In most cases, it really would not matter what you pick because both brands are great cameras. However, in your case it is safe to say that you will be better off with a Nikon..
Since you already have Nikon lenses, are familiar with the ergonomics of a Nikon, and (I assume) have other Nikon gear from shooting it in the film days, an investment in Nikon is a step in the right direction. IMHO, it will make the transition easier..
You also mentioned noise levels being a concern. Recent reviews praise the D300 for it's high ISO performance. And if money is not a concern, the D3 has made people oooh and aaaah with it's high ISO performance..
Hope this helps..
...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde..
I use Canon cameras. Since you already own lenses for Nikons you may be ahead to stay with Nikon cameras. While I do not read the Nikon DSLR reviews on this site they may inform you on whether or not your lenses will work on the reviewed camera. The Nikon D40, D40X, and D60 do have lens limitations. Since I do not know much about Nikon lenses I am not a good source regarding these limitations..
I also suggest visiting a camera shop and trying various ones to determine which feels the best in your hands.thezero..
Im no expert but I looked at getting a nikon D40 because I had the kit lenses from an F55..
I was told the lenses would be compatable BUT for you they will need to be the later style AF lenses that have the motor in the lense not driven from the camera.
Also (this may not apply to a D300) because the sensor isnt full size you get a crop factor with the lense so you gain zoom and loose wide angle (eg a 55-300 might become a 65-400) or whateverJust some issues you will need to confirm if you want to go that way..
The D200/D300 do not have the "missing motor" issue of the D40/D40x/D60. If I recall correctly, the D200 provides even more lens support than the D80 (and the same may be true of the D300)..
The D200/D300 do have a "DX"-sized sensor and a 1.5x crop factor...
The D200 and 40D are really similar in features even though they are a couple years apart. Either one of those are good. I've always seen Nikon as the progressive thinker, with more options and features, while Canon was the "traditional" manufacturer - not a ton of features, but it does all of the basics really well. So get the D200 if you'd like to stay with your current lens and want maybe some more, or get the 40D if you want lower noise and maybe less "digital" feel. Personally, I shoot Canon, but Nikon always looks more exciting. I haven't made the switch because I don't really like way Nikons handle on the outside and inside (menus).
The D300 is in another league. It's built better, has WAY more options (go to dcresource's D300 review for a list of them all), and is really a step ahead of the 40D. But you will pay for it. The D300 is a pro camera, where the 40D is semi-pro, so you might get less options, but you'll pay less for it. Image quality is pretty similar between them, although you may notice more noise in Canon (more detail and sharpness though) and less in Nikon (in camera noise reduction working) - that's really pixel peeping though. I would only really get the D300 is you're willing to use a lot of it.
(quote) "...the Nikon D300 is not a digital SLR camera for those who just want to dabble in photography. Neither is it for those who just like having the latest, coolest-looking camera hanging around their neck. Tyros need not apply. Seriously, snapshooters should steer clear. I hate to put it that way, but it's the truth. You can lock it in program and get good shots much of the time, but the Nikon D300 will do the equivalent of bucking you to the dirt if you mess with it without checking the manual to understand what you're doing." You may not use everything and either make it more complicated or just waste money if you don't really need it...
Thank you for your opinions..
Price-wise I was kind of leaning towards the 40D, even with a kit lens it's still 700 bucks cheaper than the D300. And the link to imaging-resource was very helpful too, and I now think I'll go for Canon..
I saw B&H has a used equipment section on their website, maybe they'll take in my old Nikon stuff and get me a discount for the 40D!.
Why limit yourself there is Olympus, pentax and sony to look at as well, they all make cameras that have benefits and areas they are better than the canon nikon... since you are shopping brands it would be worth it to give them all a fair shake as there is more to the photographic world available than canon and nikon as much as they'd like to to believe otherwise..
Spend some time in their forums and ask questions, I've seen some amazing moon shots taken with an e3(which is a match for a d300) oly in Az lately that would give a go to anything taken by the big 2..
You'd be doing yourself a disservice by not looking at all of them as they are all very viable options and in some cases depending on your needs better...
If you have nikon lenses that will work on the DSLR, why switch? Its a no brainer...
Im in a similar position, I have 3 minolta lenses from my SLR, so when I buy a DSLR, it will be a Sony...
The OP freely admits to owning one lens he enjoys and is looking at BOTH canon and nikon. Since he is entertaining the idea to switch he would doing himself a disservice by not looking at all the options as there are pros/cons to any of them..
I have a 14-54 F2.8-3.5(28-108mm effective focal length) that is going to be a better lens than the sigma he says he enjoys using being faster and sharper I'm guessing..
Simply put, there are other very capable options beyond canon and nikon out there to consider if you are not bringing much if any worthwhile legacy glass to the table. sell the lenses you have to help offset the new and you are in business..
Regardless of what you buy at least do the homework before dropping the hard earned money on a new system..
"Im in a similar position, I have 3 minolta lenses from my SLR, so when I buy a DSLR, it will be a Sony.".
Like the OP, you have have to ask yourself whether it's worth it or not. 3 lenses not knowing what you have, may or in reality may not be enough of a compelling reason to stay with Sony or unload what you have to get another system that may suit your needs better than the sony might. that's for you and anyone in a similar situation to flush out, not popular opinion around here.....
I am looking for a camera that is rugged with a price range under USD 2000. I have spent some time looking at the reviews and am intrigued with the relatively new Olympus E-3 mainly because the body seems to be stoutest, also because it has the tilt-able Live View feature. Also I have looked at the reviews for the comparable Nikon and Canon brands. Not being a professional, I am scared away a little bit by the reviews which say that the Olympus E3 and the Nikon require me to apparently be very very much engaged with the mechanics of taking a picture. Now, I realize that I must sit down with the Owner's Manual and discern all the features and become adept at using them...and I reckon that I'll do just that...but in the meantime I will just want to capture pictures. My learning curve will be slow and gradual.
We holiday in hot, humid locations. The camera I purchase must be able to handle these extremes in environment. I am starting afresh, I have no issues with " legacy glass". Simply I want a tough camera that will allow me to grow in to a good serious photographer, and that eventually I might be able to hand down as a heirloom, maybe... Any thoughts ?
Read the review here of the D300; I'm a Canon guy myself (I have the 5D) but the D300 is an impressive piece of hardware. Of course, it's also a few hundred dollars more than the 40D, so you have to take that into acount. The D300 adds:Contrast Detect AF in Live View51 point AF (vs 9 in the 40d)AF Micro-AdjustmentBeter MeteringAuto ISOBetter Customization ControlsBetter LCDD-LightingBetter WeatherprooifngHDMI Output.
Your old lens will get you started, but you'll miss anything wide angle given the 1.5x multiply. A nice lens, possibly with optical stabilization (VR or IS) would be a nice addition, so if costs is a limiting factor the 40D with a nicer lens might be better..
Having just processed a bunch of old slides myself (w/ a top end Nikon scanner) I can say you'll probably be very pleased with the switch to digital... the image quality on any of these cameras will beat what you could typically get from film and the convenience is in another league of course...
Hi everyone,I've been an amateur photographer for many years, I own a film NikonSLR and a Panasonic LX-2. I fully agree with those saying it's thephotographer and not the camera that really makes a picture.But, tired of scanning the slides I shoot with my SLR, I'm thinkingof getting a DSLR. The question is: Canon 40D or Nikon D200 or D300?I have a Sigma Nikon 28-105, f2.8 - 4 lens which I really like, buthow would it react on a Nikon DSLR body? And is it a good-enoughreason to stick to Nikon?I like taking night-time long-exposure shots, so I think the noiselevel is quite important.I went through the "Canon or Nikon?" posts on the forum, but stillI'm very confused. I'd be very happy to read your opinions..
I'd look at the Nikon D80 even though it's less than your budget. Use the balance for a nice lens and flash. Your 28-105 should work on the D80 or higher. The D40, D40x, and D60 can only autofocus with AF-S lenses. Note the crop factor: 28-105 is equivalent to 42-157 on a Nikon DX body. So, get 16-? or 18-? lens so you still have wide angle...
Hey Guido, Most DSLR's are pretty good these days. I have heard some rumors on astrophotography websites that the D300 may be a bit noiser on long exposures but if you are not a pro (making a living from your photos), then it probably won't be that much of an issue for you. Either camera would fill your needs..
Your sigma lense though, you may want to take it to a camera store and connect it to a body and see how it autofocuses. The only reason I mention this is that I have heard (mind you never experienced) that sometime third party lenses need to be "re-chipped" to focus with the newer bodies. If you take it to a store and it works an a D300, great! It sounds like you used the lense on a film body before, since the D300 is a crop body, the sensor will only use the centre portion of the lense...generally the best area of the lense...this may work in your favor. The other thing you can do is take a CF card to the store with you when you try out the lense, if the lense focuses okay, take a few pictures, take them home and open them up on your computer. If you are happy with the way they look, it is one less lens you need to purchase..
If the lense doesn't work, you have a harder decision. Don't get me wrong, both are great cameras. The D300 is a little more money but has a couple of features the 40D does not. BUT, you could spend less on a body with the 40D and purchase a flash or lense with the difference..
Not an easy decision, good luck..
I have a Sigma Nikon 28-105, f2.8 - 4 lens which I really like, buthow would it react on a Nikon DSLR body? And is it a good-enoughreason to stick to Nikon?I like taking night-time long-exposure shots, so I think the noiselevel is quite important.I went through the "Canon or Nikon?" posts on the forum, but stillI'm very confused. I'd be very happy to read your opinions..
I am looking for a camera that is rugged with a price range under USD2000. I have spent some time looking at the reviews and am intriguedwith the relatively new Olympus E-3 mainly because the body seems tobe stoutest, also because it has the tilt-able Live View feature.Also I have looked at the reviews for the comparable Nikon and Canonbrands. Not being a professional, I am scared away a little bit bythe reviews which say that the Olympus E3 and the Nikon require me toapparently be very very much engaged with the mechanics of taking apicture. Now, I realize that I must sit down with the Owner's Manualand discern all the features and become adept at using them...and Ireckon that I'll do just that...but in the meantime I will just wantto capture pictures. My learning curve will be slow and gradual. Ilive in the mountains.
The cameraI purchase must be able to handle these extremes in environment. I amstarting afresh, I have no issues with " legacy glass". Simply I wanta tough camera that will allow me to grow in to a good seriousphotographer, and that eventually I might be able to hand down as aheirloom, maybe... Any thoughts ? .
Yes, I think freealfas will suggest buying the E-3 is a "no brainer". .
Your choices are, E-3, K10D, K20D, 30D, 40D, D200, D300, A200 et al. They are all good cameras. They all have different feature sets. The O, P, and N offerings are more weather-sealed. The O, P, & S offerings have in-body IS. The E-3 has the best LV setup.
N&C have the widest lens range, but if you only want a few lenses, then that's not an advantage. S has terrible customer service. My point is that there is NO SINGLE camera in this class that is perfect. You have to decide what is most important and make an informed decision..
Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'..
The D200/D300 do not have the "missing motor" issue of theD40/D40x/D60. If I recall correctly, the D200 provides even morelens support than the D80 (and the same may be true of the D300)..
The D200/D300 do have a "DX"-sized sensor and a 1.5x crop factor..
You are correct... the D200 / D300 do not have the "missing motor" issue but buy either one and you'll have the "missing money" issue..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..