Is it worth the upgrade from a Canon 40D to a Nikon D300 ?

S

Subaru_WRC

Messages
166
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a very low actuations Canon 40D and i`m considering a possible change to a Nikon D300, the main reason for this is i like sports photography and its something i want to get into, i like both rallying and rugby and from what i have read the Nikon D300 seems to be fully weather sealed, is this true ?

If the Nikon D300 is fully weather proofed then this would be invaluable to me for the type of photos i would be taking, because of the sports i`m interested in then its quite possible that the weather can quickly change. The Canon 40D is a stunning camera, its my first DSLR camera and i`m made up with it. The only problem for me is that the 40D is only partially weather sealed and this could be a slight problem for me with the subjects i`m interested in taking photos of.

Has anyone made the switch on here from a 40D to a D300, what will i gain and what will i lose etc. What about lenses, how do Nikon lens prices compare to the equivelant Canon ones ?

Any info would be appreciated.
 
Subaru_WRC,

If you are already into sports photography, I assume you have invested in fast lenses. Why change systems with all the expense involved?

If you are worried about a wee bit of rain may I suggest that you invest in one of these from EOS-Magazine?

Camera Rain Cover

Will save you a fortune.

Bob
 
:agree: with bawbee, depending on the kit you already own, it could be an expensive move compared to a decent rain cover.
 
i dont think the D300 has full weather sealing :thinking: you'll need to check that if its the main reason to change.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
i dont think the D300 has full weather sealing :thinking: you'll need to check that if its the main reason to change.
Click to expand...

Good research, your right, suprisingly it doesn`t.... I think it was more that i read somewhere that Nikon D300 owners have said it has very good weather proofing rather than it being fully weather sealed.

I would still be interested to hear of any Canon 40D owners that have made the switch to a Nikon D300, ive not over committed on Canon lenses yet as i just have the 2 which are non L series so if the switch was worth it it would be something i would consider.
 
D300 has better AF than a 40D and feels a bit more substantial. I have it on good authority that the AF isn't as good as on the D3/D700 though.

Other option to consider is a used 1D Mark II. They're getting as cheap as £600 now and are still one hell of a camera and IMO a significant step up from the 40D.
 
I switched Xmas time 40D-D300, the very, very big plus is the Nikon AF, its in a different league, very fast and accurate.
 
id go with what grumpy badger said, the 1d is fully weather sealed as well:thumbs:
 
Why not a 50D looking at the spec and that of the D300 they look pretty similar.....

Nowhere in the Nikon blurb does it mention weather sealing or Environmental sealing. At least the Canon 40D & 50D mention environmental seals.
 
Pete W said:
Nowhere in the Nikon blurb does it mention weather sealing or Environmental sealing. At least the Canon 40D & 50D mention environmental seals.
Click to expand...

This is where i picked up the weather sealing from, read in the dark grey paragraph half way down.

http://www.neocamera.com/review_nikon_d300_more.html

"The Nikon D300 is larger and heavier than most DSLR cameras. This, plus its weather-sealed body, makes it more suitable for rougher environments. Conversely, its bulk is more noticeable and less discrete, plus there is bright yellow writing on the strap. This is somewhat a disadvantage for street and candid photography."

On the Nikon UK site this is what it says

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1436/overview.html

"Durable, magnesium alloy body : water and dust resistant."


It doesn`t say to what extent that its water and dust resistent though.
 
when a watch is described as "water resistant", it pretty much means it can cope with a few drops of rain from a light shower but not much more.

I'd suspect nikon wouldn't want you to subject it to anything more than that. :)
 
I went 30D to D300 if thats any use?

My main issue was the AF performance of Canon non-1D bodies. The D300 is simply streets ahead of the Canon xxD family in that respect and in motorsport AF speed and accuracy is king.

Canon reserve their (albeit probably equally as good) top notch AF system for the 1D only. Everything else gets something a little tired and old now.

However, all of that being said, you won't get top notch performance out of either a Nikon or a Canon 1D without the glass to match. For motorsport this really means Canon or Nikon 70-200 2.8 and then the Canon or Nikon long primes... some serious money there! Definitely better than your current combo, but you are looking at probably four times the cost at least!
 
All the Nikon kit I've handled has felt better than any of the XXD or XXXD canon equivalents. Just more solid and somehow that makes it feel more dependable. I doubt it is but it does come across that way.

The AF on these canon's can be pretty poor and the 5D I have is laughable sometimes.

My 1DII is another story all together though. It feels like it's hewn from solid granite and even for a really old timer, it's lightning fast and accurate. If I was putting together a top notch sports kit from scratch, I'd be looking this body as it's so cheap now and chuck as much available cash as possible at good glass.
 
If you make the change but cannot afford pro (f/2.8) glass then you may regret it. Nikon just do not have a Pro-Am f/4 range right now.
 
It is interesting

Nikon - D300 - "Durable, magnesium alloy body : water and dust resistant."

Canon 40D & 50D - "A durable magnesium alloy body with environmental seals protects the camera from the rigours of heavy use."

I would say that equates to the same thing...

Now the 50D with DIGIC 4 and Canon glass is as good as if not better than the D300 with any of nikons glass... Do not just take my word have a look around the web.....


STILL at the end of the day it is your choice BUT your original reason just does not seem a big enough jump up the ladder to make it viable to swap brands unless you are really not satisfied with CANON... In which case NIKON here you come.....
 
The big question is what Canon Glass do you have??

Depending on the answer to that, I would look at th 1dmk2 as suggested if you have fast glass, oterhwise you'll pretty much be startting from scratch on the glass front anyway.
 
if you really want to make the change then you will.

The AF on the D300 is excellent, but ive just sold my D300 and bought a 40D.
 
grumpybadger said:
I have it on good authority that the AF isn't as good as on the D3/D700 though.
Click to expand...

Having had both I must say that I couldn't tell the difference. The thing the D300 had better, was that the AF points are spread across the whole fram, whereas on the FF bodies they are a cluster in the DX area, but nothing outside of the DX area.
 
Interesting. I have 2 good friends, one with D3/D300 and one with D700/D300 and they both reckon the tracking AF on the D300 isn't quite as good.

Being a Canonite myself I have no first hand experience
 
Monkey said:
ive just sold my D300 and bought a 40D.
Click to expand...

What were the main factors for changing to a 40D ?

Thanks for all the other replies, its been interesting reading peoples posts on this subject where some good points have been made.

DonnaM said:
If you make the change but cannot afford pro (f/2.8) glass then you may regret it. Nikon just do not have a Pro-Am f/4 range right now.
Click to expand...

I wasn`t aware that Nikon didn`t have a pro-am range of lenses similar to the Canon ones. Is this lens below not the rough equivelant of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens ?

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/869/overview.html
 
grumpybadger said:
Interesting. I have 2 good friends, one with D3/D300 and one with D700/D300 and they both reckon the tracking AF on the D300 isn't quite as good.

Being a Canonite myself I have no first hand experience
Click to expand...

Maybe they're right and I just didn't notice it :D:D:D

And thinking about it, it could be a feature of the fact that the AF points are more spread across the frame on the D300, but then again, what do i know - can't tell the difference anyway.
 
Subaru_WRC said:
I wasn`t aware that Nikon didn`t have a pro-am range of lenses similar to the Canon ones. Is this lens below not the rough equivelant of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens ?

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/869/overview.html
Click to expand...

Yes, it is the rough equivalent lens, and a cracker to boot. it's really up to you, but from your first post the only problem you had with the 40d was the weather sealing. If that's the case then I would spend the money on a faster lens, maybe the 70-200 F4L. As mentioned, Nikon don't have a comparative lens to that one.
 
barneyrubble said:
Yes, it is the rough equivalent lens, and a cracker to boot. it's really up to you, but from your first post the only problem you had with the 40d was the weather sealing. If that's the case then I would spend the money on a faster lens, maybe the 70-200 F4L. As mentioned, Nikon don't have a comparative lens to that one.
Click to expand...


Basically i`m new to photography and my interests are motorsport (rallying), rugby and a bit of landscape photography as well, i`m just after the best set up (mid range) that would suit my photography interests along with the most user friendly body.

Ive not over committed on canon lenses just yet as ive just got the 2 which are mid range (non L series) lenses, the main reason for this thread was that i read on the net that the D300 seemed to have better weather sealing which would probably suit my type of photography better, if the D300 is a much better camera regardless of the weather sealing i would still consider changing if its the best thing for me in the long run with the subjects i do.

If i had bought L lenses then i wouldn`t even consider changing, if the D300 is not significantly better than the 40D then it wouldn`t be worth me changing either, the better AF on the D300 would be benefitial to me for when i need a quick motorsport or rugby shot.
 
IMHO Nikon DSLRs have the edge right now, and I would choose the D300 over my Canon 40D or a 50D, especially for action photography, but that could all change when the 60D arrives. And comparisons aside, the 40D is still a heck of a good camera for sports.

A Canon 1D3 is perhaps the ultimate weapon, it's in the D3/D700 league of excellence, and may be more affordable if you don't have to scrap your lenses. Earlier 1D cameras are also right up there.

If you're planning to hang about in the rain at Welsh rally stages, no camera is that weatherproof ;) and neither are most lenses. You'll still need some protection.
 
Thanks again for the great input.

Hoppy, if you were me and you had a 40D and liked motorsport, rugby and the odd bit of landscape photography would you change to a D300 if you hadn`t over committed on Canon lenses ? With you saying the D300 is the better camera at the min it sounds like you are in a great position to judge both cameras as you own both, basically i want the best body long term to suit the above and i`ll improve my lenses as i go along.

Is the D300 a user friendly body for a relative newcomer to DSLR photography, are the menus nicely set out and easy to understand ?
 
Subaru_WRC said:
are the menus nicely set out and easy to understand ?
Click to expand...

:cuckoo:

No!

If you are changing from on to the other you will have to change the way you work. They are completely different menus and controls. Suggest you go to a shop and try one. I can't get on with the Nikon menus at all. I'd need rechipping to use one! :)
 
grumpybadger said:
Interesting. I have 2 good friends, one with D3/D300 and one with D700/D300 and they both reckon the tracking AF on the D300 isn't quite as good.

Being a Canonite myself I have no first hand experience
Click to expand...

The D300 AF is a definately behind the D700 and D3 for AF speed.

Although the more even spread around the viewfinder could be useful, the D3 / D700 are very bunched in the viewfinder.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you're planning to hang about in the rain at Welsh rally stages, no camera is that weatherproof ;) and neither are most lenses. You'll still need some protection.
Click to expand...

e3water.jpg


Never had a problem it the most torrential rain with my E-3 and HG lenses (even washed them off under a tap, and burried it in snow in Chill-FactorE in Manchester) It has to be one of the most weatherproof cameras out there :D
 
Nikon menus are fine... different to the 40D (which is confusing compared to the 30D I used to have!!) but easy enough.

Apart from which if you really can't remember where everything is you can create a custom menu with whatever settings you regularly use... I have AF functions, battery meter, auto ISO and picture style on my custom menu and rarely ever go anywhere else!

Piece of cake!
 
Subaru_WRC said:
Thanks again for the great input.

Hoppy, if you were me and you had a 40D and liked motorsport, rugby and the odd bit of landscape photography would you change to a D300 if you hadn`t over committed on Canon lenses ? With you saying the D300 is the better camera at the min it sounds like you are in a great position to judge both cameras as you own both, basically i want the best body long term to suit the above and i`ll improve my lenses as i go along.

Is the D300 a user friendly body for a relative newcomer to DSLR photography, are the menus nicely set out and easy to understand ?
Click to expand...

I don't actually own a Nikon. But I did review my entire kit recently with a view to the long term. It would have been painfully costly, but I had an idea that Nikon full frame might be the way to go, and had a good go with the D300 along the way.

Basically I concluded that full frame wasn't worth it for me - cost aside, the lenses are substantially bigger and heavier than crop and if I have any IQ issues, that's almost always down to me and not the camera. And I like the extra reach and the extra depth of field you get with crop.

So it was down to a choice between Canon crop and Nikon crop, and there's very little to choose between them. It's really only the Nikon AF performance which puts it ahead for me, but if I'm honest that's mainly theoretical; my Canon 40D has not missed much. And as I say, I'm sure Canon won't let Nikon have it all their own way for long. These two companies have been locked in battle for decades and it wasn't very long ago that Nikon were way behind with their DSLR range.

So in the end, I was not prepared to shell out several grand for a hypothetical advantage that would quite likely get wiped out with the next range of upgraded cameras anyway ;)
 
Been reading this for the last couple of days.

Surely it's the photographer that makes the difference? There's such minor differences between the brands. Go with the one you feel comfortable with.

I shot sunday football for 3 years with a 300D in the rain, in a carrier bag wiped occasionally with a bar towel. A good learning process.

As for the menu comments - you just get used to where everything is. You just have to read the manual (or for us blokes, carry it with you for the first couple of months so you can use it as a reference when you want to find/explain something) :D
 
You can repeat the mantra of "its the photographer, not the camera" all you like, but it won't make the camera AF and it won't reduce high ISO noise and a million and one other things.

There definitely is types of photography that technical capabilities don't matter quite so much, but the production of glossy motorsport images is not one of them.

Until you've seriously got out there and used a range of kit, you can't really appreciate what the differences are, but trust me, its night and day.
 
Subaru_WRC said:
if you were me and you had a 40D and liked motorsport, rugby and the odd bit of landscape photography would you change to a D300 if you hadn`t over committed on Canon lenses ?
Click to expand...

I had 40D, struggling between Canon 1Dmk3 or Nikon D700/D3. D300 wasn't in my list. D3/D700 was interesting in paper but not in my hand.
Nikon lens collection for motorsport suitable lens is not for poor photographer like me. My choice was 1Dmk3 ;)

for your main question, buy a cheap water cover from OP Tech :)
 
The general feedback seems to be that the D300 isn`t worth the extra money, apart from the slightly better AF their doesn`t seem to be a great deal between them in what they will produce image wise to justify the extra cost.

Thanks again
 
desantnik said:
You can repeat the mantra of "its the photographer, not the camera" all you like, but it won't make the camera AF and it won't reduce high ISO noise and a million and one other things.

There definitely is types of photography that technical capabilities don't matter quite so much, but the production of glossy motorsport images is not one of them.

Until you've seriously got out there and used a range of kit, you can't really appreciate what the differences are, but trust me, its night and day.
Click to expand...


But - it's hardly comparing apples. The D300 is £1150 and twice the price of the 40D.

The 40D introduced the 9 point AF crosstype array, with a claimed 30% faster than the 30D. However the D300 has 51 points and 15 crosstype points.

To be honest do you use all 51 points at motorsport? I either use the centre point or occaisionally pre-manually focussed at the point I'm taking the shot. On the canon, unless you've AF point selection set to Auto and in AI servo mode, you're not going to stray onto other focus points.

Unless I'm missing some technique here? I generally shoot with centre point as I naturally track the sport subject with the centre of the viewfinder. It'll be interesting to know.

The D300 has one stop higher ISO than the 40D but I believed the high iso on the nikon wasn't as good as the canon ? but again, that doesn't really come into motorsport. I can't think when I've been higher than iso 800 on an outside track. Indoor karting would be different:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top