Yes but they both pale when considering Pentax's controls ;-)
(yes, I am slightly masochistic...)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
AF 40D versus D300 ?
- Thread starter jagge
- Start date
(yes, I am slightly masochistic...)
jp52637
Senior Member
Pentax controls are among the best, especially the exposure modes like Hyper program and the green button in manual mode, as is the MTF optimized program line option.
But what bothers me is that the light meter does not work in P or S mode like it is the fact on all amateur cameras except Nikon.
If you want the light meter to work in other modes than M with canon, you have to buy a 1 series.
With nikon, even the lowest models also have this feature.
But pentax has great ergonomics, I absolutely agree on that
--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.
But what bothers me is that the light meter does not work in P or S mode like it is the fact on all amateur cameras except Nikon.
If you want the light meter to work in other modes than M with canon, you have to buy a 1 series.
With nikon, even the lowest models also have this feature.
But pentax has great ergonomics, I absolutely agree on that
--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.
Yes, it is true that having more AF points should help with tracking especially when the subject is small in the frame and can be lost between the AF points while still in the AF area. There is a lot less chance of that happening when you have 51 of them instead of 9. If the subject is larger in the frame though, it should be much of an issue.
The focus re-acquire time can be a double-edged sword. In a case like you mention where you allow the subject to leave the active AF area and then get it back then you might still be able to catch shots because the focus hasn’t significantly changed since you lost the subject. However if the focus does get off track and you want to re-acquire a long delay could mean that you will never be able to catch it.
I am not sure if the D300 has this feature or not but on the pro Canon cameras the user can actually adjust the re-acquire time which seems like a pretty good option to me. The good thing on the 40D in my experience is that the fast focus acquisition time means that even if you do lose the focus if you can re-find the subject in the viewfinder it is quick enough to where you can often still get good shots after a focus loss.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
The focus re-acquire time can be a double-edged sword. In a case like you mention where you allow the subject to leave the active AF area and then get it back then you might still be able to catch shots because the focus hasn’t significantly changed since you lost the subject. However if the focus does get off track and you want to re-acquire a long delay could mean that you will never be able to catch it.
I am not sure if the D300 has this feature or not but on the pro Canon cameras the user can actually adjust the re-acquire time which seems like a pretty good option to me. The good thing on the 40D in my experience is that the fast focus acquisition time means that even if you do lose the focus if you can re-find the subject in the viewfinder it is quick enough to where you can often still get good shots after a focus loss.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
He asked the same question in another thread and my answer to him had already been posted here.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Well, I don’t know why you are all worked up; I still think it was a valid question. You seem to place a lot of importance on using the AF system in the way you have described. It is something that never occurred to me to even try to do so I am very interested in seeing not only what types of shots you feel that your suggested method would be best suited for and I would love to see what sort of results you are getting from it. Your post is written as if you have lots of experience and really know what you are doing. I took that at face value and wanted to learn something from you.
However, based on your reply here I am having second thoughts about taking what you say at face value and am getting the impression that you are just making statements and have nothing real to back them up.
Best of luck to you,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
However, based on your reply here I am having second thoughts about taking what you say at face value and am getting the impression that you are just making statements and have nothing real to back them up.
Best of luck to you,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
When looking through the images I took I couldn't tell a lick of difference between the two cameras in the pictures I was taking. I was only using ISO 200-800 though and maybe at higher ISO settings things might have started to diverge.
I am partial to the ergo of the 40D but then I am sure that is becuase I have been using Canon cameras for a long time and I am used to them.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
I am partial to the ergo of the 40D but then I am sure that is becuase I have been using Canon cameras for a long time and I am used to them.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Ralf Ronander
Leading Member
I have found that it is possible to squeeze a little more detail out of D300 raw files.
That´s the "notch" I was referring to earlier.
But it really isn´t much in it, and maybe - just maybe - 40D has more DR.
D300 has other advantages like VF, speed and features. That´s why I can tolerate the less good handling
Theye are both excellent cameras, unfortunately Nikon lacks some lenses - and so does Canon...
That´s the "notch" I was referring to earlier.
But it really isn´t much in it, and maybe - just maybe - 40D has more DR.
D300 has other advantages like VF, speed and features. That´s why I can tolerate the less good handling
Theye are both excellent cameras, unfortunately Nikon lacks some lenses - and so does Canon...
I guess I just mostly base my opinions on things that I actually see and feel during actual use. I didn’t really notice a difference in VF, they both seemed quite adequate to me. If they were different, it wasn’t enough for me to take notice of.
Maybe with careful post processing of RAW files there is a small difference, I don’t usually spend enough time in post production to where I think it would ever make a difference for me.
I didn’t really notice any additional DR in the 40D files, if it is there it doesn’t seem to be enough to make any significant difference.
As far as speed goes the D300 didn’t feel like any aspect of its performance was faster than that of the 40D and as I said before the AF seemed slower on the D300.
The D300 certainly does win on features. If they are features that you use and find beneficial then it certainly has that.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Maybe with careful post processing of RAW files there is a small difference, I don’t usually spend enough time in post production to where I think it would ever make a difference for me.
I didn’t really notice any additional DR in the 40D files, if it is there it doesn’t seem to be enough to make any significant difference.
As far as speed goes the D300 didn’t feel like any aspect of its performance was faster than that of the 40D and as I said before the AF seemed slower on the D300.
The D300 certainly does win on features. If they are features that you use and find beneficial then it certainly has that.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Yes, the D300 has this feature. It is called "a4 Focus Tracking With Lock-On". It can be set to: OFF, SHORT, NORMAL or LONG. This setting will adjust the re-acquire time.Yes, it is true that having more AF points should help with tracking
especially when the subject is small in the frame and can be lost
between the AF points while still in the AF area. There is a lot
less chance of that happening when you have 51 of them instead of 9.
If the subject is larger in the frame though, it should be much of an
issue.
The focus re-acquire time can be a double-edged sword. In a case
like you mention where you allow the subject to leave the active AF
area and then get it back then you might still be able to catch shots
because the focus hasn’t significantly changed since you lost the
subject. However if the focus does get off track and you want to
re-acquire a long delay could mean that you will never be able to
catch it.
I am not sure if the D300 has this feature or not but on the pro
Canon cameras the user can actually adjust the re-acquire time which
seems like a pretty good option to me. The good thing on the 40D in
my experience is that the fast focus acquisition time means that even
if you do lose the focus if you can re-find the subject in the
viewfinder it is quick enough to where you can often still get good
shots after a focus loss.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
--
Regards,
Jeremy
Good to know, it is a very useful feature that I would have liked Canon to have put on the 40D.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Arash Hazeghi
Leading Member
Hi,
I have shot with both cameras with the following lenses
D300
17-55DX, 17-35, 70-200 f/2.8 with and w/o TC 1.7 and 80-400 VR
40D
16-35II, 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4, 100-400L and 400 f/5.6L
In all above cases 40D focuses faster than D300 but this is not just a function of the body but also function of the ring servo in the lens, Canon lenses have a larger barrel diameter and have a higher torque ring servo (USM), as a result focus operation is faster and also feels quieter and smoother. in low light, the 16-35 f/2.8 hunts less than both 17-55DX and 17-35 and the difference is noticeble, but this is extreme low light which you normally don't shoot in w/o flash either. I have not tried the Nikon super telephotos like the new 500 f/4 VR things might be different with those lenses. tracking performance of both cameras seems to be similar except for D300 offers more features to customize how the tracking focus will respond. So, if your main subject is landscape and wideangle it shouldn't really matter since both cameras focus fast enough, but for telephoto i.e. birds etc. 40D has an edge.
hope this helps,
Arash
I have shot with both cameras with the following lenses
D300
17-55DX, 17-35, 70-200 f/2.8 with and w/o TC 1.7 and 80-400 VR
40D
16-35II, 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4, 100-400L and 400 f/5.6L
In all above cases 40D focuses faster than D300 but this is not just a function of the body but also function of the ring servo in the lens, Canon lenses have a larger barrel diameter and have a higher torque ring servo (USM), as a result focus operation is faster and also feels quieter and smoother. in low light, the 16-35 f/2.8 hunts less than both 17-55DX and 17-35 and the difference is noticeble, but this is extreme low light which you normally don't shoot in w/o flash either. I have not tried the Nikon super telephotos like the new 500 f/4 VR things might be different with those lenses. tracking performance of both cameras seems to be similar except for D300 offers more features to customize how the tracking focus will respond. So, if your main subject is landscape and wideangle it shouldn't really matter since both cameras focus fast enough, but for telephoto i.e. birds etc. 40D has an edge.
hope this helps,
Arash
Sulair
Member
How is this a pain?...just cycle through with the display button
How is this a pain?...
I like the power button where it is...never gets turned off or on by accident...the control wheel is great. The CW lock just prevents mistakes...
Again, how is selection of AF point a pin...the joystick is as easy as it gets. 9 points seem to work just fine
.I have to admit the d300 screen sounds very nice.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://davidhodgson.smugmug.com
jeminijoseph
Veteran Member
Longer aquisition time was an issue for me when I had D2X and 300mm + 1.4X.
Lens alone was fine. But TC slowed the lens down a lot. I read somewhere this is an issue with Canon 300mm too. This is where 400mm shines. When the subject leaves the focus points D2X would focus in the background and it will take long time to focus back on the subject.
With 40D this limitation is not a big issue. Actually when 40D announced I looked at it very seriously. But D300 pulled me back to Nikon
If the subject is fairly full frame number of focus points is not an issue at all. It's possible that some area of the subject may not have enough contrast or light for the camera to achieve the focus. So even if the some point is on the subject it may not be able to focus. Higher number of points help here too.
With D300, with 51 points it's hard to miss the subject and when I miss it camera will wait for the subject.
I never had this kind of success. Here's couple of my threads with pictures. I have lots of eagle fishing series with the slow 300mm+TC and D300. Unbelievably hight success rate for me.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=26646835
Here's a series. All continuous frames. Not all of them belong to same burst. But continuous
http://www.wildbirdimages.com/tests/flyingseries.html
I still think 40D has slight edge in IQ. 40D is plenty of camera for any Canon user to be happy. But not enough to pull people from Nikon. Same with D300. Nikon users are very happy. Canon users don't care much about it.
Anyway it was a healthy and nice discussion.
THanks
Thanks
Jemini Joseph
http://www.wildbirdimages.com
Lens alone was fine. But TC slowed the lens down a lot. I read somewhere this is an issue with Canon 300mm too. This is where 400mm shines. When the subject leaves the focus points D2X would focus in the background and it will take long time to focus back on the subject.
With 40D this limitation is not a big issue. Actually when 40D announced I looked at it very seriously. But D300 pulled me back to Nikon
If the subject is fairly full frame number of focus points is not an issue at all. It's possible that some area of the subject may not have enough contrast or light for the camera to achieve the focus. So even if the some point is on the subject it may not be able to focus. Higher number of points help here too.
With D300, with 51 points it's hard to miss the subject and when I miss it camera will wait for the subject.
I never had this kind of success. Here's couple of my threads with pictures. I have lots of eagle fishing series with the slow 300mm+TC and D300. Unbelievably hight success rate for me.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=26646835
Here's a series. All continuous frames. Not all of them belong to same burst. But continuous
http://www.wildbirdimages.com/tests/flyingseries.html
I still think 40D has slight edge in IQ. 40D is plenty of camera for any Canon user to be happy. But not enough to pull people from Nikon. Same with D300. Nikon users are very happy. Canon users don't care much about it.
Anyway it was a healthy and nice discussion.
THanks
--Yes, it is true that having more AF points should help with tracking
especially when the subject is small in the frame and can be lost
between the AF points while still in the AF area. There is a lot
less chance of that happening when you have 51 of them instead of 9.
If the subject is larger in the frame though, it should be much of an
issue.
The focus re-acquire time can be a double-edged sword. In a case
like you mention where you allow the subject to leave the active AF
area and then get it back then you might still be able to catch shots
because the focus hasn’t significantly changed since you lost the
subject. However if the focus does get off track and you want to
re-acquire a long delay could mean that you will never be able to
catch it.
I am not sure if the D300 has this feature or not but on the pro
Canon cameras the user can actually adjust the re-acquire time which
seems like a pretty good option to me. The good thing on the 40D in
my experience is that the fast focus acquisition time means that even
if you do lose the focus if you can re-find the subject in the
viewfinder it is quick enough to where you can often still get good
shots after a focus loss.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Thanks
Jemini Joseph
http://www.wildbirdimages.com
jp52637
Senior Member
You need an extra button (hand) and can only cycle in one direction
It forces me to go through the 3rd screen every time although I do not want to see that
On the D300 you do it with the front wheel and works in both directions, no cycling needed: not have to move a finger to check sharpness, composition and exposure. You have to experience it yourself to appreciate the huge difference.
Need to push zoom button several times or hold it pressed, then move to the critical point with the joystick. This must be done blind since you do not have a thumbnail of the image to see the position of the enlargement
D300 zooms in on the location of the chosen AF point and the correct magnification with ! thumb press. The small image is really a thumbnail of the whole image so you also see where you are zoomed in
The power button position is a joke. Most canon users hate it.
The D300 button never gets turned of by accident either. Moreover it is even not needed since nikon has a real idle mode which does not drain the battery unlike canon
The CW lock should not have been combined with the power button, it used to be separate on my old EOS cameras and I preferred it that way.
Canon's flat CW itself is absolutely great, much better than nikons and all other brands which use an internal wheel. I really whish I had that flat CW on my Nikon.
It is prone to errors, especially the important left upper is difficult to select in stress situations.Again, how is selection of AF point a pin...the joystick is as easy
as it gets. 9 points seem to work just fine
And as I said, this 'direct acces' system wil not work anymore when the number of AF points is increased since a joystisck only has 8 positions.
The 1D series for example can not use the joystick for AF point selection
D200 and D300 are far superior here, and so are most other brands
It is not only the screen: it is the zoom algorithms.
And even the 40D pictures zoomed on the D300 are way sharper than on the 40D. On the D300 you can check critical focus with 1 thump presse. On the 40D you can not, not even after all that pressing and scrolling, the zoomed image is just too fuzzy.
If you have not used both cameras side by side like I did, you are not well positioned to compare these things. I do not deny that you love the 40D but if you used a D300 (or D200) and the things I mentioned are important to you (as they are to me) then the 40D ergonomics will cause irriation.
--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.
jp52637
Senior Member
The 100-400 is indeed clearly faster than the 80-400 (USM vs screw drive)
But the Canon 70-200 2.8 is certainly not faster than the Nikon 70-200 2.8, on the contrary. I can not speak for the Canon 70-200 f/4 (I have not compared that one) which of course is newer and has less glass to move because it is a stop slower
--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.
But the Canon 70-200 2.8 is certainly not faster than the Nikon 70-200 2.8, on the contrary. I can not speak for the Canon 70-200 f/4 (I have not compared that one) which of course is newer and has less glass to move because it is a stop slower
--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.
jeminijoseph
Veteran Member
The slowest AF-S lens combo I have (300mm f/4 AF-S + TC-14E= 420/5.6)
travels from minimum focusing distance to infinity in 1 second. Yes, this is slow. But what subject we will cover moves faster than this?? Just a thought.
I too thought speed is an issue before getting D300. Now I can say I can capture any bird in flight with this combo as long I can hold and aim the camera at the bird.
That was not the case with D2X. So tracking is more important than speed for me
Thanks
Jemini Joseph
http://www.wildbirdimages.com
travels from minimum focusing distance to infinity in 1 second. Yes, this is slow. But what subject we will cover moves faster than this?? Just a thought.
I too thought speed is an issue before getting D300. Now I can say I can capture any bird in flight with this combo as long I can hold and aim the camera at the bird.
That was not the case with D2X. So tracking is more important than speed for me
--
Thanks
Jemini Joseph
http://www.wildbirdimages.com
Actually the battery life on the Canon is quite impressive. This past weekend I managed to get 6500 shots on a single charge. It is my normal practice to turn on my 40D in the morning when I get started and not turn it off until I am heading home for the day.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
LeesburgGeek
Well-known member
Wow! 15 more weekends like that and you'll have reached the 100,000 shutter life expectancy.
--
- Brian
I think I am already past the 100K mark. I wish Canon gave us the ability to check the actual shutter count on the 40D like they do on the pro cameras.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
I have no confidence that the 40D is superior - whether it's faster is misleading since accuracy matters most.
Having owned a D2H, D100, 20D, 5D and 1DIIN - and now a D300. I can say the D300 is the best of the bunch for overall AF performance. The D2H and 1DIIN nearly tie for second. The 5D 3rd. The 20D way behind in terms of accuracy. The D100 was slow but more accurate than the 20D.
Canon non "1" series cams have inconsistent AF in my experience and while they lock fast they don't focus accurately enough for me.
Joe
Having owned a D2H, D100, 20D, 5D and 1DIIN - and now a D300. I can say the D300 is the best of the bunch for overall AF performance. The D2H and 1DIIN nearly tie for second. The 5D 3rd. The 20D way behind in terms of accuracy. The D100 was slow but more accurate than the 20D.
Canon non "1" series cams have inconsistent AF in my experience and while they lock fast they don't focus accurately enough for me.
Joe
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum