Reading mode: Light Dark

Image quality D300 vs 40D

Go to last post
C

CCAPM

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, CA
Here on dpreview.com one can find in "samples" section two same-scene shots with close settings:

one by Nikon D300:

Nikon D300 Review Samples (5 of 36), 105 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/400 sec, F8.0, +0.0 EV, AF-S 24-70 mm F2.8

second by Canon 40D:

Canon EOS 40D Review Samples (3 of 32), 125 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/250 sec, F7.1, +0.0 EV, EF 70-200 mm F4L, RAW DPP

Looking on full-size images one can notice obvious advantage in quality of Canon 40D (look, for example, on wall's texture). Quality of lens seems to be (equally) high. Can anybody comment on that ?

Is it due to day-light or RAW format ?
Thanks.
 
Those samples are useless. When will people learn this. Two cameras with different default processing and lenses. DPreview found that the IQ is VERY close, but gave the nod to Nikon as the superior camera.

The reason they did that is because it IS A SUPERIOR CAMERA. The grading system is simple. Better cameras are usually built better and do more. They also COST more.

Only you can decide if what the D300 does above the 40D is worth the extra cost. Choosing either based on IQ is ludicrous at this point. The Nikon's small IQ advantage is not relevant. Both are fine cameras. Both have fine lenses available. If you're interested in photography rather than gear, it's likely you'll be thrilled with either system.

Cheers,

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
 
Nikon is shooting with bright sun directly luminating, canon is shot sun at side casting deliniating shadows, also differences in processing, Canon used default DPP, Nicon used ACR, would be interested to see differences betwean that and Capture NX.

I agree the canon looks a little sharper in this pic, there are other shots in the samples where it doesnt however. I think at pixel peeping depth, the canon does seem to retain a little more sharpness. BUT, is it the lens, lighting, post processing, the sensor?

I know I would be happy owning either, with the nod to Nikon on the body.
 
Along with what other posters mentioned, you have to consider the time of day as well. The Nikon shot appears to have been taken under a more harsh sunlight (maybe early afternoon based on the shadows). The Canon shot was taken later in the day it appears. That can cause a big difference in contrast, hence why the pale building is not as detailed in the Nikon shot.

Also, the Nikon shot appears to have been taken in early Fall when the trees are beginning to lose their color. The Canon shot appears to be late summer.
 
The 40D has a bit better IQ than the D300. You can also see it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page24.asp
CCAPM said:
Here on dpreview.com one can find in "samples" section two same-scene
shots with close settings:

one by Nikon D300:

Nikon D300 Review Samples (5 of 36), 105 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/400
sec, F8.0, +0.0 EV, AF-S 24-70 mm F2.8

second by Canon 40D:

Canon EOS 40D Review Samples (3 of 32), 125 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/250
sec, F7.1, +0.0 EV, EF 70-200 mm F4L, RAW DPP

Looking on full-size images one can notice obvious advantage in
quality of Canon 40D (look, for example, on wall's texture). Quality
of lens seems to be (equally) high. Can anybody comment on that ?

Is it due to day-light or RAW format ?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Yup, thanks. In this test the ISO settings are different : 200 for Nikon vs 100 for Canon, so it causes more noise, but contrast ans sharpness are fairly close. In real-life scenes, as I guessed in the beginning, the quality of day-light seems to be the reason of huge difference in contrast.

Thanks to everybody!
 
ThomasMiller said:
DPreview found that the
IQ is VERY close, but gave the nod to Nikon as the superior camera.
Click to expand...
They did? Regarding image quality specificially, which is what the OP was asking about, DPreview gave both D300 and 40D a 9.0. It's obvious from the image(s) the OP refers to and the ones on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page24.asp

that the 40D has a bit better IQ. Probably something like a 9.2 for the 40D and a 9.0 for the D300 and since DPreview only grades in 0.5 increments, they both got a 9.0.
 
Looks like the Canon's default sharpness and brightness is higher than Nikon's.
 
Last sunday I went out with a friend of mine that is a canonite. He owns a 40D with a 17-40 L as GP lens and just purchased a 70-200 f/4 L IS version. I put my CF in his camera and shoot some photos with his 17-40, then I did the same with my D300 + 17-55DX.

I haven't notice any "obvious" advantage of the Canon 40D.

Although a nice camera.

Sincerely ? IMO this crappy mediatic war between Canon vs. Nik pixel peepers is completely stupid. This is proved by me and my canonite friend as we had four hours of prolling in the park shooting together everything we could, without fighting over "obvious advantages" and snake oil for our camera sensors.

cheers

miancu
CCAPM said:
Here on dpreview.com one can find in "samples" section two same-scene
shots with close settings:

one by Nikon D300:

Nikon D300 Review Samples (5 of 36), 105 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/400
sec, F8.0, +0.0 EV, AF-S 24-70 mm F2.8

second by Canon 40D:

Canon EOS 40D Review Samples (3 of 32), 125 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/250
sec, F7.1, +0.0 EV, EF 70-200 mm F4L, RAW DPP

Looking on full-size images one can notice obvious advantage in
quality of Canon 40D (look, for example, on wall's texture). Quality
of lens seems to be (equally) high. Can anybody comment on that ?

Is it due to day-light or RAW format ?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonion
http://nikonion.smugmug.com
 
And what is important on my opinion is the "noise at a given sharpness" - setting "sharpening" to higher values causes more noise at the same ISO.
 
snappey said:
The 40D has a bit better IQ than the D300. You can also see it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page24.asp
Click to expand...
As far as resolution, the D300 has little more in all tests I have read, but the Canon is very close behind.
snappey said:
CCAPM said:
Here on dpreview.com one can find in "samples" section two same-scene
shots with close settings:

one by Nikon D300:

Nikon D300 Review Samples (5 of 36), 105 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/400
sec, F8.0, +0.0 EV, AF-S 24-70 mm F2.8

second by Canon 40D:

Canon EOS 40D Review Samples (3 of 32), 125 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/250
sec, F7.1, +0.0 EV, EF 70-200 mm F4L, RAW DPP

Looking on full-size images one can notice obvious advantage in
quality of Canon 40D (look, for example, on wall's texture). Quality
of lens seems to be (equally) high. Can anybody comment on that ?

Is it due to day-light or RAW format ?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/

 
They did? Regarding image quality specificially, which is what the OP was asking about, DPreview gave both D300 and 40D a 9.0. It's obvious from the image(s) the OP refers to and the ones on this page:> > > >

Snappy, we're all VERY sorry that the 40D has been rated second best in virtually every camera test and review. Even the DPreview mentions that the D300 outresolves the 40D. And every other test online shows the D300 focus to be superior when tracking subjects. I have yet to see ANY ISO 4000, 5000 or 6400 shots that match what the D300 can do.

But if Snappy was being honest, he'd explain that the IQ is SO close that you can probably make a case for the 40D at low ISO's and the D300 at higher ones. Where the D300 trumps the 40D is in features. No one, except the buyer, can tell anyone else the value of those features. For me, the D300 was a better value, but that's MY case and not everyones.

Things I like about the 40D? Price, live histogram, silent shutter.

Things I like about the D300? Weather sealing, amazing rear LCD, 8 FPS, Fine lens tuning, build and feel, 3D tracking, true auto ISO, built in wireless flash and more stuff that I won't list because it's not been handy yet.

But the AF fine tune alone is worth the extra money. Some would say the screen is well worth it as well, and I won't argue.

They are both great cameras, but one does quite a bit more than the other and is built better...the D300.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
 
Snappy must REALLY read between the lines. So to help him I've isolated what he skipped somehow in Phil's review:

Compared to 40D.....snipped from the review exactly!

"The D300 does eke out a little more detail in some areas of the image and there's definitely a feeling of more natural texture"

"In RAW-There is now a more obvious advantage to the D300, better defined areas of fine detail and more texture"

"Resolution test-The D300's image is the cleanest here with no noticeable moire and almost invisible sharpening artifacts."

"With the advent of the D300 however Nikon has conclusively removed this disparity and if anything stepped ahead of Canon (mostly thanks to its chroma based noise reduction delivering more film-like grain rather than color blotches)."

"There's simply no better semi-professional digital SLR on the market."

There, Snappy. Now you have the WHOLE review. Want to read some more? Get over it, dude. The 50D will probably be worlds better.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
 
snappey said:
snappey said:
Looking on full-size images one can notice obvious advantage in
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
there are lots parts to quality of image -

but if sharpness is your criteria

then yes, the 40D has more sharpening by default on the the dpreview site they look sharper because they have more sharpening

to quote Phil

"As with the D200 on the previous page the Canon EOS 40D comes to this comparison with a two megapixel (256 vertical lines) deficit, however it does appear to stand its ground a little better (helped somewhat by slightly stronger sharpening) ."

the D300 default sharpening is 3 on a scale of 0 to 9 in standard.

this is a nice setting for reducing noise, artifacts and appllying usm later

it does not look especially sharp right out of the camera

David
 
ThomasMiller said:
They did? Regarding image quality specificially, which is what the OP
was asking about, DPreview gave both D300 and 40D a 9.0. It's obvious
from the image(s) the OP refers to and the ones on this page:> > > >

They are both great cameras, but one does quite a bit more than the
other and is built better...the D300.
Click to expand...
In terms of image quality, which is the OP's topic, the 40D has a slight edge over the D300 and it's obvous from the image(s) the OP refers to and the ones here too:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page24.asp

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=27144827
 
... would you like to post here some real-life examples D300 + 17-55DX vs. 40D + 17-40 L and prove you that the "slight edge" is non-existent?

There are JPEGS compared. Read the comments on the posted links: "the Canon EOS 40D comes to this comparison with a two megapixel (256 vertical lines) deficit, however it does appear to stand its ground a little better (helped somewhat by slightly stronger sharpening). The D300 does eke out a little more detail in some areas of the image and there's definitely a feeling of more natural texture response on the Baily's label crop (second from bottom). Overall however apart from the base sharpening differences there's not a huge amount between these two cameras and certainly in print it would be very difficult to pick a clear winner."

Funny you didn't mention anything about the RAW images comparison on page 27:

"Switching to a standard RAW converter (in this case our benchmark; Adobe Camera RAW) means that the image processing pipeline is equalized between the cameras. Both cameras gain from the use of ACR with images looking considerably sharper and better detailed than their JPEG equivalents. There is now a more obvious advantage to the D300, better defined areas of fine detail and more texture, although as previously mentioned you would need to be outputing at a very large size for these differences to be noticeable."

So where is the "obvious" advantage ???

cheers

miancu
snappey said:
ThomasMiller said:
They did? Regarding image quality specificially, which is what the OP
was asking about, DPreview gave both D300 and 40D a 9.0. It's obvious
from the image(s) the OP refers to and the ones on this page:> > > >

They are both great cameras, but one does quite a bit more than the
other and is built better...the D300.
Click to expand...
In terms of image quality, which is the OP's topic, the 40D has a
slight edge over the D300 and it's obvous from the image(s) the OP
refers to and the ones here too:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page24.asp

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=27144827
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonion
http://nikonion.smugmug.com
 
DPreview preferred the resolution/sharpness & Detail of the D300. It also wins out in features. Virtually every other review agrees and I can post them.

So I suppose it's a dark plot by everyone else to make the 40D come in second and you should believe Snappy, who's studied JPEGS very carefully!

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top