You are clear on reasons. Both cameras and sets are great..
Seriously, I feel your pain....
You'll need to buy both!!!!! LOL!!!!.
Um... ok... your first DLSR and those are your options..
Image quality on either is going to be excellent, discard that as a criteria..
LCD resolution only matters if thats where you're going to be looking at the images. If you print them, it doesn't matter how nice/bad your LCD is..
AF /is/ a big deal. IF you are taking pictures of quick-moving things, be it sports, your kids etc, and you are constantly missing shots because the focus is not fast enough, you will probably not enjoy the camera as much..
At the very end, I personally think you hit it on the head. For you the 40d feels better. A more comfortable grip means you'll hang onto the camera longer and take more pictures. Isn't that what it's all about?.
In God we trust,everyone else we firewall.-#linux @ irc-2.mit.edu..
Since the big announcement I was going to go Nikon instead of Canon, but the moment I first held the 40D I was really surprised at how much better it feels than the 30D, and moving the ISO button was also a great decision. Before that I compared 30D and D200 in the store and even than I liked Canon's grip better. But Canon doesn't win the ergonomics, I would say it's even (I like D300's switches for AF, metering and M, D, S AF in the front). The D300 feels feels more robust..
I also like the chance to use the 85 in candid and low light situations..
Sports aren't my MAIN thing (but still my thing , it will be used for candids and travel more...
I am buying my first Dslr and choosing between the D300 + 17-55 lensvs. 40D with 16-35 II (followed by the 85 in a few months). The priceis very close..
Probably better off getting the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, it's cheaper, has better range and IS. You can sell it later if you move to full frame. Or even the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Canon 17-40/4 if you can get by without F2.8..
I would like to hear your comments about the two choices and hope youcould help me make up my mind..
I am deciding only between those two options so please stick to them(I know more or less about every other alternative choice, I am moreinterested in how does a better body with a standard zoom compare toa good enough body with this two lenses as far as usability). I willadd a 70-200 in 2 years time no matter which one will I choose..
So the arguments for each are:D300Better LCD (very nice), better AF.
On paper, though it is likely to be better and may be much better in AF tracking. Only time will tell..
(nice but not a deal maker), biggerviewfinder,.
VF size brightness is much closer now with the 40D.
More switches makes workflow faster,.
Sometimes- I tried a D200 before I bought my 30D and felt it was TOO busy with buttons..
Body sealing (nicebut not a deal maker)..
Yea, a little better sealed than the Canon.
The IQ will probably be better (but very close) because of the higherresolution sensor.
To use a Phil Askey phrase- "per pixel sharpness" comes into play here. The smaller pixels of the D300 may lead to less sharpness, at least out of camera. I know my 40D requires more/different sharpening in PS than my 30D did..
And a lens designed especially for DX (comparingwith an UW FF zoom on a crop sensor),.
If anything the 16-35II will be sharper and have less vignetting since you are using the center "sweet spot" of the lens..
But will have to be sold whenswitching to FF (I don't plan that soon (let say 5 years, and willkeep the body for a tele zoom, at that time FF cameras will be reallycheap), but eventually it will have to be sold)..
17-55 is longer than 35, also wider than 85, but I won't need toswitch lenses..
See above on Canon 17-55IS.
40DI love it's grip (body grip, not the battery one) much more than D200(I think it will be identical with the D300). It feels much bettersimply because it's bigger (in length (I have mutant long fingers)and height (the scroll is behind the shutter button)). I like thlocation of the ISO button better, but doesn't have auto ISO..
Both lenses are FF, so I won't need to sold them..
I now have the 40D with a 24-105/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 non IS..
I was really tempted by the D300 and if I were starting out today with nothing I would wait for the reviews and then decide..
I think Canon has a little better lens selection overall and most are cheaper..
Both cameras will suite your needs it's comes down to your personal preference and you've said the 40D feels better in hand..
Thanks for your answers...
A very difficult choice. I see your struggle. Personally I would go with what feels bests. This way you will take more pictures, learn more features, and improve your skills..
I have used both and find the 40D it be more comfortable. I included a copy of my personal file on both the cameras for you. Once you decide which one to buy, you will then have convenient access to all the user documentation and customer service links..
Nikon 40D http://personafile.com/...D-10.1-Megapixel-3%22-LCD-Monitor-P013803002112.htm.
Canon 300D http://personafile.com/...l-Rebel-6.3-Megapixel-18-55mm-Lens-013803028997.htm.
All the best,.
A Few Of My Favorite:http://personafile.com/kcair/public..
Nikon 40DCanon 300D.
It's actually vice versa. You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about, right?.
Today I have been in the store again and compared the 40D with the D200 and I must say that after inspecting the (I thought) strengths of the Canon I found out it is really more awkward to use than the Nikon, so I will probably go yellow (with the D300)..
But with the Tamron 17-50, not the Nikkor, I rather put the price diffrence in buying the 70-200 VR and not on a DX lens, that will have to be replaced in a few years and will also buy the battery grip..
Canon is a nice choice because of all the lenses, but I really just need 2 (24-70 equi. and the 70-200 on crop)...