By the beginning of the year (2008) I had sold all my Canon dSLR equipment and had switched to medium format with a digital. While the digital format files did surpass the quality of the Canon 1Ds Mark II, I missed the many of the functions/features that a dSLR offers, such as size, auto focus, quickness, integration, etc. I had planned to purchase a zoom lens for the Mamiya 645 AFD II and use that for walk around shooting. Instead of spending the money on the Mamiya zoom, I decided to consider a 1.5x crop dSLR as the "walk around" camera. In turn the Mamiya 645 AFD II + P25 would be used solely with primes and for the more the important pictures.
I had purchased a 40D in late 2007, sold it and the buyer decided to sell it, so for about $925 I had the 40D back. It's not my favorite camera, but as a back-up to the medium format set-up, I could live with it. After several days I decided to buy a Nikon D300 and 18-200 VR kit lens and compare to the Nikon to Canon. On paper Nikon has the all the right stuff, so I wanted to see how that felt and worked in real life. The following list are some general comparisons of the two cameras -
VIEWFINDER:
--- D300 has a slightly larger viewfinder and 100% coverage; 40D has 95% coverage. D300's feels a tad bit bigger, but it's slight. Canon has alternate focus screens, so it's a bit more flexible.
--- The 40D's diopter adjustment has more range.
--- Nikon's viewfinders have grid lines on demand - I really like this feature.
--- The viewfinder also lights up with a red glow; not sure about the when's and why's, but it's very cool.
ERGONOMICS:
--- Nikon has a pro-build; Canon feels just as good - if not better. The D300 has some extra seals and there are no creaks or cracks. The 40D also built very well, but Canon does need to beef up the compact flash door.
--- Nikon's front control dial is almost flush with the rubber grip. It works fine, but I wish it stuck a bit further. Nikon places their dial just behind the shutter release button. I think Canon's design is better.
--- Nikon using a direction control pad; Canon use the mini joystick. In use Nikon's control pad works much better.
--- Nikon has a knob or switch for many functions such as changing metering, AF and drive (FPS). I like the directness, but I think Canon's approach makes more sense. You can change the settings easier on the Canon when looking through the viewfinder.
--- The 40D shoes the ISO speed in the top LCD; Nikon doesn't. This really bugs me with the Nikon.
--- The D300's 3" LCD rocks; there is no comparison. The 40D's gets the job done, but Nikon's is clearly better. I can't find a way to set the image review time on the D300; I wish the image would turn off after 3 seconds or so when the picture is first taken. The 40D's auto image review makes more sense to me.
--- From the time the picture is taken to when it shows up on the LCD seems a bit quicker on the Canon. In some ways the Canon's LCD/menu system feels a tiny, tiny bit faster.
--- The 40D sits lower in my palm and I can really grip and squeeze the body - feels very secure. The D300 sits higher in the high hand due to a ridge on the rear grip where the thumb is supposed to lay. I suspect the D300 feels really good with battery grip, but without my hand position is a bit uncomfortable.
AUTO-FOCUS AND METERING
--- The D300 auto focus is very good; selecting the AF points is very intuitive and really like how it works. It also has an AF assist light, so low light focusing is much better than the 40D. I'm very impressed with the D300's AF.
--- The nikon seems to meter a bit better than the 40D. On Canon bodies I tend to use an EC adjustment more often. With the Nikon I don't feel the need to make an EC adjustment as often.
--- D300 has an auto ISO option which is nice in use, but you'll pay the price in the noisier files. Definitely a good feature, but I would like a cleaner sensor (ISO)
--- Canon has Highlight Tone Priority; Nikon has D-Lighting. Nikon D-Light is mostly an adjustment in the tone curve to boost the shadow detail. This is easy to do in Photoshop. Canon's Highlight Tone Priority guards against clipping and seems a bit more complex in its design. I like Canon's solution, but it requires ISO 200 or higher --- which I don't like (ISO/noise).
--- 51 AF points vs 9 AF points; clearly Nikon wins here. I'm sure all those points will be great for sports shooters. In the real world I don't know if I'd use all 51 points. Selecting any of the 51 points is very, very easy so it doesn't get in the way. Having 51 points is nice, but I'd like see Nikon spread those points out a bit. They extend nicely to right and left, but they are still a bit bunched up when it comes to the top/down distribution.
IMAGE QUALITY
--- 12 MP vs 10 MP - the difference is slim and none. More sounds better, but I'm not sure if there really is any added resolution.
--- The D300's true base ISO is 200 - which is noisy for more. Background blur (bokeh) is speckled, it's not clean and smooth. At ISO 100 this improves, but you lose some dynamic range. The 40D's ISO 100 is cleaner, better. This is big score for the Canon for my purposes.
--- Nikon advertised 6 FPS, but if you're shooting 14 bit files then it drops to 2.5 FPS. Canon is 6.5 FPS at any setting. Considering the D300 costs alot more, it should maintain the same FPS no matter which bit-rate is selected.
--- AWB seems a bit cooler on the Nikon, but I'm not sure yet. DigicIII introduced a bit of a magenta hue on the Canon's. No winner here. AWB definitely plays a role in each system's "look".
--- Coloring - Canon does a better job on landscapes; Nikon does a better job on flesh tones. I'm seeing some odd sky colors with the D300.
--- I think the 40D has slightly more dynamic range.
I'm still very undecided on which to keep. Since ISO 100 looks better on the 40D, I'm leaning towards it. The Canon files need more editing to get the pop, whereas the Nikon files need less work. Both need sharpening of course. Nikon has 18-200 VR; matching that range in the Canon requires two lenses. I wish the Canon had a 18-200 EF-S IS --- great for general use with obvious trade offs in distortion, etc. For the Canon I'd probably opt for 24-105L IS. While not as wide, it's a stop brighter on the tele end. Also the lens could be re-used on a full-frame dSLR. Both of these cameras beg for smaller, light lenses. With smaller primes in the 12 ounce weight range the body balance would be sublime.
I really don't think you could go wrong picking either camera. Both pack alot of function & features. The D300's $1799 price tag seems a bit to me; $1499 would feel better. Since the 40D was used and only cost ~$900 is has a major value advantage. 40D and 24-105L will cost about $1800 combined vs $2550 for the Nikon set-up. Since this camera is just a back-up to the Mamiya 645 AFD II set-up, I really don't want to spend too much. I suspect the Nikon will be sold, though, I'm still not sure.
