Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Killer Angel on December 23, 2007, 06:47:01 am
-
How do the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 cameras compare to each other?Like for example,in what areas is the Canon 40D better than the Nikon D300 and in what areas also is the Nikon D300 better than the Canon 40D?
Thanks.
-
That's a big question. You're best off waiting for Phil to do a D300 review to go along with his 40D review over at dpreview.com.
They look to be about the same camera to me.
-
dcresource has reviewed both - his reviews are not as quantitative as Phil's, but still trustworthy
he thinks the D300 has lower high ISO noise (shown by example) with some other features such as the high resolution LCD
there is a significant price differential for the camera body, but the real decision is which system you're going to make a long term investment in
-
I own both for now anyway...the bottom line after testing them in different arenas, my answer is for indoor sports, I use the 40D, although it starts out with less rez, read MP, it makes better use of them at higher ISOs with one trade off compared to the D300. That being there is more noise[grain appearance on large prints looking close up] in the 40D then the D300. I have set up both cameras as close as possible in the same gym and shooting conditions. The D300 trades less noise for lack of detail. Know this is all on very close observation of 16x24 prints, smaller prints, differences would be less and either camera works fine. Compared to older models from both camps, they both have improved AWB, and focusing, issues with this kind of shooting for both D200 and 20D and 5D bodies. The 5D while, still looks great, but suffers from poorer focusing ability in gym light, fewer keepers etc, but when it hit it right, the images were great .. so if no large prints, then either camera is fine and does better handling the difficult and high iso needs. For this I shoot with fast primes lenses, not zooms, and no flash. For general shooting in outdoors or in door flash, the decision goes the other way, D300 all the way. I will say that the D300 has made huge changes since the D200 or D2x for noise improvement, while the 40D is most likely only half better then the 20D before it. The noise of the 40D is less then the 5D for me in these situataions. Since I do not have the 5D anymore I can tell you how it compares in outdoor shooting, my guess is that it would be very close, but the 5D would have more rez obviously. FWIW....Don
-
How do the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 cameras compare to each other?Like for example,in what areas is the Canon 40D better than the Nikon D300 and in what areas also is the Nikon D300 better than the Canon 40D?
Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The main difference is in the robustness of the body. There just is no equivalent of the D300 on the Canon side. Consider it like an APS version of the 1d3.
My guess is that the real Nikon competitor of the 40D will probably be released at the PMA with a D90 naming and will feature most of the D300's specs in a body a la D80 at a price point likely to be very close to the 40D, I would say probably inferior.
As of today, I would compare the 40D to both the D80 and D300, depending on what is important for you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While no one can guarrantee you might not drop the camera, and some robustness as opposed to I guess, flimsiness, cameras today are all pretty solid. Weight doesn't always equate to solidness, but that said a D300 or 40D either of which are both solid but neither compare to a D2-3 or 1D series camera. Does it have to? Unless you are rough with your equipment, sloppy, bang them around a lot or just plain clumsy, any of these models are pretty solid and should hold up. Unless you need something special like shooting in really bad weather often, even weather seals are not always necessary. I have shot, last summer in Paris with my XTI and was in a down pour one night with out a bag or any cover beyond my umbrella, by the time I got back to the hotel, the camera, lens, and me, were all drenched. Just toweled it off[first] and allowed it to dry overnight, and it worked fine for the rest of the trip. May be I was lucky, but just goes to show you what even the consumer grade stuff can withstand. As for solidness, I would be my M8 which is lighter then all the rest, is the most robust, and has no fancy weather seals. JMHO....Don
-
As Bernard says the D300 and D40 are not direct competitors. Nikon recently confirmed it has no plans to offer direct competitors to the models available from Canon. http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=21943&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21943&hl=)
In addition to Bernard's comments about weather sealing, here are some of the more obvious differences. They do some at a price.
Higher resolution, Marginal imo but it does give you a bit more cropping power.
3D autofocus tracking is very effective on the D300.
Larger viewfinder coverage
More flexible auto ISO
8 fps with battery grip
Dedicated mirror lockup button/dial
Live view, contrast detection
LCD quality
UDMA support
Some of these benefits may be important to you and your style of shooting, in which case you can look in to them more deeply. Just before Christmas I went bird shooting with a friend who brought along a D40 - his 1D Mk III was in for an AF fix. Anecdotally we both felt that the D300's 3D AF was acquiring faster and tracking better. Coming from the 1D Mk III 8 fps grip was also appreciated. That said he isn't planning on changing systems because he's very happy with his Canon lens and body line-up.
What I'm trying to say is that while the D300 may offer more features/benefits if they are not important or useful to your style of shooting, don't fit in to your existing system or are outside your budget then it's not a better camera body for you.
-
While no one can guarrantee you might not drop the camera, and some robustness as opposed to I guess, flimsiness, cameras today are all pretty solid. Weight doesn't always equate to solidness, but that said a D300 or 40D either of which are both solid but neither compare to a D2-3 or 1D series camera. Does it have to? Unless you are rough with your equipment, sloppy, bang them around a lot or just plain clumsy, any of these models are pretty solid and should hold up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While I fully agree with the general thrust of your argument I have to say that my D300 compares very favorably to my D3 regarding build quality and sealing. Time will obviously tell but imo there has been a marked improvement over the D200 which in my experience was already very good in this respect.
-
For those of you all crazy about the 14 bit RAW stuff, tthe D300 drops to around 2.5 FPS when shooting 14 bit raw. 40D stays at the same rate always.
-
While I fully agree with the general thrust of your argument I have to say that my D300 compares very favorably to my D3 regarding build quality and sealing. Time will obviously tell but imo there has been a marked improvement over the D200 which in my experience was already very good in this respect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't want anyone to think I was insulting their D3s by my comments. I also feel that both the 40D and D300 are better constructed then their predecessors..but then I do not abuse my gear.....things just get better and better, have a happy healthy new year to all.....
-
I don't have the D300, but some things I really like about the 40D are:
1. custom settings on the dial (C1, C2, C3) which retain all parameters and can be used at the flick of a dial - great for switching between landscape, action, panning etc. (I believe the D300 has a menu bank for this rather than on the dial, and the D300 menu bank doesn't retain all settings AFAIK)
2. Live view allowing one press for MLU, live exposure simulation, timed mirror lockup, dof, etc etc - a bit more useful than the D300 version - although the 40D only has normal AF with live view and doesn't include contrast detect AF, it does have a faster fps with the live view. It also allows full operation via laptop with included free Canon software, including interval timed shots.
3. 6.5 fps in 14 bit - comparable to the D300 6 fps in 12 bit or 8fps in 12 bit with the optional grip. (D300 14 bit doesn't seem to be quite as useful, with a small lag time for 14 bit and max 2.5 fps)
The D300 has more buttons and dials which some users prefer. The 40D uses dials and jog wheel and more via menu - I quite like the more streamlined approach of the 40D, less need for two hands; but some prefer the D300 layout.
The D300 is apparently built more solidly, or at least is heavier. I cannot envisage damaging the 40D which is also a solid build, but not in the same league as the heavier 1D series.
The D300 is rated for 150k shutter clicks, the 40D for 100k shutter clicks.
The D300 has 51 AF points, the 40D uses 9. I find the 40D extremely fast and accurate in all AF modes and all light conditions. The 40D has 9 cross-type and the centre point has additional diagonal sensitivity in addition to cross-type sensitivity. I think the D300 has 11 cross type points - but it might be 9, not sure. Don't know if the D300 has a super sensitive centre point.
IQ is probably much the same between the D300 and 40D, with the 40D just slightly edging out the D300 for raw files. But they are so close you likely wouldn't see the difference in real world useage. The D300 native ISO is 200 - 3200. The 40D native ISO is 100 to 1600. Both have extra stops (D300 at 100 ISO equivalent, 40D at 3200 ISO equivalent).
Top lenses plus body with the Nikon will cost quite a bit more than top lenses plus body with the Canon. Some Nikon lenses are better than Canon and vice versa.
Canon has a larger total system. If you see the need for adding FF, pro bodies etc there are more options with Canon. The Canon mount seems to take more lenses via adapters than the Nikon mount allows.
The last two points (cost and total system flexibility) were why I chose Canon in the first place. But I doubt you'd go wrong with either choice these days. I'd suggest picking the lenses you want and then the body that goes with them, unless you have a particular other need.
DISCLAIMER: All the above is subjective and based on using the 40D and only on what I've read about the D300 - so some things might be erroneous and/or not relevant to your needs.
How do the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 cameras compare to each other?Like for example,in what areas is the Canon 40D better than the Nikon D300 and in what areas also is the Nikon D300 better than the Canon 40D?
Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
No disrespect, but this theorising about systems is really slightly crazy: nobody, other than a mad, multi-millionaire collector is ever going to need all the options or offers within any system.
In truth, any good system such as Canon or Nikon will supply more than enough hardware to cope with most things any photographer is going to throw at it - the main problem is that the photographer has to have the maturity to know what he wants out of his photography in the first place, and act accordingly. The rest is a game.
The pro has other priorities - his range of needs is often wider than any single system will solve, but then he usually won´t be asking these questions here.
Rob C
-
You have a point, Rob, but the OP probably wants to know if there's any fundamental advantage of one camera over the other.
My first impression from comments and previews was that the D300 was everything I would have like the 40D to be.
(1) 12mp instead of 10mp. There's not much difference between 10 & 12mp, just as there's not much difference between the 8mp of the 20D & 30D and the 10mp of the D40. But there is a noticeable difference between 8mp and 12mp, at least a more noticeable difference.
(2) The D300 appears to have noticeably less noise at really high ISOs. So my first impressions were that anyone moving from a 20D to a D300 with a couple of good lenses would find a worthwhile improvement in image quality at a fundamental level; noticeably greater resolution and detail and noticeably lower noise at high ISO.
However, now I'm not so sure. It seems that the lower noise of the D300 is at the expense of detail destroying noise reduction.
-
Ray - the latter statement agrees with my actual use of the D300 and 40D cameras. So far I have used both with high ISO NR on, at the highest level on the D300. I will try to use the D300 again this week with the D300 NR set to low or off and compare again. So far at the previous settings, the D300 suffered the most loss of detail at high ISO use [ISO1000-3200] and thus looked as it had far less resolution then the 40D. Just one mans experience, no previews used in this statement. ... Interesting enough, the 40D only has on and off settings for the high ISO NR, don't know if this is like auto NR like the auto ISO setting is or not, but more useable detail is noted.....MHO, Don
-
Ray - the latter statement agrees with my actual use of the D300 and 40D cameras. So far I have used both with high ISO NR on, at the highest level on the D300. I will try to use the D300 again this week with the D300 NR set to low or off and compare again. So far at the previous settings, the D300 suffered the most loss of detail at high ISO use [ISO1000-3200] and thus looked as it had far less resolution then the 40D. Just one mans experience, no previews used in this statement. ... Interesting enough, the 40D only has on and off settings for the high ISO NR, don't know if this is like auto NR like the auto ISO setting is or not, but more useable detail is noted.....MHO, Don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been interested in this subject.
I must admit that I am very skeptical that Nikon , in one deft swoop, surpassed Canon in regard to high IQ noise. By this, I mean the native ISO noise of the sensor.
From what I have seen posted on the web, the D3, at least, has much lower high ISO noise than the Canon cameras. More specifically, it has very low chrominance noise, and I can see the smudginess inherent to noise processing going on. At higher ISOs 100% crops look very much to me like what Fuji does with their point and shoots, although the Nikon results look better.
I think what Nikon has done is something like going into LAB color, and then applying a blur to the two color channels to reduce visible chrominance noise, and then also adding a small color boost to prevent the washing out of color after the first operation.
If this is what is going on, one might be able to set up an action in photoshop to accomplish the same thing.
-
I must admit that I am very skeptical that Nikon , in one deft swoop, surpassed Canon in regard to high IQ noise. By this, I mean the native ISO noise of the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And why so?
There have been several articles published by third parties, including the universtiy of Chiago, that marvelled at the sensor technology used by the D3.
Nothing is sacred. Nikon managed to release a body with low noise now because they focussed their developement effort in these aspects while they had mostly always focused before on other aspects.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And why so?
There have been several articles published by third parties, including the universtiy of Chiago, that marvelled at the sensor technology used by the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The D3 had samples out before the 1Dsmk3, so at the time of their availability, the D3 collected more photons than any FF camera with the same exposure, by a good margin, but the 1Dsmk3 seems to have an improvement in microlenses, and captures any where from slightly less to slightly more photons than the D3. Its pixel read noise is similar (samples vary, and the range overlaps), but with 21.1 vs 12.1 MP, the "image" read noise is lower for the 1Dsmk3.
Now noise reduction is another story. Nikon files always get more nosie reduction on average in regular converters, especially the manufacturers', so Nikons will usually look less noisy to the untrained eye, AOTBE.
-
If this is what is going on, one might be able to set up an action in photoshop to accomplish the same thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Surface blur" on a + b does the trick pretty well. I think "Surface blur" looks for edges and does not blur across them as much as it does in relatively uniform areas.
Back to the beginning of your post; whenever you see luminance noise and very little chroma noise in a Bayer camera, you are looking at chroma NR in software. All Bayer cameras are equally "luma" and "chroma" noise indifferent, until the converter decides how literally to take pixel color.
-
...
Top lenses plus body with the Nikon will cost quite a bit more than top lenses plus body with the Canon. Some Nikon lenses are better than Canon and vice versa.
Canon has a larger total system. If you see the need for adding FF, pro bodies etc there are more options with Canon. The Canon mount seems to take more lenses via adapters than the Nikon mount allows.
This is the bottom line that I myself noticed: I put together a Canon 40D and a Nikon D300, plus two equivalent lenses (Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM + Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM versus Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF + Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED), and the Nikon system wound up costing almost $1,200 more to get into.
And yet, by most field-tested accounts, the Nikon D300 doen't even produce quite as nice a final product as the Canon 40D!
Like Don Weston, I don't anticipate banging my equipment around, nor do I intend to stand in the rain taking shots, so the alleged "superior build quality" and weatherproofing of the Nikon just isn't worth the extra twelve-hun$ to me.
Now, if the D300 and its lenses were producing better images also, then OK, but if at best my photos can come out "as nice" as the Canon's ... while "at worst" not quite as nice ... then I think that extra $1,200 would be better spent on a 3rd Canon L-series 70-200 lens for the Canon 40D
-
"Now, if the D300 and its lenses were producing better images also, then OK, but if at best my photos can come out "as nice" as the Canon's ... while "at worst" not quite as nice ... then I think that extra $1,200 would be better spent on a 3rd Canon L-series 70-200 lens for the Canon 40D "
Having sold my 40D and now having a 5D and a D300, I don't think the D300 files are inferior in any way to the 40D for someone who shoots RAW. I don't like the in camera noise settings at high ISO on the D300, but I don't use them...
The 40D and the 5D create outstanding files and are both excellent cameras. The D300 does have some special magic in terms of handling. The AF system is spooky good - and the file quality is moot when the image is blury. Some of the new Nikon lenses are very compelling too.
I am enjoying having a foot in both camps.
-
Thanks for your comment.
How would you compare the autofocus of the 40D and the D300 in the field?
I have held each in my hands at the camera shop, and fiddled with them, but have not had the opportunity to test either one yet.
Jack
PS: If you don't mind my asking, what prompted you to sell the 40D?
-
"How would you compare the autofocus of the 40D and the D300 in the field?"
Both are very, very good. You can even go back and forth without too much confusion. The D300 AF and the Auto ISO features are really outstanding--significantly better than the 40D. The D300 AF is uncanny, and seeing the points it used to set the focus makes using AF much more intuitive - at a minimum, you immediatly know when to use manual focus. I also think the AWB is better on the D300. The D300 is 12 MPIX vs. 10 MPIX, and that is a plus. However, the 40D is $600 cheaper...
"PS: If you don't mind my asking, what prompted you to sell the 40D?"
Good question...I wanted to experience a full-frame camera. I also began to realize that Canon and Nikon have very different strengths and weaknesses in their lens lineups. I decided that a D3 or a 1DsMKIII would be too heavy, and also very expensive. So my near-term compromise was 5D + D300. If a 5DII comes out, I will either sell the 5D or convert it to IR. A full-frame Nikon in the D300 form factor would also be very appealing. I've acquired the amazing 14-24 lens, which I hope to use on both the D300 and the 5D with Mark's Nikon to Canon adapter.
I sold the 40D because two DSLR cameras is already one too many. The 40D is a very nice system, and I can't really convince myself the 5D is better, except for 1 extra stop on the ISO dial. Originally I though I'd rent new cameras to try them out, but it turns out that the losses incurred with a quick buy/sell are cheaper than renting a camera for a week.
Hope this helps, and the good news is that you can't really go wrong with either of these outstanding machines.
-Cecelia
-
Interesting. And thanks again.
I think I am going to learn to live with the slightly less-effective autofocus in the 40D (that is still darned good), and be take heart in the savings I will enjoy going with the Canon.
Still, the Nikon D300 sounds like a wonderful camera, and I am sorely tempted to go that way instead ... but everytime I go to B&H to buy one, when I put together the starter system I want (the D300 body + the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF lens and the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED lens) ... I keep getting stuck on the fact those 3 pieces alone total $1,200 more than the Canon with a similar lens configuration.
I keep rubbing my chin and thinking, if I went with the Canon I could add a 4th piece (namely an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L zoom) to my similar Canon starter kit, and have spent roughly the same amount of money as on the Nikon system, where I don't get an extra 70-200 lens. And this just stops me every time.
At the end of the day, I think I would derive more enjoyment out of that 3rd lens to add to my 40D, for the same monetary expenditure, than I would derive from a little better autofocus capability in the Nikon, but without an added 70-200 lens.
>Sigh< If Nikon were comparable in price, I probably would get the D300 in a heartbeat.
But I just can't get over the fact that I can get the Canon 40D (a wonderful camera in its own right) plus 3 L-series lenses for the same price I could get the D300 and only 2 nice lenses. I think that alone will be the kicker for me.
Thanks again
Jack
-
Interesting. And thanks again.
I think I am going to learn to live with the slightly less-effective autofocus in the 40D (that is still darned good), and be take heart in the savings I will enjoy going with the Canon.
Still, the Nikon D300 sounds like a wonderful camera, and I am sorely tempted to go that way instead ... but everytime I go to B&H to buy one, when I put together the starter system I want (the D300 body + the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF lens and the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED lens) ... I keep getting stuck on the fact those 3 pieces alone total $1,200 more than the Canon with a similar lens configuration.
I keep rubbing my chin and thinking, if I went with the Canon I could add a 4th piece (namely an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L zoom) to my similar Canon starter kit, and have spent roughly the same amount of money as on the Nikon system, where I don't get an extra 70-200 lens. And this just stops me every time.
At the end of the day, I think I would derive more enjoyment out of that 3rd lens to add to my 40D, for the same monetary expenditure, than I would derive from a little better autofocus capability in the Nikon, but without an added 70-200 lens.
>Sigh< If Nikon were comparable in price, I probably would get the D300 in a heartbeat.
But I just can't get over the fact that I can get the Canon 40D (a wonderful camera in its own right) plus 3 L-series lenses for the same price I could get the D300 and only 2 nice lenses. I think that alone will be the kicker for me.
Thanks again
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170494\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry for the late update, but I decided to shoot a couple of more [ high school basketball] with the D300 with lower NR settings then I had used before. I had wrongly assumed that coming from the older Nikon bodies, that the highest setting would yield the best images. I had found when I did this, that detail severely suffered. Resolution in those cases ended up worse then the 40D with it NR on. With the d300 now set to low NR, the D300 makes images more on a par with the 40D at high ISO, but there is also a return of significant grain like noise. I guess you choose your poison....I will also add that this is when looking at images on a monitor at ridiculous sizes, like 66-200%. Also, when looking at prints, yes actual prints of all the images up to 20x40 or 24x32 inches, that at a respectable distance of 18-24 inches or beyond in viewing distance, that all prints looked great compared to images I made last year with a 5D. I think this goes to show that pixel count is NOT so important, processing firmware and software in camera has continued to move forward and these gains not pixel count make results much better then one woul expect from pixel numbers alone. I would suggest NOT looking at anything over what ever pixel size correlates with the largest print you are going to need or want to make, and sizes like 100% or larger are really silly. Basics like having good light amount and quality will surpass any differences than pure numbers in all cases. A higher MP count alone, will not necessarily help. If you really want an eye opener as far as image quality alone, download as I have done and made sectional crop prints from what would be the latest uncomparable cameras, the D3 and XSi. These should not be compared for anything but image quality obviously, feature set, cost make it a silly comparison. I made prints from what would have been 30x45 in images. POINT - very little if any difference in overall quality was seen when looking at these at even this size image. Yes this is not a controlled or fair experiment, just a comparison of two random images supplied by the manufacturers of either camera, but I urge you to do it yourself, you do not need anything larger then a desktop printer and do sectional prints. My last comment, is buy the gear that feels comfortable and suits your shooting needs, style, concentrate on good technique and art if appropriate and let that be your guide.
-
My last comment, is buy the gear that feels comfortable and suits your shooting needs, style, concentrate on good technique and art if appropriate and let that be your guide.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don,
I absolutely agree with this comment. I have always advised friends, when they ask the inevitable question of "what should I buy?", to decide on the general type of camera that you want, determine which are in that field, and then..... Hold them. Play with the controls. How do they feel? Does the controls layout seem to work for you, etc. Then buy the one that FEELS best to you.
I'm following my own advice. I'm just jumping into a DSLR system after years of 4x5 B&W. I'm in the market for a pro-sumer class DSLR and lenses. The major manufacturers all have the lenses that will meet my needs. The 40D feels best to me, so that's what I'm getting.
Brad
-
Don,
I absolutely agree with this comment. I have always advised friends, when they ask the inevitable question of "what should I buy?", to decide on the general type of camera that you want, determine which are in that field, and then..... Hold them. Play with the controls. How do they feel? Does the controls layout seem to work for you, etc. Then buy the one that FEELS best to you.
I'm following my own advice. I'm just jumping into a DSLR system after years of 4x5 B&W. I'm in the market for a pro-sumer class DSLR and lenses. The major manufacturers all have the lenses that will meet my needs. The 40D feels best to me, so that's what I'm getting.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brad - one of the most sensable posts here, too much is gear driven by pure numbers. I have many large prints in my office, the two most complimented on by patients or family were shot with the cheaper end of the spectrum of equipment, one shot from 20 yrs ago in Jerusalem with a Nikon FM and tokina 70-200 zoom and a Canon Pro one P&S. Two of the most cheapest cameras I have owned in decades, both images far from perfect, although decently done, but win on content. Happy shooting with your 40d when it arrives...Don
-
Sorry for the late update, but I decided to shoot a couple of more [ high school basketball] with the D300 with lower NR settings then I had used before. I had wrongly assumed that coming from the older Nikon bodies, that the highest setting would yield the best images. I had found when I did this, that detail severely suffered. Resolution in those cases ended up worse then the 40D with it NR on. With the d300 now set to low NR, the D300 makes images more on a par with the 40D at high ISO, but there is also a return of significant grain like noise. I guess you choose your poison....I will also add that this is when looking at images on a monitor at ridiculous sizes, like 66-200%. Also, when looking at prints, yes actual prints of all the images up to 20x40 or 24x32 inches, that at a respectable distance of 18-24 inches or beyond in viewing distance, that all prints looked great compared to images I made last year with a 5D. I think this goes to show that pixel count is NOT so important, processing firmware and software in camera has continued to move forward and these gains not pixel count make results much better then one woul expect from pixel numbers alone. I would suggest NOT looking at anything over what ever pixel size correlates with the largest print you are going to need or want to make, and sizes like 100% or larger are really silly. Basics like having good light amount and quality will surpass any differences than pure numbers in all cases. A higher MP count alone, will not necessarily help. If you really want an eye opener as far as image quality alone, download as I have done and made sectional crop prints from what would be the latest uncomparable cameras, the D3 and XSi. These should not be compared for anything but image quality obviously, feature set, cost make it a silly comparison. I made prints from what would have been 30x45 in images. POINT - very little if any difference in overall quality was seen when looking at these at even this size image. Yes this is not a controlled or fair experiment, just a comparison of two random images supplied by the manufacturers of either camera, but I urge you to do it yourself, you do not need anything larger then a desktop printer and do sectional prints. My last comment, is buy the gear that feels comfortable and suits your shooting needs, style, concentrate on good technique and art if appropriate and let that be your guide.
Thanks Don.
It seems that you and Cecelia have direct firsthand experience using these two cameras side-by-side, with Cecelia favoring the D300 slightly and you favoring the 40D slightly.
How do you find the autofocus on the 40D? Cecelia found the D300 to be far superior. If the 40D doesn't quite match the D300's autofocus, is the 40D's autofocus still acceptable? Also, how about in low light?
I intend to do some night-time macro work (moths and other nocturnal insects/spiders), and do you think the 40D would be up to that task? I intend to use it with a Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens, and possibly a Macro Lite Adapter Flash Ring as well.
Thanks again.
-
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5062/nikon...on-workout.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5062/nikon-d300-vs-canon-eos-40d-a-hands-on-workout.html)
-
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5062/nikon...on-workout.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5062/nikon-d300-vs-canon-eos-40d-a-hands-on-workout.html)
Thank you for that.
That article pretty much said everything that has been the general consensus, but it illuminated my two specific questions exactly: (1) Autofocus and (2) Using in Low Light.
* Regarding autofocus, the article said, "During our tests tracking cyclists, horse riders and other fast-moving targets, we noted exceptionally swift (and roughly comparable) continuous AF speed with all sensors active."
* And regarding low light, the article said, "Surprisingly, the simpler Canon system was quicker than the D300's when acquiring initial focus in moderately low light (indoors or at dusk), an advantage augmented by Canon's super-swift USM (ultrasonic-motor) fast-aperture prime lenses."
And, finally, in RAW mode (which is all I will ever shoot), the images are virtually indistinguishable, and more importantly, when shooting continuously in 14-bit RAW mode the Canon kept its ability to do so up at a rapid-fire 6 fps, whereas the Nikon dropped significantly to a paltry 2.5 fps.
For my purposes, this is significant. And again, the price difference isn't just in the camera, it's in the lenses too. When I configured the systems I wanted (body + 2 lenses), the Nikon was $1,200 more in total, and really almost $1,500 more when you add to this the fact you also have to purchase additional software just to gain the ability to process the RAW images. (Canon supplies you with the necessary software.)
It seems like none of the D300's high-tech advantages "on paper" translate to any real advantes to the finished product, the photos, while actually some of its features actually offer disadvantages while working in the field. The live view that is so wonderfully-sharp in the D300, the article said, "Curiously, the Nikon (but not the Canon) flipped its mirror down every time we shot, disabling Live View until we reengaged it manually (by half-pressing the shutter release). That's the major reason we preferred the Canon for Live View; it also has a real-time histogram, exposure simulation, optional grid overlay and two quieter shooting modes."
So even though the Nikon has the brighter and prettier live view screen, at the end of the day it doesn't seem as functional.
Again, I appreciate the link.
-
I recently sold my Canon 1Ds2 after several years and switched to medium format with a digital back. The digital back files are great, but ergonomics & functionality compared to the 1Ds2 stink. Became clear very quickly that I need a small dSLR to augment the medium format set-up, so I bought a Nikon D300 and a Canon 40D and putting them through their paces. Here are some differences - in no specific order:
D300 AF system is very good, selecting an AF point is very simple and direct. 40D is nice, but the D300 is nicer and better.
D300's metering seems more willing to push the exposure to its edge; 40D seems to under expose around 1/3 of a stop. On the Canon I tend to use EC adjustment more often. D300 needs less EC.
D300 has a slightly larger viewfinder and 100% coverage, but no optional focus screens. 40D has optional focus screens.
D300's LCD rocks. Canon needs to update their bodies asap.
D300's direction pad works better than Canon's joystick controller.
D300's front dial is too far recessed in the grip, it should stick out a bit more. Canon's placement of the front dial (just above the shutter button) makes more sense to me.
Switching metering modes, AF modes and drives modes on the 300D is a bit hard to do without actually looking at the camera. With the 40D I can do this a bit easier because all the buttons are group above the upper LCD panel.
D300 has great build quality; 40D feels equally well bit - perhaps a bit more solid.
D300's on board flash seems better - exposures seem better. Haven't used it much on either camera.
Had some odd WB from the D300; Canon seems slightly better (maybe), but tends to have slight magenta tendency.
40D does better on noise at lower ISO's. On upper ISO it's a toss up and really depends on the light conditions - various conditions mask noise better than other conditions.
Canon's highlight tone priority works as advertised, but I'm not sure if I like it. Nikon's D-Light is need (really just boosts the lower mid tones), but can save some post processing work. Have both in conjunction would be really neat.
Canon files seem need to more post processing, but also take it better. Nikon files need less work in the raw editor (using C1v4 for the Nikon, DPP for the Canon).
The 40D seems to have a tiny bit more DR - may 1/3 stop. It's a tiny, tiny difference.
The 40D shoots at a base ISO of 100; Nikon needs its extended ISO turned on. 40D does better at ISO 100 --- cleaner and more DR.
I'm going to stay away from sharpness because i don't have like quality lenses for both cameras. For the Nikon I'm using the 18-200 VR whereas on the Canon I'm using Contax lenses via an adapter. It's not even fair to compare.
I haven't totally figured out live view yet, but Canon's seems a bit better despite no AF. I have no real meaningful opinion here.
Nikon has viewfinder has gridlines on demand - love that feature.
Nikon shoots 2.5 FPS @ 14 bits vs the 6.5 on the 40D. That's stated in the specs, so Nikon isn't hiding anything, but people often talk about 6 FPS as it's uniformly available.
40D fits my hand better - it sit lower, more in the palm. The D300 are a lip on the rear rubber where the upper edge of your thumb should sit. The Nikon sits higher, slightly above the palm. With the 40D I feel like I can really grip it and I'm not scared of dropping it. D300 would probably feel more secure with the battery grip added.
I really like what Nikon has done with D300, but as said above - it's ~$1749 vs a 40D ~$1119 (I bought mine used for almost $200 less). Bang for the buck goes to the 40D. 300D adds alot of features and with its AF engine, I think a sports shooter should spend some time with one. For more general shooting I think the 40D works better. It's a cleaner simpler design and doesn't get in the way of itself.
Right now I can't choose between them, it's a very close race. I really like the 18-200 VR for its range and stabilization. If Canon had a 18-200 EF-S IS, I'd probably pick the Canon. The money saved on the body could go towards a nice lens like a 35L (a nice fast prime for walk-around shooting). Downside of the Canon is that to match the 18-200 VR, you need a 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS. Canon has cheaper alternates such as the 18-55 EFS-IS and the new 55-250 EF-S IS, so dollar for dollar that matches the VR. VR still wins in terms of having it all in one lens.
Eventually I'll probably buy a 1Ds3 or D3X and flip back to a high end dSLR. Since the D3X doesn't exist yet, I don't which system I'll ultimately pick. I'd prefer to pick the same brand today (ie the 40D or D300) today and purchases lenses which will work on the FF dSLR. In the end there is no clear winner. It's a tough choice.
-
Interesting review John.
The one thing that puzzled me about your review was when you said, "I'm going to stay away from sharpness because i don't have like quality lenses for both cameras. For the Nikon I'm using the 18-200 VR whereas on the Canon I'm using Contax lenses via an adapter. It's not even fair to compare."
If this is true, and you used a sub-par lens and not a high-end Canon L-series USM, not only would it be unfair to compare sharpness, but wouldn't you say it would also be unfair to compare autofocus and ultimate end-product results as well? If you had a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM I think not only would this have made a difference in the sharpness, but also in the speed of AF as well as end-product quality on many levels. Wouldn't you agree?
That being said, it was still an interesting and helpful review on many levels. For instance, I too found that the build quality in both were excellent, but that the Canon just felt better in my hand. The Nikon has an annoying "lip" on it, at the ends of your fingers, that's true.
Thanks for sharing.
-
Nikon shoots 2.5 FPS @ 14 bits vs the 6.5 on the 40D. That's stated in the specs, so Nikon isn't hiding anything, but people often talk about 6 FPS as it's uniformly available.
The boys at Outback photo like the high speed for trying to do HDR shots. Any significant difference between the 12 bit files and the 14 bit ones?
-
I've shot with Canon pro bodies for over 4 years (1Ds, !D2 and 1Ds2) and this is my second 40D too. I've owned most of the L lenses at one point or another.
In regards to 12 v 14 bits; the upper highlights seem to have better gradients - smoother. I'm not sure if the 2-bits make a significant visible difference. There seems to be some added clarity, but saying that's because of the added bits is a subjective guess. With the Phase back the extra bits pay off in post processing because those files can pushed, stretched, twisted, etc., without falling a part. Part of medium format files' advantage is the added DR the lower tones and essentially no noise at the base ISO. In a 1Ds2 v medium format bit comparison, I would say the difference is profound, whereas the 40D/D300 the value of the extra bits is harder to quantify.
The P25 back has set a new standard (for me) for what a clean file should look like. Whichever body comes closest to that mark, that's the one I'll keep. The differences in auto focus, metering, buttons, LCDs, etc., are easy metrics for comparison purposes, but for my needs it really comes down to the ISO 100 image quality, the dynamic range and the color mapping.
-
Thanks Don.
It seems that you and Cecelia have direct firsthand experience using these two cameras side-by-side, with Cecelia favoring the D300 slightly and you favoring the 40D slightly.
How do you find the autofocus on the 40D? Cecelia found the D300 to be far superior. If the 40D doesn't quite match the D300's autofocus, is the 40D's autofocus still acceptable? Also, how about in low light?
I intend to do some night-time macro work (moths and other nocturnal insects/spiders), and do you think the 40D would be up to that task? I intend to use it with a Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens, and possibly a Macro Lite Adapter Flash Ring as well.
Thanks again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John K. - glad to hear others feel similarly, anyway, shooting high school basketball in gyms is one of the hardest tasks you can ask of a camera, light amount and quality stinks to put it mildly. Both can vary all over the board, but without resulting to flash which is disturbing to the players, I find both bodies focus well, considering that expecting 100% focusing accuracy in these conditions is not realistic. At least not yet with todays tech. I have not used the newer bodies of either Canon or Nikon pro line, no 1d3 or D3. These kids are quick and shooting wide open with shallow DOF, even focus tracking has alot to keep up with. Am working at wide open apertures or nearly wide open and fast shutter speeds. If you are shooting macro at night, I assume with flash, light amount and quality won't be an issue and you will be shooting at lower ISOs and sync speeds and stopped down, no? This is more my macro experience anyway. Focusing should not be too big an issue? Live view?
John - I can not tell you for sure as I have not done this kind of work, I usually shoot my bug stuff during daytime, mostly with flash. For my sports work, I find the end results from both cameras very similar in the end. At present I am trying to decide which camera, system works better for me. Both cameras are excellent, and differences are subtle at most. Am trying hard NOT too get obsessed about these small differences in making my selection...not easy, some days I feel one way, the next the other...aaarrrggghhhh!!! LOL....
-
However, now I'm not so sure. It seems that the lower noise of the D300 is at the expense of detail destroying noise reduction.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=164356\")
I found these test results interesting:
[a href=\"http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191656]http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191656[/url]
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191599 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191599)
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191663 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191663)
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191588 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191588)
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191655 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191655)
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191601 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191601)
-
I found these test results interesting:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They look like they are based upon different conversion styles.
These tests really should be done with literal RAW conversions, if its the camera one is interested in, and not the standard conversion recipes.
The bottom line is that Canon had lower noise in their cameras for so long that they did nothing about software noise reduction, and set a standard for third-party converters to leave the noise mostly untouched, while other companies like Nikon scrambled to hide their relatively noisier sensors and electronics in software noise reduction. This carries on today, even though the noise characteristics of recent Nikons are much better, with the D3 being better than all but one Canon, and the D300 close to the 40D.
-
They look like they are based upon different conversion styles.
These tests really should be done with literal RAW conversions, if its the camera one is interested in, and not the standard conversion recipes.
The bottom line is that Canon had lower noise in their cameras for so long that they did nothing about software noise reduction, and set a standard for third-party converters to leave the noise mostly untouched, while other companies like Nikon scrambled to hide their relatively noisier sensors and electronics in software noise reduction. This carries on today, even though the noise characteristics of recent Nikons are much better, with the D3 being better than all but one Canon, and the D300 close to the 40D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=173535\")
DIWA's testing indicates that the D300 noise performance is better than the 40D, and all the mumbo jumbo about different RAW converters and how they handle the files differently is unsupported speculation on your part. My unsupported (but more believable to me) speculation is that third party converters profile files for DSLRs independently of the camera manufacturers, and Nikon has no more input than Canon does in this regard (nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters).
Since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and since I generally use Capture One for my own conversions, I downloaded some comparable files from the D300, 5D, and D3 from a DPR forum and converted them for myself. I set the WB off of the wall and applied EC to match the EV as much as reasonably possible, then applied identical RAW converter NR settings to the D300 and 5D files, and identical sharpening settings to all three camera's files. The D3 file required substantially less NR than the other files, the fact that there is a 2/3 of a stop difference in exposure might play a role in this; but regardless of that, the D3 was more like two stops better than the other cameras (subtract the extra 2/3 of a stop, and that adds up to just over a one stop improvement).
[a href=\"http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/ISO%201600_D300-5D-D3_Comparison.jpg]http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp..._Comparison.jpg[/url]
What is most important in looking at these comparisons is that detail (and keep in mind that these are 100% crops) is not lost and very comparable looking at both the D300 and 5D. If you shoot RAW then NR is optional, I have disabled it completely with every RAW converter I have used and generally apply it sparingly. Reading forums on the internet I find that every camera eventually gets mishandled by photographers with questionable skills or agendas -- some cameras seem more prone to mishandling than others, and Nikon has apparently responded to that by following Canon's lead in applying a non-linear curve to the RAW data: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=26710014 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=26710014)
Now in another round of conversions using ACR, the noise of the 5D file was less and the D300 file was noisier (again using the same NR and sharpening settings). You can see crops from those results here: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...haring//ACR.jpg (http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//ACR.jpg) What this indicates to me is that the argument that Nikon has some sort of inside track regarding NR being applied by third party converters is demonstrably false.
The shortcomings of ACR for my NEF files led me a long time ago to stop using it to convert my files. You can see what ACR did to my D200 files compared to some other RAW converters here: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...comparisons.jpg (http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//D200_ISO1600_Conversion%20comparisons.jpg) What's my point? Well you buy a camera you're comfortable with and you learn how to use it, and if you shoot RAW to get the most out of that camera, you naturally use the best available RAW converter and set it up to optimize your results. Unfortunately, I am still waiting for Raw Magick Lite to support the D300, but I have allowed my trial version of Lightroom to expire and have not updated CS2 in large part because I still consider the way ACR handles NEF files unsatisfactory (mostly it's a color issue for me, noise being much reduced with the D300 than what it was with the D200).
-
My unsupported (but more believable to me) speculation
That's going on my white board right next to "Why can't we concentrate our resources across the board?""
-
My unsupported (but more believable to me) speculation
*Your* unsupported speculation is certainly no mumbo jumbo, it is worth of taking a look at.
nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters
What makes you think that there is *anything* in those files regarding how to apply NR?
I set the WB off of the wall and applied EC to match the EV as much as reasonably possible, then applied identical RAW converter NR settings to the D300 and 5D files, and identical sharpening settings to all three camera's files
You find it all right to compare the noise in two images, where one of them has been created by *50% more light* than the other?
How was that mumbo jumbo?
the D3 was more like two stops better than the other cameras (subtract the extra 2/3 of a stop, and that adds up to just over a one stop improvement)
Care to explain, how you converted the difference in noise into EV?
If you shoot RAW then NR is optional, I have disabled it completely with every RAW converter I have used and generally apply it sparingly
You *can not* disable NR with ACR from version 4. A basic NR is included in the de-mosaicing algorythm, to the pain of quite a few phhotographers, who would rather see some noise but keep the details.
Pls note, that I don't have any reason to defend the 5D, a 2.5 years old camera against the most up to date cameras. My beef is only with the method of comparison.
-
What makes you think that there is *anything* in those files regarding how to apply NR?
I don't.
You find it all right to compare the noise in two images, where one of them has been created by *50% more light* than the other?
I worked with the files provided by someone else, my own approach would have been to use the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for all the files. The person who created the files used the cameras' metering systems and let the chips fall where they may.
Care to explain, how you converted the difference in noise into EV?
Simple measurement of std. deviation in various color channels mostly taken from the wall by taking a specified number of pixels at a specific coordinate and matching it exactly to the other two camera's files, and by comparing files created from the same source at various ISOs. The ISO 400 file from the D3 looked comparable to the ISO 1600 files from the 5D and D300 using Capture One (with all NR and sharpening disabled). Since the D3 files were exposed 2/3 of stop to the right I subtracted that and came up with just over a one stop better performance if they had all been taken at the same shutter speeds, ISO. etc.
One issue that arises though is where in the scene can the images be said to be "equal"? If I set the point in the shadows, midtones, or highlights I ended up with three different reference points with no way to exactly match all three camera's files -- so I chose a brighter section of the wall and used the D300 as the baseline so that none of the cameras would end up having negative EC applied.
You *can not* disable NR with ACR from version 4. A basic NR is included in the de-mosaicing algorythm, to the pain of quite a few photographers, who would rather see some noise but keep the details.
Perhaps so, but I would not presume that advantages any one camera over any other; since I personally don't use ACR and the initial comparison was with Capture One, it hardly seems relevant. Looking at my converter comparison with the D200 used ACR 3.7 (which is still the version of ACR that converts D200 files, at least with the current version of Lightroom), I would have a hard time being convinced that the D200 enjoyed any NR whatsoever looking the file ACR generated. One thing is certain to my eyes, there was abundant detail in all the ISO 1600 files from the D3, D300 and 5D and a big difference in both noise and detail as NR was raised and lowered using ACR as well as Capture One.
-
I don't.
Then I can't decypher your
nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters
I worked with the files provided by someone else, my own approach would have been to use the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for all the files. The person who created the files used the cameras' metering systems and let the chips fall where they may
Well, this is a good explanation for why the comparison was worthless.
The ISO 400 file from the D3 looked comparable to the ISO 1600 files from the 5D and D300 using Capture One (with all NR and sharpening disabled). Since the D3 files were exposed 2/3 of stop to the right I subtracted that and came up with just over a one stop better performance if they had all been taken at the same shutter speeds, ISO. etc.
1. A *correct* comparison needs to involve several images with exposure bracketing and selecting those, which are the closest to each other in the raw result, relative to the saturation points.
2/3 stop means almost 60% more light. As the noise is due to the lack of light (the reason for using ISO 1600), the different exposures result naturally in different levels of noise.
This can not be compensated for by substracting the 2/3 EV from the compared ISOs.
2. I'm afraid taking samples from the wall was a grave error. The wall does not look smooth. The face of the sculpture appears more suitable (and darker anyway, that's the point). There the D3 image looks much better than the 5D, which in turn looks much better than the D300.
Facit: instead of the mumbo-jumbo, thorough analysis of comparable images is required to make a qualified statement.
-
Then I can't decypher your
nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters
"...third party converters profile files for DSLRs independently of the camera manufacturers, and Nikon has no more input than Canon does in this regard (nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters)." That is self-explanatory; there are no instructions in the files directing third party converters (like ACR and Capture One) to apply NR.
Well, this is a good explanation for why the comparison was worthless.
Perhaps for the purposes of evaluating noise, what they do demonstrate though is that detail is not being sacrificed to attain lower noise -- that was really the point I was making with that comparison, and I believe it does show that. Ironically, many people looked at these very shots at DPR and based on different conversions and out of the camera JPEGs drew conclusions about the relative merits of the cameras. My own impression is close to yours in that regard -- mostly worthless. That said, nearly everything I have come across online comparing various cameras IQ in general and noise in particular has been similarly worthless; the best I have seen to date in that regard is the DIWA tests I offered earlier in this thread.
2. I'm afraid taking samples from the wall was a grave error. The wall does not look smooth. The face of the sculpture appears more suitable (and darker anyway, that's the point). There the D3 image looks much better than the 5D, which in turn looks much better than the D300.
Have you actually measured the differences? I just now took a series of measurements from the neck area of the sculpture and looking at the red, green, luminosity, and colors std. deviation there is negligible difference between the 5D and D300; the blue channel does show a noticeable difference in that area but in the area above the sculpture's right eye they are almost identical even in the blue channel.
Regarding my choice to measure the wall, one problem with the face of the sculpture is that it is hard to distinguish noise from tonal ramps that exist there. The wall on the other hand is relatively free of detail and has no significant tonal ramps where I measured it. Here is the D3 ISO 200 file with no changes and converted using NX (NR was turned off in the camera, and there appears to be no sharpening either): http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...//D3-ISO200.jpg (http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//D3-ISO200.jpg) Any detail you see on the wall from the ISO 1600 files is false, and is in fact noise.
My reason for offering my time and effort to this thread is that the suggestion has been made that the lower noise in Nikon's D300 is accomplished by some sort of trickery (and the implication is that Canon is doing it without trickery); and that is unsubstantiated. Oh well, people will believe whatever makes them most comfortable. All I really know is that my D300 delivers very good high ISO noise performance and overall IQ, and I can adjust the NR in all the converters to taste (even in NX, although Capture One actually does a better job with its NR), detail is reasonably good up to ISO 1600 but starts to suffer after that.
-
I can't help but thinking that if it's this difficult to quantify the difference in noise between these two cameras, and there's this much disagreement between people who have attempted to be careful in their comparisons, that it makes sense to pick one of these cameras based on criteria other than noise. Unless, I suppose, the vast majority of your work is low-light, high-ISO. In which case you should do your own tests and figure out which YOU prefer.
I haven't done hands-on comparisons of the two bodies myself. From looking at many shots on the 'net, my take is that the D300 does have somewhat more intrusive noise reduction, and higher noise with NR turned off (at high ISOs). But both the D300 and 40D are SOOO much better than even the best DSLR of not very long ago it's hardly worth worrying about.
My old 10D is essentially useless at ISO 1600. The 40D and 300D are both remarkably good at 1600 and 3200. I have more important things to wory about at this point.