If I'm reading the info correctly the Canon 40D hangs right in there with the Nikon D300. It seems to me that most of what I have read and been told is that the Nikon D300 is much better. Faster, faster focusing, much better with high ISO, etc. This sight shows them to be neck-n-neck. I shoot mostly portraits but need to be able to capture low-light and also have a fast fps. I have been looking at the Sony A700, Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D. I have seen some beautiful portraits taken with the Canon. Clear and sharp but with sort of a creamy skin. Have seen some great pictures with the Nikon also. Still can't make up my mind.
If I'm reading the info correctly the Canon 40D hangs right in there with the Nikon D300. It seems to me that most of what I have read and been told is that the Nikon D300 is much better. Faster, faster focusing, much better with high ISO, etc. This sight shows them to be neck-n-neck. I shoot mostly portraits but need to be able to capture low-light and also have a fast fps. I have been looking at the Sony A700, Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D. I have seen some beautiful portraits taken with the Canon. Clear and sharp but with sort of a creamy skin. Have seen some great pictures with the Nikon also. Still can't make up my mind.
The DXO site mentioned only compares a few attributes from each camera.
I have the Canon 40D and I find that it matches my needs for event and personal/travel pretty well. For portraiture I think either camera could be suitable. Remember that good lenses are much more important than the camera body for most applications.
I would think that the AF section of the Nikon D300 is more suited for sports and rapid action, but that in many other regards the Canon 40D can hold its own, especially considering current pricing.
Those 2 cameras, the D300 and 40D, are not designed for exactly the same market and do not allow a direct comparison.
The honest truth is that they are both very competent for general work but the D300 is probably more responsive overall.
Comments
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I was coming up with all sorts of 3 body combinations to compare.
If I'm reading the info correctly the Canon 40D hangs right in there with the Nikon D300. It seems to me that most of what I have read and been told is that the Nikon D300 is much better. Faster, faster focusing, much better with high ISO, etc. This sight shows them to be neck-n-neck. I shoot mostly portraits but need to be able to capture low-light and also have a fast fps. I have been looking at the Sony A700, Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D. I have seen some beautiful portraits taken with the Canon. Clear and sharp but with sort of a creamy skin. Have seen some great pictures with the Nikon also. Still can't make up my mind.
The DXO site mentioned only compares a few attributes from each camera.
I have the Canon 40D and I find that it matches my needs for event and personal/travel pretty well. For portraiture I think either camera could be suitable. Remember that good lenses are much more important than the camera body for most applications.
I would think that the AF section of the Nikon D300 is more suited for sports and rapid action, but that in many other regards the Canon 40D can hold its own, especially considering current pricing.
Those 2 cameras, the D300 and 40D, are not designed for exactly the same market and do not allow a direct comparison.
The honest truth is that they are both very competent for general work but the D300 is probably more responsive overall.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The attributes of the sensor itself is the focus. Leaving a multitude of other performance attributes to consider.