Why is the 40D's FPS faster than 60D?

I'm shooting sports photography @my high school & haha the rebel xs isn't fitting me.

It's time for an upgrade! I don't have a budget wise, I can spend a lot of money, but i'd have to work for the extra couple bills.

My parents budget is $1300, & i'm trying to find a good camera w/ fast fps & high megapixels.

I won't be getting the camera for another month or so…

But what are your guys opinions?
Either Nikon or Canon! You tell me.

I've tried the Nikon D300s, kinda complicated than Nikon, no?

The 40D is in a different market position to the 60D. In reality, the 40D became the 50D which became the 7D, these cameras are targeted as serious amateurs and professionals (maybe as a second/third camera). The x0D series was left redundant until the 60Dm which was introduced as an intermediate camera to sit below the 7D and above the 550D. As a result the 60D was made worse than the 50D in order for it not to compete with the 7D too much.

If you're shooting sports, you will however find that a second hand Canon 1D mark II/1D mark IIn may fit your needs better. It's around $700-800 these days, and while there are many battered examples around being handed down by press photographers, the 1-series is tough and can survive the punishment. The 1-series camera also has a totally different 45-point AF system which has only recently been overhauled for the 5D3/1Dx. Overall the 1D markII feels really sharp and responsive, like a racing car.

Bottom line is real world performance, buy a 60D and you'll get maybe 1/100 good shots when the action comes. Buy a 1D mark II and you'll probably get 1/10 keepers because the 1D just works. So your pictures can't be blown up as much, but you're not gonna put those pictures on advertising hordings are you?

While a high frame rate sometimes *can* be useful for sports work, if you're regularly doing "spray and pray" shooting, you're not doing yourself any favors, and you're not any more likely to get the perfect shot. If you'll spend time learning better technique -- such as timing your shot at the peak of the action -- then you'll get great sports shots without just shooting as many frames as you can and hoping one of them is good.

At any rate, the 60D is a superior camera to the 40D any day, even with the lower burst rate.

1) Don't worry about MP count
2) You could just learn to time your shots instead of relying on a fast camera
3) The 60D is an entry-level model, the 40D was (barely) considered semi-pro.

Going from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon would be a complete waste of money.

Go to a local camera shop and see if the 60D feels comfortable to hold. If it is, buy it. A 70-300 IS wouldn't be a bad investment… DON'T buy the awful 75-300, though

Probably because the 40D is 10MP and the 60D is 18MP. The file size is quite a bit larger and takes more memory.

I use a Nikon D300 with battery pack and get 8fps when I need it.

Add'l: I will add to those saying that the "spray and pray" approach is not the best. Yes, I DO sometimes use 8fps at auto races, but I still try to shoot in short bursts at the peak of the action. It's just that you don't know what's going to happen in the half second after what you THINK might be the peak of the action. In basketball, for instance, do you know if that simple layup is going to go right in or if another player is going to tap it in? Do you know if the short stop is going to snag that line drive as he jumps off the ground? Or will he tag the runner or just miss him?

Back in the ol' days, we were able to capture action at less than 2 fps. You had to factor in the time needed for the thumb to crank the film advance lever. If you had an older camera, you would would even have to double crank for good measure. Still, great actions shots were taken. Now it's so easy with you guys. All you need is a willing parent to get the most high-tech camera they can afford.

Why is the 40D faster? Canon made it so. Why is the Nikon D300s more complicated than Nikon? Say again?