Canon 40D vs. Nikon D300

[REdOX]

I know the D300 isn't out yet but any comments on what you like about each one? I've outgrown my Panasonic FZ50 and I've narrowed it down to either of those 2 choices.

[boi-alien]

both are great cameras. comes down to personal preference. go play with them at any of the local camera stores.

[REdOX]

Originally posted by boi-alien
both are great cameras. comes down to personal preference. go play with them at any of the local camera stores.

Yeah but I want to hear other people's opinions... not yours though because I know what you're going to say already.. lol.

[E36M3]

Both are good choices. Canon has a much higher R&D budget, so their electronics should be better overall. A modern SLR camera is essentially a computer, so R&D budget should make a big difference.

Nikon has good optics, but Canon has a better choice of available lenses.

I own Canon equipment, but would probably be just as happy with Nikon.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by E36M3
Both are good choices. Canon has a much higher R&D budget, so their electronics should be better overall.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by E36M3
Both are good choices. Canon has a much higher R&D budget, so their electronics should be better overall. A modern SLR camera is essentially a computer, so R&D budget should make a big difference.

Nikon has good optics, but Canon has a better choice of available lenses.

I own Canon equipment, but would probably be just as happy with Nikon.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by E36M3
Both are good choices. Canon has a much higher R&D budget, so their electronics should be better overall. A modern SLR camera is essentially a computer, so R&D budget should make a big difference.

Nikon has good optics, but Canon has a better choice of available lenses.

I own Canon equipment, but would probably be just as happy with Nikon.

Hmm I think you've been hugely misinformed. These days, the canon vs. nikon fight lies mostly in people's personal preference. In terms of R&D, they're pretty on par. One or two of the higher profile reviews have ranked canon glass slightly above Nikon, but in general, it really is down to what feels better in your hands. The only reason there is such a huge stigma between the two is because whoever picks one system automatically thinks it's better (other wise, why would they have picked it?) so a lot of trash talking ensues.

Bottom line, when looking for a cam, go look at them, play with them and make your own decision.

[E36M3]

No, in terms of R&D they are not even close. Check the numbers. In terms of specs, etc. (with the new Nikon releases) they might be close, but in R&D spending, they are worlds apart.

Originally posted by Melinda

Hmm I think you've been hugely misinformed. These days, the canon vs. nikon fight lies mostly in people's personal preference. In terms of R&D, they're pretty on par. One or two of the higher profile reviews have ranked canon glass slightly above Nikon, but in general, it really is down to what feels better in your hands. The only reason there is such a huge stigma between the two is because whoever picks one system automatically thinks it's better (other wise, why would they have picked it?) so a lot of trash talking ensues.

Bottom line, when looking for a cam, go look at them, play with them and make your own decision.

[E36M3]

Canon spends more money on research and development. More money spent on research and developent (all things being equal) = better results.

[edit]
Just in case any of you still doubt it, Canon spends about $3 billion USD a year on R&D vs. Nikon's 400 million USD.

Sources:

Canon
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3652785

Nikon
http://investing.businessweek.com/re...?symbol=7731.T
[/edit]

Nikon has some nice products (especially their newest releases, but it is an uphill battle and they have struggled.

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Remember that Canon must divide its R&D between its camera, photocopier, printer, and scanner divisions - something Nikon doesn't have to do.

Also keep in mind that Nikon uses primarily Sony sensors (except for the D2H and D3) which cuts research costs hugely, and I'm sure Canon's R&D is peanuts compared to Sony's.

The bottom line is that in the DSLR market, there is no clear leader. Nikon currently has the lead in market share (based in Japan) and is making record profits. Canon rested on its laurels over the past years, Nikon announced the D300 and D3 which trump any comparable Canon camera at the moment. That could be reversed at any time, that's the nature of the market.

Judging a company's product quality by R&D dollars is just strange and disconnected. People should judge by how the camera feels and works, not how much money a company spent researching them.



OP: The D300 is better on paper, but I would try out he 40D and the D200 to get an idea of how they feel.

[REdOX]

OK guys.. although I appreciate your passion for the subject and your willingness to answer my thread most people have misunderstood what I was asking. With all due respect, I'm not asking you guys to tell me which brand I should buy. I will choose on my own. I would however like your opinions on the brand YOU like and why.

For example.. if you own a canon 40D you could say something like, "I like how it feels in my hand and the wheel control that it has."

Or, you could say, "I like how Canon has a bigger budget for R&D." (Which was mentioned- thanks!).

I just want to get a feel of why YOU like one model vs. the other. And if you are tempted to say, "They're pretty much the same, it's just personal preference." Thanks but there's no need for you to reply.

Ok.. thanks

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by REdOX


I just want to get a feel of why YOU like one model vs. the other. And if you are tempted to say, "They're pretty much the same, it's just personal preference." Thanks but there's no need for you to reply.

So you'd rather buy a camera that other people like, rather than one you take the time to research and decide YOU like?

Alright then, I love my Voigtlander Bessa-L and that's the only camera you should buy, because you apparently can't think for yourself.

[clem24]

^^ Fine, I am a Nikon guy and will probably always be a Nikon guy. I like having my adjustments as those spinny wheels. I just cannot get used to Canon's Wheel of Fortune style selector, and it feels unnatural because it's so low. The Exposure meter in the viewfinder is backwards from Nikon. Further, the controls are reversed (shutter/aperture). Even the Canon lens mounts reverse vs. Nikon.

Anyways, my point is, asking this is pointless. It's truly personal perference and how much you've invested in one system vs. the other. That's when you go into other things. For pro or semi-pro glass, Canon ALL THE WAY. For average joe glass, Nikon owns all with the 18-200VR (seriously the only lens you'll ever need if you don't make money off your photos).

Finally, the D300 isn't even out yet, so the only opinions are basically previews and spec sheet interpretations. And the 40D is so new that not many ppl have it yet. Wait.. Does Mal have one?

Basing a camera on a company's R&D budget is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. I base my decision on how I like the cam, how it feels in my hand, picture quality, etc...

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by clem24
For pro or semi-pro glass, Canon ALL THE WAY. For average joe glass, Nikon owns all with the 18-200VR (seriously the only lens you'll ever need if you don't make money off your photos).

I would even disagree with that, Nikon pro glass is stellar (have you seen the MTF charts for the 400, 500, and 600mm VRII's?) while Canon's consumer f/4L's are great budget(ish) glass. The two systems are competing so fiercely that neither has room for weakness in any market segment.

[Melinda]

Alright, I have recently bought a 40D (three weeks ago), after owning first a d60 for 3 years then a 20D for 3 years after that. So far it's awesome. Each canon I've owned just adds new features and better quality to the shooting experience. Is the 40D for everyone? Honestly, no. At the risk of sounding judgemental, newbies (amatures and even most lower end intermediates) do not need a 40D. They won't have the use for all the extra features and individual controls for quite some time, and by then, there will be bigger and better technology out there.

I chose canon for my DSLR set up 6 years ago because when the d60 first came out, there was nothing comparible in the way of Nikon, Nikon was still playing catch up, so I can't give you an accurate comparison. Now that I have $15,000+ dollars invested into past and present Canon gear, I can't see myself ever changing to Nikon, no matter what they bring out.

Unless I was helping a friend figure out a feature on their camera, I haven't touched a Nikon since I bought my first DSLR so I am accustomed to the "wheel of fortune" type scroller and where all the settings can be found. Because I already know it, I like it. But as was stated earlier in the thread, not everyone does. Just like some people don't like the way Nikons feel either.

I know you do not want to hear it, but you really do HAVE TO go out and research for yourself. The two interfaces of software, hardware, buttons and workflow are completely different, and only you will know what you like better. Like I've said a hundred times in the last week (at least it feels like a hundred times) reading and photography generally are not a stelar combination. You really do have to apply a hands on attitude to photography, ESPECIALLY when selecting your first camera and the tools that are going to enable you to move forward.

[LUCKYSTRIKE]

you wouldnt happen to be a nikon shooter would you berserker?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by LUCKYSTRIKE
you wouldnt happen to be a nikon shooter would you berserker?

Oh, possibly. However, I was very close to being a Canon shooter and still think that both systems are more or less equal. It all comes down to personal preference.

[clem24]

So do they ever publish number of units manufactured vs. actual sales? It seems that everytime Nikon releases something, they sell out for at least a year. Take the D200 and 18-200VR. But when Canon releases something, it's always widely available (like 40D), and even if not (like the 1DIII), they usually catch up within a few months.

I'd be interested how many units they actually sell vs. how many units they produce. Either Nikon is incredibly stupid, or they play the market like Sony does with the PS3 and create hype. I am almost certain it'll be tough to get a D300 or D3 unless you pre-order.

Sorry this is off topic..!

[clem24]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I would even disagree with that, Nikon pro glass is stellar (have you seen the MTF charts for the 400, 500, and 600mm VRII's?) while Canon's consumer f/4L's are great budget(ish) glass. The two systems are competing so fiercely that neither has room for weakness in any market segment.

I don't know.. What I find funny is, if you ever see a throng of photographers at a sporting event or the paparazzi at red carpet events, they always have Canon glass. Just a ton of huge, grey colored lens (with the red stripe at the front, of course, cause we all know if it ain't "L" it's crap... ). Gosh someone is going to beat me up for that remark.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I suspect that has to do more with Canon's pro bodies dominating the market at the time - and if you've got a Canon body, you're not shooting Nikon glass! (unless you're Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride" crew, that is.)