Thread: ***DSLR Thread***

The 40D is available at Amazon for pre-order!

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000V9CQJI/ref=olp_product_details/105-7080360-3953230?ie=UTF8&seller="]Link[/ame]

Originally Posted by rinkrat

The D-40 is available at Amazon for pre-order!

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=letsgok...1=FFFFFF&f=ifr

That'd be the 40D.

The [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000KJQ1DG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1340633-1160110?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1188445456&sr=1-1"]D40[/ame] is a Nikon (and therefore much superior) product.

oops fixed

I think one of the more interesting things about the 40D is that they have added some weather sealing, which has always been a hallmark reserved for the 1D lines. It is no were near as water tight as the 1D, but if you slap an L on it, you can certainly feel better about blowing sand or light drizzle.

Originally Posted by ValleyFan

I think one of the more interesting things about the 40D is that they have added some weather sealing, which has always been a hallmark reserved for the 1D lines. It is no were near as water tight as the 1D, but if you slap an L on it, you can certainly feel better about blowing sand or light drizzle.

It seems to me that both Nikon and Canon have addressed their respective failings. The knock on Canon's lower end and midrange SLRs has been build quality and complaints of a "plastic feel." With Nikon it has been image noise in low light situations requiring significant NR processing.

Better sealing sounds like 40D will be better built. And Nikon's D300 switching to the new Sony 12 megapixel CMOS sensor makes it sound like they will be able to provide better low-light performance. We'll soon find out when these new bodies hit the market.

Argh. I'm going to want a D300.

Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets

Argh. I'm going to want a D300.

Oh come on, you know you're going to want a D3. Even I kind of do About the resolution of the 5D, and has a FPS rate and AF very close to that of the 1D MkIII, but it is full frame, for a bit less than the 1D. I am glad that Nikon has finally started to put the hurt on Canon in terms of who has the best offerings in specific markets. Nikon has, I think, clearly taken the lead in prosumer and pro sport bodies, you might start seeing a few more black lenses down on the sidelines soon. Canon still has the edge on portraiture bodies, namely the 5D and the 1Ds MKIII, but the fact that they are no longer the default leader in sensor size and ISO noise means they can no longer rest on their laurels and continue to roll out only moderate upgrades. Right now is a great time to be a Nikon shooter because you have cutting edge bodies in the offering, and a good time to be a Canon shooter as this can only lead to better bodies at lower prices.

Originally Posted by ValleyFan

Oh come on, you know you're going to want a D3. Even I kind of do About the resolution of the 5D, and has a FPS rate and AF very close to that of the 1D MkIII, but it is full frame, for a bit less than the 1D. I am glad that Nikon has finally started to put the hurt on Canon in terms of who has the best offerings in specific markets, here Nikon has, I think, clearly taken the lead in prosumer and pro sport bodies, you might start seeing a few more black lenses down on the sidelines soon. Canon still has the edge on portraiture bodies, namely the 5D and the 1Ds MKIII, but the fact that they are no longer the default leader in sensor size and ISO noise means they can no longer rest on their laurels and continue to roll out only moderate upgrades. Right now is a great time to be a Nikon shooter because you have cutting edge bodies in the offering, and a good time to be a Canon shooter as this can only lead to better bodies at lower prices.

Yeah. Okay. A D3 would be great. But the difference in price is staggering. Ritz has the D3 pre-orderable at $4,999. The D300 is only $1799. It kinda comes down to the fact that, underneath all the aspirations I have, I'm still in the pro-sumer category.

I don't really plan on upgrading from my D200 anytime soon, anyhow.

Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets

So yeah. Now that you guys have got fast teles, I need one. Can't let you guys get ahead of me, here.

I'm having a tough time deciding between Nikon's 70-200 VR f/2.8 and Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 Macro. The street price difference is about $500 in favor of the Sigma (about $800 compared to about $1300 for the Nikon), and I'm not sure the vibration reduction is worth that much more.

I've saved almost to the point of being able to afford a longer lens, also. And that new 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sigma with optical stabilization (to match Nikon's 80-400 VR) is looking pretty tempting. Imagine that with a 2x teleconverter?

Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets

I played around with a couple about three months ago at a camera shop in Portland. Impressively built. They get good reviews, as well. I have yet to own one, but wouldn't think twice about buying one if I decide it suits my needs.

I hereby retract the second statement.

I finally had the opportunity to play around with the Sigma lenses side-by-side with the Nikon lenses. I went to Canoga Camera this morning and tried out both of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses and both of the 80-400 lenses. Let me just say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARING the brands. Nikon's lenses focused TWICE as fast on my D200 than Sigma's lenses did. Nikon's silent-wave-motor was absolutely silent (to the point where the only way I could tell it was focused was when I heard it 'beep'), and the Sigma's sounded like a cheap autofocus.

So in terms of telephoto lenses, I'm sticking to Nikon.

I did try out a 50mm f2.8 macro lens from Sigma that seemed to work quite well, though. I also looked at Sigma's teleconverters and they didn't seem so bad. Nikon's are supposed to have much clearer optics, though, so I'll probably stick to those as well.

I think in a month or two, I'll cash in some company stock and buy the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 2.0x teleconverter.