Now I'm confused again - 40D - D300

I had my mind set on the 40D mostly based on comparison pictures next to the
D200 on various websites.
Then I started thinking perhaps I could manage, financially, getting the
D300.

What I mostly do is sports but because I currently don't have any lenses and
no brand specific photo equipment I really don't care if I get a Canon or a
Nikon.
My priorities are that I need to be able to shoot sports at a fast frame
rate and to be able to control the shutter speed my self. From what I have
read this seems to be a bit easier on the D300 but I could be wrong.

I would also like to be able to go down to a 100 ISO. Why isn't that a
standard with these SLR's?

One more thing, I like the software that comes with the 40D. That I can hook
it up to the computer and control it and see what's in front of the camera
on my computer monitors. It's something I would also like. This does not
seem to be an option with the D300.

Please help me make a desicion.

Kevin

On Jan 4, 8:05 am, "Kevin" wrote:
I had my mind set on the 40D mostly based on comparison pictures next to the
D200 on various websites.
Then I started thinking perhaps I could manage, financially, getting the
D300.

What I mostly do is sports but because I currently don't have any lenses and
no brand specific photo equipment I really don't care if I get a Canon or a
Nikon.
My priorities are that I need to be able to shoot sports at a fast frame
rate and to be able to control the shutter speed my self. From what I have
read this seems to be a bit easier on the D300 but I could be wrong.

I would also like to be able to go down to a 100 ISO. Why isn't that a
standard with these SLR's?

One more thing, I like the software that comes with the 40D. That I can hook
it up to the computer and control it and see what's in front of the camera
on my computer monitors. It's something I would also like. This does not
seem to be an option with the D300.

Please help me make a desicion.

Kevin

All DSLR's are going to have:

Shutter mode: You pick the shutter speed, the camera picks the
aperture...
Aperture mode: You set the aperture, the camera picks the shutter
speed...
Manual mode: You pick both the shutter speed and the aperture...

The 40D's ISO range is 100 to 1600, expandable to 3200

Looks like the D200's ISO is the same 100 to 1600, expandable to 3200

The D300's ISO is 200 to 3200 and is expandable to 100 and 6400.. so
the D300 does have an ISO 100...

as for fast frame rates...

40D - 6.5 fps
D200 - 5 fps
D300 - 6 fps, 8 fps with optional battery pack

as far as taking pictures with your camera hooked up to your
computer... sounds cool... but will you actually ever use it...

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
I had my mind set on the 40D mostly based on comparison pictures next to
the D200 on various websites.
Then I started thinking perhaps I could manage, financially, getting the
D300.

What I mostly do is sports but because I currently don't have any lenses
and no brand specific photo equipment I really don't care if I get a Canon
or a Nikon.
My priorities are that I need to be able to shoot sports at a fast frame
rate and to be able to control the shutter speed my self. From what I have
read this seems to be a bit easier on the D300 but I could be wrong.

I would also like to be able to go down to a 100 ISO. Why isn't that a
standard with these SLR's?

One more thing, I like the software that comes with the 40D. That I can
hook it up to the computer and control it and see what's in front of the
camera on my computer monitors. It's something I would also like. This
does not seem to be an option with the D300.

Please help me make a desicion.

The best thing to do, is to download both manuals and compare.
It's not a secret that I'm a big Nikon fan, but all for a reason.
I bought my D300 even without having to hold one in my hands. Some things
are just good, you know, like buying a new Mercedes Benz; you just know it's
not going to drive like crap ;-)
Like sports, I like shooting wildlife (although I haven't really gotten to
much) and the focus system of the Nikon is very, very good, specially for
action. It has many different modes to choose from. And, like someone else
stated: with the grip you get up to 8 fps. Not a sportsman that can get away
from you. I got my grip as a package from Cameta at Amazon, with a cleaning
kit and reloadable AA batteries, which are enough for about 600 pictures and
the top speed.

What really makes the camera shine are the easy controls, the 3" VGA screen
(excellent for pre or after view), 12.3 MP, if you need some cropping, it's
very nice to have more than 20% extra, the front AND rear dial makes
adjustment a snap. Also you can modify just about anything.
Another important advantage it has over the 40D: fine tuning of focus on
different lenses. Only the D300, D3 and the $8,000.- Canon have that, at
least not the 40D. I played with it, but I didn't seem to need it; even with
the cheap 18-55 kitlens, the pictures are razor sharp and the color
rendition, even in just standard mode, is fantastic.
Two liveview modes which even show the difference in white balance and
picture control.
Also pointed out befo the Nikon CLS is unsurpassed. I have three external
flashes and I can basically do anything I want. The light metering is spot
on and very reliable.
Maybe it's a bit more money, but really, you'll have long forgotten about
the money after you start shooting.

Here are some examples I took, before even understanding everything about
the focus system. (this is not very well explained in the 450 page manual)

http://atlantic-diesel.com/
http://best-of-photos.com/


But of course: it's your choice. Just go to a camera store, pick them up
and shoot some samples. Feel what it does for you.


--
Sosumi

On Jan 4, 1:03*pm, "Sosumi" wrote:

you know, like buying a new Mercedes Benz; you just know it's
not going to drive like crap ;-)

If you want a real ride take BMW or Audi, never Mercedes Benz. The
same in dslr photography: if you want to take valuable and
safisfactory photos take Canon, not Nikon.

http://atlantic-diesel.com/http://best-of-photos.com/

Very well composed photographs, congratulations. But quality produced
with this lens is really, really crap. Sorry. With Canon optics you
could gain much better results.

suddengunfire wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:03 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:

you know, like buying a new Mercedes Benz; you just know it's
not going to drive like crap ;-)

If you want a real ride take BMW or Audi, never Mercedes Benz. The
same in dslr photography: if you want to take valuable and
safisfactory photos take Canon, not Nikon.

http://atlantic-diesel.com/http://best-of-photos.com/

Very well composed photographs, congratulations. But quality produced
with this lens is really, really crap. Sorry. With Canon optics you
could gain much better results.
Your taste in cars sucks...

Your opinion on cameras is... subjective.

P.

"suddengunfire" wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 1:03 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:

you know, like buying a new Mercedes Benz; you just know it's
not going to drive like crap ;-)

If you want a real ride take BMW or Audi, never Mercedes Benz. The
same in dslr photography: if you want to take valuable and
safisfactory photos take Canon, not Nikon.

http://atlantic-diesel.com/http://best-of-photos.com/

Very well composed photographs, congratulations. But quality produced
with this lens is really, really crap. Sorry. With Canon optics you
could gain much better results.


Thanks, but if you mean the 18-55 Canon kitlens: it's just about the worst
available!

--
Sosumi

A pretend photographter who does sports but does not own any camera or
lenses can pretend to buy anything.

Kevin wrote:

I would also like to be able to go down to a 100 ISO. Why isn't that a
standard with these SLR's?

Why should the camera makers willfully degrade the sensitivity
of their sensors? If you want longer exposures, use a ND filter!
If you worry about noise, you do not understand. Stop worrying.

-Wolfgang

Because major manufacturers are sales and marketing driven maybe? Remember
what 'ISO' actually means.

BTW, I worry about noise, and I do understand.


"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...

I would also like to be able to go down to a 100 ISO. Why isn't that a
standard with these SLR's?


Why should the camera makers willfully degrade the sensitivity
of their sensors? If you want longer exposures, use a ND filter!
If you worry about noise, you do not understand. Stop worrying.

OK Wolfgang.
Thanks for your advice.
I have actually decided to follow your advice and am not going to worry
about it.
After all they know this stuff infinitely better than I do.

K



Why should the camera makers willfully degrade the sensitivity
of their sensors? If you want longer exposures, use a ND filter!
If you worry about noise, you do not understand. Stop worrying.

-Wolfgang