Hello,
I don't want to start a flame war between Canon and Nikon, so please consider the bodies for what they are, regardless of the brand attached to it. And I know it's not a new debate.
I'm a long time Nikon user, so the step up from my D70 to the upcoming D300 seemed logical. But I've been reading up and comparing photos taken from the pre-production D300 and the new 40D. Basic (and old, I know) problem: high ISO noise.
Some pictures are available here:
Nikon D300 High ISO Sample Images from an Expo in Paris « The Nikon D300 Journal
Just compare the full sized ISO 1000 from the D300 with any photos taken with the 40D, at ISO 1600.
The Canon wins hands down. Pure and simple. In the end, by taking a 40D instead of a D300, I save a couple hundred bucks, and loose nothing more than 2 Mpixels and a gorgeous LCD.
That's it? (And change my lenses, yes)
Now I know those are pre-prod bodies. But how different can high ISO noise images be from now to the final D300?
Is there more to the D300 that I'm missing? Anything that is ***significantly*** better than the 40D?
Thanks,
Loa
P.S. I don't care about Canon and Nikon: I just want to know if the D300 can catch up to the 40D in the high ISO department.