Canon 40D or 50D vs. Nikon D300 Based System

[Siddhartha]

After much thoughtful consideration which included briefly considering the 4:3 sensor, I've decided to stay with the 35mm format, more specifically probably APS-C sensor to minimize camera weight and bulk.  My research has identified three choices:  The Canon 40D, the Canon 50D and the Nikon D300.  From what I've read, the 40D and D300 have better high ISO performance (larger pixels) than the 50D but the 50D has a nicer viewing screen equal to the D300 (I know, it doesn't affect image quality).  Here's my conundrum.  When I look at my decision from what core lenses are available, for me the Canon system has the advantage with the 17-40mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L or the new f/4 IS version.  For some bizarre reason, Nikon appears to have never competed head-to head with Canon's f/4 70-200.  If they did, I would get the D300 because I think it has much better metering,  autofocus and weather sealing than either the 40D or 50D (which have essentially the same AF and metering system as the 10D which is based on the Elan 7 film camera).  Canon has certainly fallen behind in these areas compared to the Nikon.  The other consideration is that I don't want to buy APS-C specific lenses to allow for future upgrade to full frame, so I need to find a Nikon equivalent of the 17-40 f/4L and ESPECIALLY the Canon 70-200mm f/4L.  Im even thinking about getting a Canon to Nikon adapter I like those two Canon lenses so much.  I need the highest (i.e., professional) optical quality in these ZOOM ranges while minimizing weight (i.e., my back can't take lugging the f/2.8 variants around all day, plus a camera backpack and a tripod which is going to be carbon fiber).  Any thoughts on how to resolve this apparent dilemma would be much appreciated!  Thanks in advance.

[Panopeeper]

I am sure you will get many different and alike answers. IMO the decisione between the alternatives you introduced should be based on the availability of lenses and on focusing.

I am a Canonite with a 20D in reserve and a 40D, but I have no allegiance to anybody and anything. If I were starting today, I would be hard pressed to find arguments for the 40D or 50D vs the D300 (in both directions). However, the short length Nikkors appear to be better than the Canons.

Note:

1. the 17-40 does not count to the excellent lenses with high density sensors,

2. the AF of the 40D (= 50D) is mediocrate,

3. the high-accuracy AF point (the center one) works only with lenses from f/2.8 on Canons lower than the 1Dxxx models (I zhave no idea how this is with the Nikon bodies),

4. Zeiss lenses are "always" sooner available with ZF mount (Nikon) than with ZE (Canon),

5. Nikkors can be used on Canons with adapter, but not the other way,

6. it is plain BS that the D300's image quality in terms of noise and DR is better than the 40D or 50D.

If you think that I suggested one over the other, based on this post, then I delete it.

[Gemmtech]

As far as I am concerned no competition, get the Nikon D300, much better than the Canon, lenses included.  I used Nikon for 30 years, switched to Canon digital and regretted it, went back to Nikon D300 and D700.  Couldn't be happier.  Better ergonomics, better image, better glass.

Just my opinion.  

[stever]

if you shoot long - Canon, if wide angle - Nikon

[aaykay]

If weight is a big consideration, why not consider the 4/3 sensor at all ?  Olympus offers excellent optics too, for the money.  If you are not that particular about an optical VF, and if there is no fundamental dislike for the 4/3 format, then something like the Panasonic G1 could be a good alternative.

Also, if you are investing in a system from the perspective of future upgradeability to FF, I think either Canon or Nikon are good options.  Sony is also an option too, with their A700 (APS-C) and A900 (FF).  The A900 has the largest optical viewfinder (with 100% coverage) among all dSLRs excepting the 1DSMKIII....with a 100% viewfinder that is larger than the Nikon D3 or the D3X, but does not have live-view in any shape.  Sony has deliberately refrained from introducing features like liveview and video etc from their high-end dSLRs.

Canon and Nikon have excellent selection of lenses, both manufacturer products and also 3rd party products, while Sony is a lot more limited from that perspective but is building up their system from the bottom up, with top glass.  Previous Minolta and Konica-Minolta lenses will work too, with Sony.  Unlike Canon, Sony does not have the f/4 lenses that sit beneath the f/2.8 versions (17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L (IS and non-IS)), even though a new 24-105 f/4 SSM G is expected anytime now (SSM in Sonyspeak is ring-USM in Canon-speak and "G" in the Sony lens designation is the same level as "L" in the Canon lens range).  

If primes float your boat, then only the Sony 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm etc are stabilized (via the body based stabilization).

The Sony Zeiss lenses are better than all other comparable products around (I am a prior Canon shooter), but if the Zeiss glass with Auto-focus is an important factor, then the choice in the Sony lens range is restricted to 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar, 85mm f/1.4 Planar and 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar.  The 70-300 4.5-5.6 SSM G  is an excellent light-weight option and it is a "G" level lens.

[Ken R]

Hi.

I am a professional photographer. Been using Canon for about 5 years. (10d, 1Dmk2, 5D, now 1Ds mk3). Before that I was a Nikon user for 10 years! When the 1D mk2 came out Nikon just didnt have anything that came close to it in resolution / high iso performance and overall image quality.

That said. If I were buying into a system today I would get a Nikon. The D300 is just unmatched by any Canon when it comes to the combination of price, build quality / ruggedness and overall body quality. Ditto with the D700. Ive handled both cameras and they just feel much better than their Canon counterparts (the 4050d and the 5D mk2). The AF is also better in the Nikons. The Canons feel a tad sluggish. The Nikon D300 and D700's feel like small version of the D3. The "lesser" Canons DO NOT feel at all like the Canon 1 Series which are superb. Does not mean that they are bad cameras, not so, BUT they are of a lower build quality and just dont feel as responsive as the Nikon's.

Canon really needs a compact version of their 1 series.

Regarding lenses both Canon and Nikon are quite similar. Nikon generally has more choices though, specially in zooms. Also, Nikon's 14-24mm lens is unmatched by any wide angle zoom ever made.

The good thing is that with todays superb zooms combined with the cameras amazing high iso performance one can get by with quite a few lenses nowadays! So unless you have a specific lens requirement both Systems have plenty.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you decide to go the Nikon route, I would personally not get a D300 today, it has been rumoured for quite some time to be replaced later this year by a D400.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sniper]

Another factor to add in is Canons recent "issues" there was the 1ds3 focusing business, then then some 40d's were reported with back focusing, the 50d's had the black spot problems and now some G10's have been recalled for something or other.

[ndevlin]

Some reasons you're not considering Pentax? I ask  this as a Canon shooter (for now).  You can virtually steal a K20D as present prices.  Their glass is excellent, and the form-factor is smaller than the equivalent Canonikons.  The new K7 looks pretty sweet, too. Plus they throw is IS in the body.

- N.