Well, after all the hooting and hollering from people un-fairly comparing the 40D and D300 (usually bashing the Canon, especially for having a hower resolution LCD screen, which is almost one the dumbest things you could possibly bash)

…”Canon” (the fan base, I mean) has struck back with one lesser known point, a point that will probably be another hit to the D300′s potential as a D2 / 1D MK3 killer:

On paper, both new cameras have this newfangled 14 bit RAW engine which is supposed to noticeably increase dynamic range and tonal transitions. (smoothness) However if you look closely, the Canon can do this 14 bit RAW converting at full speed, 6.5 FPS, while if the Nikon wants to do it’s max 6 FPS, you’ve gotta go back to 12 bit RAW. Otherwise, you’re stuck shooting 14 bit RAW files at 2.5 FPS, which is about as fast as a Rebel XT. (Wait, I mean the D40. My bad, XT users!)

Is this going to be a deal-breaker for a lot of buyers? Yep, it sure will be, for the obsessive camera geeks who have nothing better to do than go online and compare cameras for hours on end, and argue about which one is better.

For real world shooting however, and definitely for myself as someone who shoots almsot everything from weddings to landscape photography, I can’t imagine that needing 14 bit RAW files instead of 12 bit RAW’s. Heck, when I need 5 FPS, I’m probably shoting JPG anyway. I can imagine the extra tonal power in 14 bit RAW files woul be great for shoting landscapes, but for that you don’t really need ANY kind of insanely fast FPS anyway…

That’s all for now folks…

=Matt=