Here are 2 shots with my 40D and 70-200 F4. Shot on M, 1/320, F/4 ISO3200, no flash. I tried my 50/1.8 and it wasn't bad, but my keeper rate is around 60% with it vs 80% with the 70-200. Only thing I hate about the 40D is the LCD. At home, i thought that most of the pics were out of focus...

A little bit of Neat Image later....






Compared to my old Nikon D50 at ISO 1600 after neat image.... Its a hell of a lot noiser and the colors are a off a lot more (AWB on both). Never would have thought there would have been this much of an improvement

Great shots! You should try using some strobes to help with crappy gym lighting.

The 50 1.8's focusing would be far too slow for sports. USM definitely helped you out here. Are you using AI Servo?

AI Servo, center point only.

I actually had my flash with me and bounced off the ceiling, but my shutter speed dropped from 6fps to like 2, so I decided against it.


All things considered, the 50/1.8 is fine for occasional use, and I'll use it if needed, especially in the dark fieldhouses for indoor track. I mean a lot of the out of focus was error on my part (picture not centered, which is easy to do when you are using only a 50mm lens) and I found that AI focus had a better keeper rate witht he 50

An example of a good shot from the 50

85 1.8 and 135 f2 are pretty good for indoor sports.

I plan on getting the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter before anything else

image quality degrades too much with a 70-200 and a 1.4x tc.

Not from what I've been reading on POTN. It degrades it slightly, but when you can spend $100 for a 1.4x teleconverter for occasional use vs $1000+ for another lens....

the tc are really only optimal using on big primes like 300, 400 f2.8 or 500, 600 f4. if u search hard enough u can see alot of post regarding 70-200 with 1.4 and 2 and the problems related to each one. then again if u are on budget, it's probably the only reasonable way to go. for me, i would use 70-200 and save up for something longer if i need something longer, eg, 100-400 or 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 or etc etc.. then again if u only use ur pics for web, even a 70-200 on a 2x tc would look more than fine. get wat works for ya and ur pocket. i know people that even shoot a 70-200 f4 on stack tcs and Mfing birds in flight. lol.

You must have really good lights in your gym to be shooting at f/4 and s till get those good shutter speeds. Very clean images too

It's really not fair to compare the D50 to the 40D, even if the numbers are close in the model name. I can't believe the ISO performance of the D300 at ISO 6400.

+1
Also, in the top pics, the D50 looks more luminous but has more noise to. The 40Ds seem a BIT too dark for me, perhaps stop or more of exposure compensation would help

D300 does give great ISO performance, but then again you're paying quite a bit more for it. (which is not to say that the 40D takes a backseat for its noise handling)

I'd still rather take a 5D as I don't shoot sports.

Yes, you are paying more for it but you are also getting better build quality and a lot of other features that the 40D doesn't have. I'd gladly pay the price tag for the D300 with the battery grip and not even think twice about it. It's a very stable camera and Nikon currently has a better offering in the prosumer range right now even though it is expensive.

The 40D feels more flimsy in my hands compared to the D300 but I won't deny that the 40D is a great camera. The D300 is an overall better camera, even if not by an incredibly huge margin.

It definitely is the better of the two cameras, but the features you get are again dependent on your budget and your needs. For some, the $1800 price point for the body alone may well be worth it if you require them. For others though, not so much.

As a hobbyist, I'm pretty satisfied with the output of images I get. (as will most others using any modern DSLR; as is Brandon with his 40D--was it necessary to bring up a competing body?)

For me? I personally am waiting to go FF in the next few years and will be watching the market to see how it fares. Still waiting on a competitor from Nikon for the Canon 5D atm.

What's the final word though? It's the images that you get out of the cameras and you can't deny that they're both marvelous. I'm pretty confident that if a random pool of images were chosen from select professional photographers using the 40D and D300, you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference or identify which is which. Let me take out a quote from you in another thread:



Amen.

I hear ya, different cameras have different features for different needs. I know that I would definitely use the hell out of the D300 in many different ways. Not only that, it's really the best option I have without converting over to the Canon system when I have almost $3,000 into my gear already. I really like Nikon glass though and the D300 is definitely a suitor for my needs and a camera with a lot of room to grow into. It could very well end up being my camera of choice for 5 years solid unless I wear out the shutter.

We'll see what the future holds, that's for sure.

That's amazing! You can see defects in the shadows around the faces, but still, short exposure!

I've been using my EOS Elan 7 film camera for too longz... I could use these lenses with a new digital camera... but nah, I'm not likley to, I don't have time for that anymore

Well I had a D50 prior to moving over to Canon, and the D50 was supposed to have this great ISO performance (as I was told?)

I'm still learning the Canon thing. Took me forever to realize how to adjust the aperture in M mode (the on off switch)