E-3 should be the fastest on each try. Last but not least, E-3 has (as only DSLR I know) user-selectable AF area. This means you could select, if AF works in surrounding area of AF point indicator (as standard everywhere) or exactly in (much smaller) area of AF point indicator. In real life usage this provides absolutely exact focusing and ability to fast focus in situations, where is AF by others "press-and-prey" (covering FG and BG - like face behind grass, repeating patterns, etc.) and this feature doesn't mean any performance decrease.
So just talking about AF speed my results are clear - D300 is best in tracking subjects (works excellent!), E-3 in single AF, decision what camera has "better AF" is just about what you prefer. 40D is not bad at all, but I could not imagine, that somebody could find its AF speed or accuracy as something interesting in comparison.
btw: I am pretty surprised, that - when discussing speeds - nobody mentioned write speeds. While both D300 and E-3 are stars here (both able to write at ~30 MBps using best UDMA cards and A700 should be the same), 40D is soooo slow.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
I'm glad you like your Canon 40D, and you have given us many of the reasons and logic you used in choosing the 40D. If you are invested in the Canon system the 40D is a very logical choice. It is also currently a great choice for value.I have just one simple question. If the 40D is so good and so competitive then why is Canon doing a $200 Instant Rebate right now on top of all their other 40D discounts that gets the price below $1000 and only a little more than the entry XSi?
When the 20D was the top of the performance heap we didn't see discounts like this until the end of the model life. The 40D was already the cheapest of the prosumers, and now it is the cheapest by far, and far below its introduction price late last year.
Car Dealers lower price to move product that isn't moving, so could it possibly be that the 40D is not selling as well as Canon would like in today's more competitive environment?
alexdi - Thursday, May 29, 2008 - link
"If the 40D is so good and so competitive then why is Canon doing a $200 Instant Rebate right now on top of all their other 40D discounts..."Ask Canon. They also rebated the 5D in 2006, less than a year after it was introduced. That camera remains competitive even now. The 2008 rebates also encompass over a dozen Canon lenses and the most popular Canon flashes. I'm certainly not in a position to discern Canon's corporate motives. There's little point in staring at the tea leaves when I already know what the camera can do.
pinto4402 - Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - link
Even though I am a happy owner of a 40D, I have no reason to doubt your impartiality just because you stated the obvious--the D300 is a better camera than the 40D. I am heavily invested in Canon pro lenses, which I'm very happy about, and I'm not about to switch to Nikon because it just came out with the latest hot camera. Camera bodies will come and go, but my lenses will last me a lifetime. It's a pity, though, other readers can't put things into perspective because they get so wrapped up with brand loyalty.This is inherently one of the problems with objective camera reviews. They appeal to pixel peeper types who probably can't take a decent photograph under any set of circumstances with any type of camera gear. Nonetheless, keep the good articles coming.
Lord 666 - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
It is not without egg on our face that we report that we were absolutely blown away by the D300.Wes - Thank you for making my day. After witnessing this column mature from the "what is a digital camera" to now, it is a pleasure to read this unbiased review.
Disclaimer: Lord 666 is a happy D300 owner since it came out. Previous to that, the D70 and D80 filled my DSLR needs. But it was only until the D300 I could say "Wow!"
akers - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
I loved my two D70s but when the D200 came out I had to jump on it. The D200, while a great camera, it challenged your technique and made you really think about what you were doing. Still, I loved the D200 and purchased a second body about a year ago.About 5 months after D200 number two, I had an opportunity to handle a D300 for a few hours. Of course I now have two D300s. The D300 is a significant improvement ove the D200 and seems more forgiving (unless of course the D200 helped me get my technique back in shape.) Now I have to figure out what to do with two almost new D200s.
If you are looking for a real serious DSLR the D300 should be on the top of your list, unless you want a full frame sensor and money is not an issue, then go for the D3.
pinto4402 - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - link
Or unless you're heavily invested in Canon lenses and accessories.