D300 prices

[Astrokev]

Dear All,

I've had my eye on the new D300. Whilst most reviewers seem to place this as at least as good as the Canon 40D (if not slightly better in some areas) the price difference between these models seems to be growing. Can the performance offered by the Nikon justify this growing gap?

With 40D prices now seemingly around the £600 mark (cheaper in some places with the cashback offered), what are peoples views regarding how Nikon may respond, if at all, to what is becoming a big price gap in the prosumer arena?

Kevin

[pduxon]

I wonder how many people really have sufficient experience of both to answer that. I suspect the investment in lenses means that even if the d300 is worth the difference over the 40d it isn't going to tempt canon users and even if it isn't the same will be true for nikon users.

I'd be interested in how canon users think the 450d will sell given the advertised price on w/express is only £20 less than the 40d? odd that

[Jaff]

Although I can't comment on the performance of the D300 in the real world, not having even seen one. I would still argue that if you can afford it then it would be the better option. As a birder's camera consider, it has a couple more megapixels (nothing major really), has a better screen, better AF system, with the battery grip it can pump out 8 FPS, 6400 ISO if you get really desperate and it is actually better than the 40D for noise at higher ISO's. Also, being a Nikon camera, it'll be built like a tank.

If I'd thought I could have afforded it myself I'd have plumped for the D300 and not moved to Canon.

That's my opinion anyway, feel free to make your own choice.
Regards.
Adam

[postcardcv]

I'd be interested in how canon users think the 450d will sell given the advertised price on w/express is only £20 less than the 40d? odd that

I'm sure it will sell very well, just as the 300D, 350D and 400D did. Sure it's not much cheaper than the 40D and is presumably not going to be as good, but the target market is people coming from compacts who may well feel that the extra 2mp will make the 450D a better camera.

[NoSpringChicken]

I'd be interested in how canon users think the 450d will sell given the advertised price on w/express is only £20 less than the 40d? odd that

I suppose the 450d is a brand new camera and is being advertised at full price, whereas the 40d is now being discounted substantially. I am sure some people will be willing to pay the premium for the latest model but it will sell better once the discounts kick in.

Ron

[pe'rigin]

On the decision of 40D or D300, I don’t think that there is too much difference between the two to worry about. I think the extra £300 for the Nikon is an important issue in this economical climate. But, I prefer the Nikon’s build, design, extra pixels and the new processing.


With the current trend of price reduction of cameras, I don’t think that either Nikon or Canon is going to allow a price war to develop. What I feel is happening, they both want to extend the boom in sales of DSLR until new models hit the street.

As an adopted style of marketing this pre-order launch of new models followed by price reduction is something we will have to get accustomed too.

I would prefer to go back to specific launch dates for all retail outlets; this may then focus the price structure by the manufacturers.

As consumers we need to be a little savvier on when and how we purchase the latest models.

[pduxon]

I'm sure it will sell very well, just as the 300D, 350D and 400D did. Sure it's not much cheaper than the 40D and is presumably not going to be as good, but the target market is people coming from compacts who may well feel that the extra 2mp will make the 450D a better camera.

Hi Peter

guess you are right. I suppose its why Canon have put an SD card in it (as Nikon have done in their entry level models). and why Nikon have removed the motor from the d40/d60 I suppose.

I had to explain to some folk at work that > MP doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. e.g an old 6mp dslr like a d70 will eat any 12mp compact for breakfast.

[ikw101]

Dear All,

I've had my eye on the new D300. Whilst most reviewers seem to place this as at least as good as the Canon 40D (if not slightly better in some areas) the price difference between these models seems to be growing. Can the performance offered by the Nikon justify this growing gap?

With 40D prices now seemingly around the £600 mark (cheaper in some places with the cashback offered), what are peoples views regarding how Nikon may respond, if at all, to what is becoming a big price gap in the prosumer arena?

Kevin

Rather than looking at individual cameras I think looking at the various "affordable" options will be more revealing.

Canon 40D - £599
Canon 400mm f5.6 - £790
Pro's - great camera and great lens - is there an AF issue see Canon thread?
Con's - No IS/VR
Total £1389 less £100 cashback = £1289

Canon 40D -£599
Canon 100-400mm IS - £940
Pro's - great camera, great lens and 2 stop gain due to IS/VR
Con's - ????
Total £1539 less £100 cashback on the DSLR and £75 on the lens = £1364

Nikon D300 - £929 !!!!!
Nikon 300mm f4 plus Nikon 1.4tc - £730 + £289
Pro's - Outstanding camera, great lens
Con's - Need to fit a TC to get to 400mm. No VR !
Total £1948

The 40D and 100-400mm would appear to offer the greatest value for money. Personally I'm hoping Nikon will add VR to the 300mm f4 or AF-S to the 80-400mm zoom. Without an update to these lenses it's difficult to justify the extra £430 on a D300.

Whilst I have no knowledge of the relevant sales figures I suspect the D300 is taking a lot of what Canon had hoped would be the 40D's market share. Unfortunately I can't see Nikon responding until sales of the D300 begin to drop. Even then when you consider the D200 is still on sale for £629 any discounting will be limited.

[Helios]

Completely agree with ikw101 in that its not just the 40D vs the D300, but the lens selection as well. For someone new to DSLRs whose main concern is bird photography, Canon definitely seems to be the way to go at the moment.

[Guidenet]

Completely agree with ikw101 in that its not just the 40D vs the D300, but the lens selection as well. For someone new to DSLRs whose main concern is bird photography, Canon definitely seems to be the way to go at the moment.

I'm not so sure. Some Canon birders are jumping ship because of Nikon's 200-400 vr. Many consider it the ultimate wildlife lens. Canon really doesn't have an equivalent lens unless you'd consider the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be equivalent. I would not.

Moreover, I believe that Nikon lenses are optically better in most cases than Canon lenses. A D300 combined with that 200-400vr is a hard to beat combo.

[Duke Leto]

I'm not so sure. Some Canon birders are jumping ship because of Nikon's 200-400 vr. Many consider it the ultimate wildlife lens. Canon really doesn't have an equivalent lens unless you'd consider the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM to be equivalent. I would not.

Moreover, I believe that Nikon lenses are optically better in most cases than Canon lenses. A D300 combined with that 200-400vr is a hard to beat combo.

Sorry got to question the logic here as a Nikon user would I by the 200-400, yes as a sports lens not as a wildlife lens, I have a 70- 200/2.8vr and a 300/4 so this lens offers me??? 400/4 plus vr or a 280 - 560/5.6 with a 1.4, I have played with one of these lenses at a Nikon event and it is a very nice lens but as the ultimate wildlife lens imho no, not one that I can honestly say I would crave after, now if it was a 200-400/2.8 (280 - 560/4) that would make me buy an extra lottery ticket.

[rioja]

Going off topic with the 200-400mm comments, I must admit using my 300mmf2.8 I swop between having the 1.7TC on and off as at 500mm it has too much reach for some shots.
The 200-400 zoom range of 340-680mm when used with a TC would be pretty well perfect.

[Outboard]

As Guidenet has mentioned many consider the 200-400VR to be the ultimate wildlife lens. Notice I use the word wildlife not necessarily birding. In places like Florida where the birds are much tamer than the UK for instance the ability to zoom out for an Egret and zoom in for warbler make it an excellent choice. In places like Yellowstone where you are dealing with much bigger animals the 200-400VR is superb.

[Jaff]

now if it was a 200-400/2.8 (280 - 560/4) that would make me buy an extra lottery ticket.

But then your talking Sigma 200-500 size and weight and probably just as much money. Wouldn't make me buy a lottery ticket, I'd need the money for a years supply of steroids first! :-O

My apologies for going way off topic.
Jaff

[ikw101]

Kevin just imagine you were down in Dorset earlier this evening and you spot a Little Bittern creeping around amongst the reeds at Radipole Lake. Would that that extra £400 you invested in the D300 allow you to get the shot?

[Leif]

Moreover, I believe that Nikon lenses are optically better in most cases than Canon lenses. A D300 combined with that 200-400vr is a hard to beat combo.

I'm not sure you can substantiate that. The new Nikon 14-24mm zoom is a real killer lens, but otherwise Canon lenses are on a par, if not better in some cases.

[ruchai]

I just had 20,000 pictures, mostly birds, on my D200 and 80-400VR. I love the combination even without AF-S on the 80-400VR. I plan to get D300 for it's higher ISO and better focussing module. I think D300 + 80-400VR is the best combination for taking wild bird photograph. If Nikon come out with AF-S 80-400VR it will be heavier than the present model. The present combination of D300/80-400VR is all I ask-for for birding. Even if I own a Canon I shall switch to D300/80-400VR. I can always switch back if Canon come out with a more birders friendly model later.

Best time to photograph birds are early morning and just before sunset. High ISO and fast focussing in dim light is a must. I played with the D300 and D3 at Nikon dealer and think Nikon will change the way people taking bird pictures with their new D300. D3 full frame taken away 1.5 crop factor so it is of no use for birders.

[Outboard]

I played with the D300 and D3 at Nikon dealer and think Nikon will change the way people taking bird pictures with their new D300. D3 full frame taken away 1.5 crop factor so it is of no use for birders.

Really! When you've used a D3 for a while I think you might have a different opinion.

[Duke Leto]

I played with the D300 and D3 at Nikon dealer and think Nikon will change the way people taking bird pictures with their new D300. D3 full frame taken away 1.5 crop factor so it is of no use for birders.

Yes I believe that the additional 50% on focal length is a huge advantage, especially when capturing those creatures that don't appreciate close contact with humans....... having spent a relatively succesful morning yesterday shooting Treecreepers and Nuthatches my results would have been restricted if I shot in full frame. Having had a short play with a D3 (with the promise of a loan for a day)I must admit it a superb piece of kit and one that when my children have left the coop and the mortgage is paid will be on my wish list (but it'll probably be the D15 by then.....)
What I haven't seen is a comparison of images from the the D3 in dx mode and the D300, side by side same image, subject, light etc.
If the D3 performs exceptionally well in dx mode then it may well be the jack of all trades, master of all.

[Outboard]

My D300 is gathering dust.

[Helios]

My D300 is gathering dust.

I've seen very usable images of birds taken on a D3 at ISO 2000-3000, which would seem ridiculous a year or two ago. Too much is made of the crop factor which isn't an actual magnification; just that DX format cameras trash some of the image produced by the lens as their sensor isn't large enough to cover it. You'll have a reduced pixel count but unless your cropping heavily or producing poster sized prints, this isn't usually noticable. Heavily cropped images aren't usually high quality anyway, due to motion blur, camera shake, and atmospheric conditions.

[ruchai]

1.5 crop-factor allow the use of lighter 400mm (600mm eqivalent) lens. Light equipment help you get closer to the birds.

600mm F:4 weigh 4,750 g.; 80-400VR weigh 1,360 g.

Attached pictures taken with D200/80-400VR.

[Outboard]

Unless you have used a D3 and a D300 you are talking facts and figures that you have read from other people reviews. I own both, I am simply stating a fact that I and and others who own both are finding. The D300 is not being used and is gathering dust.

[rezMole]

I'm sure if I owned both a D300 and a D3, the D300 wouldn't get a lot of use. Unfortunately, I'll never be able to justify the cost of a D3. If I were to buy the D3 i'd expect to still be using it in 10-15 years' time for that sort of investment. However, technological advances mean that you'll probably be able to get a "better" camera for under a grand in a couple of years time.

[Outboard]

Yep, I think you are correct. The advances in just few years is amazing. The D300 is an outstanding camera for the price no doubt about it.

[rioja]

1.5 crop-factor allow the use of lighter 400mm (600mm eqivalent) lens. Light equipment help you get closer to the birds.

600mm F:4 weigh 4,750 g.; 80-400VR weigh 1,360 g.

Attached pictures taken with D200/80-400VR.

The 600mm allows you to get close to the birds without invading their space and making them feel threatened though. ( I wish I had one !). Best policy with either lens is to let the birds come to you, trouble is the 80-400 does make a fair bit of noise focusing.

[Astrokev]

I'm sure if I owned both a D300 and a D3, the D300 wouldn't get a lot of use. Unfortunately, I'll never be able to justify the cost of a D3. If I were to buy the D3 i'd expect to still be using it in 10-15 years' time for that sort of investment. However, technological advances mean that you'll probably be able to get a "better" camera for under a grand in a couple of years time.

...and no doubt those of us who currently own both the D3 and D300 will immediately go out and buy one of those too (probably as a pre-release order so that they can claim to own all 3 prior to anyone else)!

[Outboard]

Have you heard a rumour of a new one then? When can I buy one? I think I'll give the D300 away if thats the case just like I gave my D200 away.:-O

[rezMole]

Have you heard a rumour of a new one then? When can I buy one? I think I'll give the D300 away if thats the case just like I gave my D200 away.:-O

Yeah, you have to give old ones away - cos no one will buy them! Maybe that's what i'll have to do to shift my D70 and Tamron 200-500mm lens!

[Outboard]

You should have no trouble with the Tamron I would have thought.

Check out this website for D70 + 300f4 and D200/D300 + Sigma 500 f4.5 pictures.

http://www.timzphotography.com/

[Guidenet]

I'm not sure you can substantiate that. The new Nikon 14-24mm zoom is a real killer lens, but otherwise Canon lenses are on a par, if not better in some cases.

Canon L glass is not bad, but there are quite a few stinkers in the Canon consumer glass. I think it's like walking a minefield. Moreover, the sample variation seems to not be that good, even in L glass.

I base this on various reviews and even the manufacturers own MTF charts. For example, if you take a look at the MTF50 graphs of various Canon L glass lenses, most never exceed 1800. Take a look at the same graphs for Nikon pro-glass or even Nikon consumer glass and the resolutions often peak out over 2150 and rarely drop less than 1950. Try www.photozone.de. Compare the new consumer 16-85 Nikkor against any Canon L glass model in anywhere near that zoom range. As you mention, the pro-glass zooms like the 14-24 and 24-70 are killers and have no equals, IMO.

As far as build quality and such, Canon L glass lenses are truly professional, but not optically as good as Nikon, IMO.

[Leif]

Canon L glass is not bad, but there are quite a few stinkers in the Canon consumer glass. I think it's like walking a minefield. Moreover, the sample variation seems to not be that good, even in L glass.

I base this on various reviews and even the manufacturers own MTF charts. For example, if you take a look at the MTF50 graphs of various Canon L glass lenses, most never exceed 1800. Take a look at the same graphs for Nikon pro-glass or even Nikon consumer glass and the resolutions often peak out over 2150 and rarely drop less than 1950. Try www.photozone.de. Compare the new consumer 16-85 Nikkor against any Canon L glass model in anywhere near that zoom range. As you mention, the pro-glass zooms like the 14-24 and 24-70 are killers and have no equals, IMO.

As far as build quality and such, Canon L glass lenses are truly professional, but not optically as good as Nikon, IMO.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. Unfortunately you cannot directly compare MTF charts for different systems, as the MTF is a function of the lens AND the camera. Klaus on PhotoZone uses a Nikon D200 (10 MP) for Nikon testing, and an 8MP Canon camera for Canon testing. Hence a perfect Nikon lens will always have better resolution figures than a perfect Canon lens.

What you can tell from each MTF is how a given lens performs within the system. In other words, Klaus's graphs will tell you if the lens is soft wide open or at the edges, and how it compares to a known star performer from the same brand.

In fact the tests and reviews I have read suggest that Nikon and Canon lenses are roughly on a par. The weakness of Canon has been wides, and the new Nikon 14-24mm zoom is a killer, and might convince some people to switch brands. Nikon have lacked tilt shift lenses, and VR on long primes, but those weaknesses have been rectified, and the new lens MTF charts look amazing!

Regarding sample variation, a lot of Canon users do complain. But I have had experience of that with Nikon, but as to whether it is better or worse than Canon, I have not a clue.