Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:24 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:41 am 
Hello Gordon,

Thank you for the quality review.

I'm coming from the 10D and have a couple nice L lens and plan to pick up the 40D soon. Coming from my 10D I'm sure I'll be in heaven.

My question to you is, I have made the error of looking at some of the forums and I'm burnt out with all the back and forth regarding the specs and comparing to the D300.

Even people claiming to have Canon gear are crying and drooling over the D300, I just don't get it?

Yes on paper it has a very nice feature set, but even if it lives up to all the claims, it seems, IQ is the last thing many of the people talk about?

In my view only two features on the D300 would/could improve image quality.

1) The 51 point focus, but if you shoot landscapes, travel like I do, it would not mean much.

2)The other is the 12 meg chip, I do wish canon had offered us one, like everyone I want more resolution, but in reality, my view is, on resolution charts the Nikon will be a bit higher, but will be balanced/offset with higher noise, so in real world little if any real gain in image quality?

Would you say my views are correct?

That other than the two, possible gains in image quality the other features on the D300 are perhaps
good for bragging rights and in certain cases offer some ease of use, But do not increase image quality?

Thanks for any feedback.

Dave


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Dave, welcome to the Cameralabs forums! I'm glad you asked this question as I was about to pose it on here somewhere anyway!

In the 40D review, you'll see some resolution comparisons against the EOS 5D and a pre-production Sony A700 - both in the 12 mpixel region, and it's clear they resolve greater detail on a lab chart - and I'd expect the D300 to do the same. See this page:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon ... tion.shtml

But does it make much difference in real life? Check this page:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon ... ults.shtml

I'd say there's not a massive difference there... so sure, 12 mpixel will resolve more detail than 10, but will you notice it in real life? Not much.

As for the 51-point AF, this is really for people who want to track subjects which could be moving all over the frame, and may slip inbetween focusing points on, say, 9 or 11-point systems. I'd say that's unlikely to happen often though unless the subject is very small...

So if you're shooting landscapes as you say, the 51-point AF won't offer you much more than a 9 or 11 point system. So it's up to you whether the extra 50% is worth spending for those 2 additional megapixels and the other D300 benefits like the higher resolution screen.

Remember though, unlike the 40D though, the D300 does not have a live histogram in Live View mode and its screen refresh is also 15fps, so may not be as smooth (although we've not tested a final model yet so can't comment).

Given your existing investment in Canon glass and what you've told us about your photography, I reckon the 40D is the way to go for you - unless you fancy waiting for a 5D Mark II!!

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:20 pm 
Hi Gordon,

Thank you for the responce.

In my mind I never considered swiching to nikon, no knock on nikon just comon sence in my view. It's not just a case of a body, but replacing my 2 L lens and filters, which are darn costly at least in my view.

So the $500.00 price difference at least in the states would become more like $2,000-$2500 difference to swich, if I could justify that, Id wait for the 5D replacement!

I have just been taken aback with some peoples responces.

The 40D is anonce and people are singing in the streets, a few days later the D300 and the same people are crying and wanting to jump over, that was what was driving me nuts.

we all know Canon and Nikon produce great equipment, both have pluses and miniuses, always an ebb and flow. Soon Canon will bring out new machines and the Nikon people will be drooling and back and forth it will go.

To me it's simple unless you make a living at this and a certain body will really help you, stick to the brand that you have invested good glass in!

One question since all things being equal putting more pixels on a small sensor incresses noise have you seen this in the nikon or sony vs the canon? Baring a Tech breakthrough we must be getting close to the point that they will not be able to cram more pixels on the crop sensors willout noise increasing.

Dave


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:07 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: Germany
Hello Dave! An investment in good lenses is always a strong argument for staying with one body-manufacturer (except for the four-thirds system). And I think, if you want a real jump in IQ today, you need to go FF with either Canon or Nikon. So with the latest refresh, I assume the big three are on an equal footing with their APS-C sensor-based bodies, IQ-wise.

So now starts the haggling over features, that perhaps in some cases influence IQ (like a good AF- and exposure-system), but in other cases are of very different relevance to different people.

I got my fair share of bashing in this forum already for trying to focus people's thoughts back on IQ and lenses, so perhaps this is now the time to count the check-boxes on each marketing-slide...

If you got your priorities right (IQ and lenses!) you will not be disturbed by the war of words that is currently waged, and you will not be disappointed in your decision.

Good luck!

P.S.: Yes, the number of photons, you can capture with a sensor of a given size is inverse proportional to the number of pixels on this sensor. So there are limits of the s/n-ratio that you can get, when you increase the MPix on the sensor.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:50 pm 
Hi Thomas,

Imagin, getting flack for focusing on image quality and lens, go figure!

Features are nice, but it's the person behind the viewfinder that really produces the quality images.

We all are seduced by the latest and greatest and the pull of the magic bullet!

If I ONLY had that, I TOO could take pictures like so and so....

Yet it's the skill and talent of people that produces wonderful images.

It's amazing that such great images were produce with outdated second rate equipment like the 30 and 60D and how in the world did anyone take pictures with cameras that did not even auto focus, imagin being reduce to trying to focus with One, count then ONE manual focus point??


Dave


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Dave, you're spot on. Only a couple of decades ago we all manually focused, used fast shutters to avoid camera shake, and most of us thought aperture priority was as good as it got!

The current breed of DSLRs really are going through a feature-craze, but that's what happens when the IQ is good enough and the manufacturers still want to sell you a new product every two years.

It's funny how the digital camera industry has become the PC industry. We used to keep cameras for 20 years and be perfectly happy, but now we feel we're being old fashioned if we're still using the same digital camera after 2 years.

Most of the new features won't make better photos, but they are nice to have. They appeal to the side of us which enjoys any luxury. Are they worth the money or worth upgrading to? That's up to the individual.

There's always some justification to make you feel better about it, but ultimately it's like having a CD player or a hard disk audio system in your car. Nice, but not necessary to get you from A to B.

As to noise, Thomas is right - there's only so much real-estate on the sensor, and if you make the photo sites smaller, they'll have a worse signal to noise ratio. Of course like cunning building developers, there's more efficient ways of using that real-estate though, such as better micro-lenses on sensors. that's what Canon's done on the 40D, which allows it to claim the signal to nosie ratio is the same as the 30D. But ultimately if you want a big difference, you'll need a bigger sensor which means going full-frame.

As for the D300 / A700 versus the 40D, we'll have to wait for final production versions of the former to say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 mpix models resolve fractionally more detail at the cost of fractionally higher noise.

Unless one model had a full frame sensor though, I wouldn't place too much importance on the difference between 10 and 12mpixels. The choice between these three cameras really is down to look, feel, features and price. And of course the choice of lenses.

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group