OK, this is going to be a hard one. What does Canon have to compete with the Nikon D300? I have Canon but gosh, if I was starting out now, it would be the Nikon D300 for sure!
Anybody have firm information as to when Canon may leapfrog the Nikon D300?
(Please allow me the luxury of just one unchallenged assumption: That the Nikon D300 is a better camera than Canon EOS 40D)
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Luxury granted. In fact, that seems a pretty safe (and sage, as I miskeyed it the first time) assumption. One school of thought that says the similarly specced Sony A700 is most of the D300 at a much better price, with stellar AF Zeiss glass.
I've been shooting an A700 side by side with a 40D + 17-55/2.8 IS and it's an interesting comparison. The Sony has faster AF, no doubt, and resolves slightly better with the extra pixels, but only if you treat the post-production carefully. If you just open RAWs from both in ACR, the Canon looks equally as good. This says more about the quality of Adobe than the Sony. In C1, or better, RPP, the Sony files are better up to ISO800, but from ISO1000 up the cleaner, smaller 40D files are preferable.
They're both pretty well built; the Sony with the V grip feels nicer in the hand in landscape orientation, but very wrong in portrait mode. The Sony menu system is much slicker and easier to use, and in general the A700 feels quicker and more responsive. The IS in the 17-55/2.8 is maybe .5-1 stop better than the Sony system and the lens is a belter (apart from questionable wide angle, wide aperture performance). However, the Sony gives you IS with every lens, and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Zeiss 16-80mm are just as good as the Canon hi-spec zoom.
For my money, I took the Sony, but the decision was swayed more by the prospect of the forthcoming Flagship Alpha than any very significant differences between any of the better APS-C cameras out there, which are all very competent nowadays.
Comparing the D300 to the A700 (same sensor, natch), the Nikon has slightly better high ISO performance (maybe half a stop), better build (everything is rock solid), and the AF is smart and fast. But it doesn't have in-body IS, and Nikon flat out doesn't make a decent fast stabilised zoom for it. So nothing's perfect!