TonyKillay
enthusiast
Reged: 05/07/2006
Posts: 280
Loc: South Wales
|
|
I was a bit surprised to find the 40D come out at the bottom of this comparison in this weeks AP with the D300 on top. I only have the 40D so can make any comparisons myself, just wonder how qualitative compared to quantatative the comparison really is. What do the rest of you think?
Tony
|
Terrywoodenpic
A whiff of silicon...
Reged: 21/01/2006
Posts: 272
Loc: Saddleworth UK
|
|
I am not surprised at all.
I would have bought the D300 but for two things... the Cost...
and the lack of the C1 C2 and C3. which I use all the time.
In most other respects the D3 is a hands down winner.
The 5D won because of the advantages of that sensor size.
How ever I suspect there will be more 40D's chosen as personal cameras than either of the others, and for very valid reasons.
They are all most excellent cameras. but covering a wide price range.
--------------------
63 happy photo years from amateur to professional and back to amateur
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
What do the rest of you think?
Well, I have both the 5D and the 40D, and did evaluate the D300. For me, the 5D definitely wins on the basis of low noise / high ISO performance - the fact that the D300 has a higher ISO speed available is irrelevant as the signal to noise ratio is worse even than the 40D when both are used at ISO 1600. OTOH low noise / high ISO performance isn't everything (unless you're an astrophotographer).
Personally I prefer the old monolithic menu, the new one may be faster but is intensely irritating when you can't remember which menu you should be looking in. Otherwise the 40D has live view (don't care) and sensor cleaning (big plus if it works - it seems to for me, though some users appear to have found it ineffective).
They're all very capable cameras, and all are capable of delivering very good images when care is taken with post processing. The in-camera JPEGs from the 40D are noticeably inferior but the RAWs are very nice to work from, given a reasonable light level.
I like the way the 40D has extra custom settings - three instead of just one on the 5D - but hate the scene modes cluttering up the dial.
What I don't understand is the fact that 91% for an older camera seems to get higher on the plinth than 92% for a newer one ... shades of the Olympus "82%" controversy which has now degenerated, rightly IMHO, into a running joke ... neither do I understand why the 5D gets a lower score for image quality (37/40) than the D300 (38/40) when the text seems to indicate the advantage lies with the 5D. Unsurprisingly given the larger sensor.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
"Personally I prefer the old monolithic menu"
Me too.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
I was a bit surprised to find the 40D come out at the bottom of this comparison in this weeks AP with the D300 on top.
Try reading it properly - utterly unsurprisingly, the 5D finished on top. I would've been rather shocked at any other conclusion, TBH.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
davidh
addict
Reged: 08/11/2005
Posts: 551
Loc: Bristol + Farnham
|
|
Quote:
Try reading it properly - utterly unsurprisingly, the 5D finished on top. I would've been rather shocked at any other conclusion, TBH.
Given that result, I'd be interested in what the revised % score would be for the 5D if it were tested today.
--------------------
David
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
What I don't understand is the fact that 91% for an older camera seems to get higher on the plinth than 92% for a newer one ... shades of the Olympus "82%" controversy which has now degenerated, rightly IMHO, into a running joke ... neither do I understand why the 5D gets a lower score for image quality (37/40) than the D300 (38/40) when the text seems to indicate the advantage lies with the 5D. Unsurprisingly given the larger sensor.
I think you've explained it yourself with the final sentence. The 5D has to be judged in a rather higher quality league than the D300, which is undoubtedly excellent for APS-C - perhaps better against that standard than the 5D was against a full-frame standard even when launched - but the gap between the two standards still makes the 5D better.
There's no doubt that if you were to judge cameras purely on specification, the 5D wouldn't win. On real-world results, it still takes an awful lot of beating, particularly for my mix of photography.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20144
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
What I don't understand is that people can't seem to grasp that the scores next to the camera on these 'tests' are the scores they got when they were originally reviewed.
NOT new scores!
So, one camera might have got a lower % in the original test, but when compared against another camera it might win over it in other ways therefore putting it on a higher podium position.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
The D300 won the group test, as Fen says, the percentages were based on their original reviews.
However, and this is especially the case with these cameras the reviewer has to take into consideration much more than pure image quality.
The Canon 5D should certainly turn out better images, especially when viewed critically in the lab or at huge print sizes but that's not the whole story is it?, not for a lot of pro's anyway. How much good is a 5D to you when you need 6/8 fps for motorsport?, when you need a rough service dust and moisture resistant unit for a trip to Brazil?. If you find the ability to flick from one custom configuration to the other at the press of a single button (indoors to outdoors or portrait to action)to be a massive help to shooting in the field.
The D300 not only lays the competitors cameras to rest but actually sees the end of Nikon's own D2xs and D2H, and at less than a grand that's a hard act to follow.
But, if you do landscape and want the very widest, if you do portrait and wish to use natural light or studio work where the absolute ultimate in detail is required and you have the luxury of time and clement conditions then the 5D could well be the camera for you.
|
PhilW
Blue Peter Badge Winner
Reged: 14/03/2007
Posts: 921
Loc: Near Wakefield, Yorkshire
|
|
Quote:
....but that's not the whole story is it?, not for a lot of pro's anyway.
And as this is the *Amateur* Photography mag/forum why would these things be taken into consideration?
--------------------
Phil Winterbourne
http://www.pbase.com/calis
|
Wheelman
Reged: 23/11/2002
Posts: 814
Loc: Kent/Sussex border
|
|
I shoot Motor sport and use a 5D with no problem. To be honest, I have only used the drive capabilities for multiple shots perhaps once a year if that, so I don't "need" 6-8 FPS.
The only niggle I have is that it only auto focuses down to at F5.6 whereas my 3 and 1V will both operate at F8, but this just means I can't use an F4 with a 2x converter.
--------------------
Colin
IRIPN
When you don't know where you are going then any road will do
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
....but that's not the whole story is it?, not for a lot of pro's anyway.
And as this is the *Amateur* Photography mag/forum why would these things be taken into consideration?
Well, I'd say as many amateurs shoot action and motorsport as specialise in landscapes or studio work, I actually don't think the D300 and 5D belong in the same review together, I can't imagine them appealing to the same buyer, their relative strengths are in such different areas.
And that's before we get to price (ignoring the differently endowed £1200 5D) the real casualty of the review is the 40D, why mark down a £600.00 camera because it's not as strongly built or fully featured as a the £960.00 D300, you pay £360.00 for that fancy screen and all the AF points. The 40D will give you 90% of the functionality of a D300 at 65% of the cost.
So the real winner, when all is said and done, should be the 40D for having (for the amateur) the best balance of features and image quality for the price by a long old way.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
The 40D will give you 90% of the functionality of a D300
Nah, the D300 is a much better doorstop, it's even heavier than the 5D 
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The 40D will give you 90% of the functionality of a D300
Nah, the D300 is a much better doorstop, it's even heavier than the 5D
I use my D300 for clouting cheeky Canon owners (not 1D owners mind  )
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
The D300 won the group test
No it didn't. Well, not unless by "won" you mean "came second". It takes a very strange way of revisionist thinking to misinterpret a podium, surely? The D300 is the best APS-C camera on the market, that's clear, and the 5D is not the best full-frame camera on the market. In fact, it's probably the worst. It's not got the fanciest tricks in this group test, either. But for actually taking pictures, it wins in this group - that's the outcome of the review, and I'm astonished that even the most ardent D300 fan could misread the review to come to any other conclusion.  As with any review, of course, that doesn't mean that it holds good for everyone. For those who really need more than 3 fps, one of the other cameras is more suitable. For those dedicated followers of fashion who have to have the latest gizmos and aren't fussed about the best image quality for the money, one of the other cameras is more suitable. Theoretically, those who shoot in bad weather might be better suited with one of the other options, but given that mine has survived in pretty bad weather, I rather doubt it. And of course those too idle to clean their own sensors would be better served by finding another hobby camera... 
Seriously, the 5D is not for everyone - probably just the vast majority of keen photographers. 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The D300 won the group test
No it didn't. Well, not unless by "won" you mean "came second". It takes a very strange way of revisionist thinking to misinterpret a podium, surely? The D300 is the best APS-C camera on the market, that's clear, and the 5D is not the best full-frame camera on the market. In fact, it's probably the worst. It's not got the fanciest tricks in this group test, either. But for actually taking pictures, it wins in this group - that's the outcome of the review, and I'm astonished that even the most ardent D300 fan could misread the review to come to any other conclusion. As with any review, of course, that doesn't mean that it holds good for everyone. For those who really need more than 3 fps, one of the other cameras is more suitable. For those dedicated followers of fashion who have to have the latest gizmos and aren't fussed about the best image quality for the money, one of the other cameras is more suitable. Theoretically, those who shoot in bad weather might be better suited with one of the other options, but given that mine has survived in pretty bad weather, I rather doubt it. And of course those too idle to clean their own sensors would be better served by finding another <s>hobby</s> camera...
Seriously, the 5D is not for everyone - probably just the vast majority of keen photographers.
Aaah, a quick look at my AP's shows me to be looking at the D300 review, where,AP put the 5D somewhat lower down the pile (pending a back to back). I still think it's horses for courses and no more relevant than comparing 35mm with medium format though, and the 40D is unkindly overlooked the second you bring cost into the equation.
|
Stanilaus
Member
Reged: 01/08/2007
Posts: 125
|
|
all 3 of them are just cameras that you stick a lens on the front of. Its what you take photos that counts. A photographer can take an amazing photo on anything from a 50 quid digital point and shoot, right through to a 6000 quid canon 1ds, or even something ridiculous like a digital leaf/Mamiya etc.
Camera manufacturers want to kid the amateur into believing that it actually matters what camera/lens you use, because it effects that mythic attribute called 'quality.' But in reality a good pic is a good pic, no matter how much noise/lens flare/distortion there is.
So, which is best? 40d d300 or 5d? To be honest they are all toy cameras made out of plastic and will explode if you drop them. But hey, who cares, use, whatever you want, because in the end they are all do the same thing
Tom
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Camera manufacturers want to kid the amateur into believing that it actually matters what camera/lens you use, because it effects that mythic attribute called 'quality.'
And it sure does. Used to be that the camera body was only something to connect the lens to the film, these days that is no longer true, the physical characteristics of the sensor and the software used (in the camera as well out outside it) have a major effect. But it's still true that a good technical quality is invariably produced by a good lens.
Quote:
But in reality a good pic is a good pic, no matter how much noise/lens flare/distortion there is.
You're quite right, of course - but there's a minimum to the technical quality that any of us are prepared to tolerate.
|
Stanilaus
Member
Reged: 01/08/2007
Posts: 125
|
|
Quote:
You're quite right, of course - but there's a minimum to the technical quality that any of us are prepared to tolerate.
and that 'minimum' was probably reached way back when the 10D came out. My dad can't tell the difference in quality between the pics I take on my own 30D and work's 1d Mark 2n, and thats because for practical purposes the difference is bordering on the imaginary. Sure, whip out a magnifying glass and you'll see the difference, but please, photography should aim a little higher than that level of pedantry, shouldn't it?
Tom
--------------------
My Photos
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I can't really argue with that too much.
I suppose the differences may be more apparent at the extremes of what a camera and lens combination could be expected to achieve or when producing a large picture or print. Maybe the differences aren't that great if you keep the image size reasonable and avoid the temptation to pixel peep. As I've said before here, I've pixel peeped and been disappointed but when the image has been printed I've looked at it under a magnifying glass and been impressed.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
