Image quality D300 vs 40D

snappey · Apr 2, 2008

ThomasMiller said:
DPreview preferred the resolution/sharpness & Detail of the D300.

And the 40D has a slight noise and larger dynamic range advantage. Anyone with eyes can see that the side-by-side images here:

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

give a slight advantage to the 40D. Even the reviewer notes it in the text at the bottom of the page....and the OP notes it in other comparison images in the OP.

ThomasMiller said:
It also wins out in features. Virtually every other review agrees and I
can post them.

But the topic here was image quality.

ThomasMiller said:
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!

Don't be so insecure about a little image quality advantage that the 40D has over the D300.

ThomasMiller said:
--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

David314 · Apr 2, 2008

snappey said:
ThomasMiller said:

DPreview preferred the resolution/sharpness & Detail of the D300.

Click to expand...

And the 40D has a slight noise and larger dynamic range advantage.
Anyone with eyes can see that the side-by-side images here:

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

huh? dynamic range? you can tell anything from these shots - and there are only two shots btw - the rest are crops from the same shot

the only camera that has any clipping is the 40D? just download and look at the histogram -

it looks to me like the D300 has more dynamic range -

give me 2 seconds and i can make a d300 image sharper than the 40d, a little USM is all it takes

because the default sharpening is on the D300 is less than that on the 40d

noise? iso100 versus iso200?

honestly, do you know anything about comparing images?

did you read the whole quotes from the review or only parts you wanted to believe?

David

freddyNZ · Apr 2, 2008

snappey said:
Don't be so insecure about a little image quality advantage that the
40D has over the D300.

Chuckle.

CCAPM · Apr 2, 2008

Hi guys,

the discussion has really gone aside. At the first place I did not intended to re-launch the discussion on noise-sharpness competition between these two models.

On my opinion these are two very delicate questions - "noise" for me has meaning only at same "sharpness" and discussion is meaningful only if in close regimes the shots are noticeably different in quality.

In this forum I just asked for a comment on the quality of the particular shot from the "sample" section.

The answer (as I get it) is : the difference in quality between Canon and Nikon's shots in question is mainly due to natural light conditions, the effect which, I believe, very well known in the community of skilled photographers. So, as one of us said, the difference in quality depends rather on skill of the photographer than on the camera itself. At least in this case.

With all my respect,
Thanks to everybody for your help!

Hemidart · Apr 2, 2008

I say strip the EXIF data and let images be judge on artistic merit.

Seriously, does anyone take pictures for artistic or pleasure anymore? Or is it all just tests for people to argue over.

--
http://www.winnert.com

ThomasMiller · Apr 2, 2008

snappey said:
ThomasMiller said:

DPreview preferred the resolution/sharpness & Detail of the D300.

Click to expand...

And the 40D has a slight noise and larger dynamic range advantage.
Anyone with eyes can see that the side-by-side images here:

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

give a slight advantage to the 40D. Even the reviewer notes it in
the text at the bottom of the page....and the OP notes it in other
comparison images in the OP.

snappey said:

It also wins out in features. Virtually every other review agrees and I
can post them.

Click to expand...

But the topic here was image quality.

snappey said:

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!

Click to expand...

Don't be so insecure about a little image quality advantage that the
40D has over the D300.

I'd be horribly insecure, except that I know that camera output is not FINAL output. That's probably why Phil added explanations to the "compared to" pages where the D300's IQ won every time.

So...once again, for your reading enjoyment...here are the facts as STATED in the review:

"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."

Now go back to pretending that those images are indicative of either camera's final output capability, Snappy! We know you can do it!

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

d80russ · Apr 2, 2008

Right now I use the D300 with 16-85VR and 70-300VR.

For the same money one could use the Canon 40D with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS.

imho glass trumps camera.
--
d80russ

Sal Baker · Apr 2, 2008

There is no difference in IQ other than pixel peeping artifacts that can be favorable to either camera under different circumstances. Even Phil gave identical IQ ratings to both cameras.

We're just sending our company's 37 page high-gloss corporate report to press. We used photos from 5 pros that we use regularly. A pretty even mix of Nikon and Canon gear, mostly the 40D and D300 with a few 1-series files floating around. The files we used in the book are all of the highest caliber. A few were ISO 1600 but the images received selective software NR and look excellent. Camera brand concerns were never an issue, even under the critical eyes of senior art directors, designers, and pre-press people.

Some of the images are also used in media posters and full-page national print ads. No one can tell what images came from which camera. In the hands of a pro, and with good lenses, the 40D and 300D are absolutely indistinguishable from each other in actual applications.

Get the camera that has any fun features you might want, forget about differences in IQ.

Sal

bwigg · Apr 2, 2008

I had a 40D since January and just bought the D300 a couple of weeks ago. I hated not having auto ISO so I went back to Nikon. This gave me a few weeks to compare the two while I was waiting for the 40D to sell on Ebay.

I spent a lot of time with both hanging around my neck and trying to compare them on the exact same scenes within seconds of each other. The 40D had the 28-135mm IS and the D300 had the 18-200mm VR. They first few shots I happened to use a focal length of 135mm on both for my test. I was appalled at how much sharper the 40D was. Until I found out the 18-200mm VR has a really soft spot at 135mm.

I started using 70mm and almost every shot was sharper then the 40D with out of the camera jpegs.

Exposure was all over the place using matrix metering and P mode. Sometimes the D300 nailed it and other times the 40D nailed it. At times both looked identical.

In my non scientific tests I came to the conclusion that the Nikon gave up nothing except price to the Canon 40D. Considering all the extra features the D300 has it was well worth losing money on changing systems.

sandy b · Apr 2, 2008

Nikons have always been more expensive. They have also always been better built. The question is, is it worth the extra money for the nikon? I would say that given Nikon sells out every product it makes and usually has waiting lines for its top products, yes, its worth it. If you can afford/justify the price. Can you get as good a photo from a canon? of course.

Nikon don't make chevy's.

CCAPM · Apr 2, 2008

Thank you!

CCAPM · Apr 2, 2008

Very useful note.
Thank you.

ThomasMiller · Apr 2, 2008

No, he doesn't. At the bottom of the page it reads as follows:

"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 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."

Got it, Snappy? Hard to pick a winner, though they point out that the D300 got more detail. The D300 vs. 40D in RAW mode, which is more indicative of the true cabability of the sensors saw THIS RESULT:

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

Go check out some more JPEG's, Snappy!

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

landmarks4711589173 · Apr 2, 2008

Sal Baker said:
In the hands of a pro, and with good lenses, the 40D and
300D are absolutely indistinguishable from each other in actual
applications.

Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap 65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Well... some people doesn't care to lose 65% of their shots.
But often precious moment is not repeatable.

Sal Baker said:
Get the camera that has any fun features you might want, forget about
differences in IQ.

Sal

ThomasMiller · Apr 2, 2008

landmarks4711 said:
Sal Baker said:

In the hands of a pro, and with good lenses, the 40D and
300D are absolutely indistinguishable from each other in actual
applications.

Click to expand...

Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap
65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions
and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Well... some people doesn't care to lose 65% of their shots.
But often precious moment is not repeatable.

Obviously, I'm in the D300 camp. But I don't think trying a friend's 40D would tell you all there is about the AF system. That's how a lot of people made a lot of inaccurate assumptions about the D300's AF module. You really need to work with the camera to be certain of what it's strengths and weaknesses are. I do believe the D300 AF is better, but only in certain shooting situations. For many it may be a wash, or they might even prefer the 40D's slightly faster focus acquisition at times.

The D300 has plenty of serious advantages over the 40D that really can't be debated. Fine lens tuning is one of them. It's been a revelation. The funny thing is that I have friends with Canon that have been bragging about it for a long time. They can't believe that a 1700 dollar camera has it.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

landmarks4711589173 · Apr 2, 2008

ThomasMiller said:
landmarks4711 said:

Sal Baker said:

In the hands of a pro, and with good lenses, the 40D and
300D are absolutely indistinguishable from each other in actual
applications.

Click to expand...

Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap
65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions
and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Well... some people doesn't care to lose 65% of their shots.
But often precious moment is not repeatable.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm in the D300 camp. But I don't think trying a friend's
40D would tell you all there is about the AF system. That's how a lot
of people made a lot of inaccurate assumptions about the D300's AF
module. You really need to work with the camera to be certain of what
it's strengths and weaknesses are. I do believe the D300 AF is
better, but only in certain shooting situations. For many it may be a
wash, or they might even prefer the 40D's slightly faster focus
acquisition at times.

I must say, yes 40D AF is faster than my D300.

ThomasMiller said:
The D300 has plenty of serious advantages over the 40D that really
can't be debated. Fine lens tuning is one of them. It's been a
revelation. The funny thing is that I have friends with Canon that
have been bragging about it for a long time. They can't believe that
a 1700 dollar camera has it.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

ThomasMiller · Apr 2, 2008

landmarks4711 said:
ThomasMiller said:

landmarks4711 said:

Sal Baker said:

In the hands of a pro, and with good lenses, the 40D and
300D are absolutely indistinguishable from each other in actual
applications.

Click to expand...

Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap
65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions
and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Well... some people doesn't care to lose 65% of their shots.
But often precious moment is not repeatable.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm in the D300 camp. But I don't think trying a friend's
40D would tell you all there is about the AF system. That's how a lot
of people made a lot of inaccurate assumptions about the D300's AF
module. You really need to work with the camera to be certain of what
it's strengths and weaknesses are. I do believe the D300 AF is
better, but only in certain shooting situations. For many it may be a
wash, or they might even prefer the 40D's slightly faster focus
acquisition at times.

Click to expand...

I must say, yes 40D AF is faster than my D300.

Right...and so it just comes down to the D300's tracking and accuracy. I find it excellent, but I had a lot of success with AF on my D70 as well. Most of us are not really challenging these AF modules enough to judge their shortcomings I think.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

Eric Purdy · Apr 2, 2008

I was a long time Canon user and in love with all my L glass. I worked my way up from the 10D-> 20D-> 30D to the 40D; every body better than the last. I was very reluctant to part with any of my Canon gear when I tried the D300....

I decided to give it a whirl to see how well the autofocus dealt with soccer - the bane of my 40D. I was very very impressed. Using the 21 point dynamic AF mode I would say that at least 90% of my shots are dead on focus wise. With the 40D I was forced to use the single center point focus point to achieve fast and accurate results (the automatic focus point selection on the 40D is a joke for sports) As a result, my keeper rate was significantly less - it is very challenging to keep the small central focus point aimed on a player.

To make a long story short, the image quality on both cameras is outstanding but the speed, versatility, and accuracy of the D300 autofocus allows you to extract all that quality. That kind of consistency was just not there with the 40D and even slight mis-focus makes the IQ suffer.

My two cents. Your mileage may vary. If you shoot things that don't move then both cameras are top notch.
--
http://www.epurdyphoto.com

Sal Baker · Apr 2, 2008

landmarks4711 said:
Sal Baker wrote:
Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap
65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions
and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Does your friend have 65% out of focus with his 40D too? If so why doesn't he send it for repair?

I've used the 30D extensively, and the 40D is reported to be much better with AF. I never had even 5% out of focus. I think you must have had something really wrong with technique or hardware.

Sal

ThomasMiller · Apr 2, 2008

Sal Baker said:
landmarks4711 said:

Sal Baker wrote:
Maybe true, but my experience trying my friend's 40D, I had to scrap
65% of the shots because of Out Of Focus. Sadly the best compositions
and snapshots were among those I had to scrap.

Click to expand...

Does your friend have 65% out of focus with his 40D too? If so why
doesn't he send it for repair?

I've used the 30D extensively, and the 40D is reported to be much
better with AF. I never had even 5% out of focus. I think you must
have had something really wrong with technique or hardware.

Sal, you can't be shooting difficult subjects if only 5% are out of focus. I know sports and wildlife shooters who certainly experience higher focus errors than that. I also owned a 30D. Great camera. But the D300 AF module IS quite different and more sophisticated than the 40D an 30D.

I'm sure you've seen some of the impressive tracking results posted with dogs, birds and people. At least a few websites have also found the D300 better in this respect. I certainly have seen nothing posted from the 40D to show that level of capability, nor has a single review highlighted it.

I don't know why Canon owners can't except this and just move on. The D300 DOES in fact do some things better. That's why I don't own a 30D anymore or a 40D, Sal.

--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)

Image quality D300 vs 40D

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts