D200 vs 30D

[photodd]

Apparently dPreview prefers the D200 over the 20D/30D, except for the high ISO noise and banding issues.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/

[jfrancho]

They really don't compare based on price point. But I can see the temptation for the camparison.

[lomond]

The most recent edition of Practical Photography ( UK ) rated the D200 better than the 5D. :?

[lomond]

The most recent edition of Practical Photography ( UK ) rated the D200 better than the 5D. :?


Edit: I hasten to add the shoot out was for lanscape shots only.

[RichardtheSane]

The most recent edition of Practical Photography ( UK ) rated the D200 better than the 5D. :?
I saw that. Comparing two different camera's is not a good move at the best of times.

Although the review said the price gap was the significant decidnig factor, but the total cost including lenses used was almost the same.
Then again, i've notices more of the PP staff are nionk shooters...

[Rumjungle]

Good review for the D200. For it's price, it seems to be a superb value. Here's to hoping that it sells like hotcakes and gives Canon a reason to step it up, pronto!

[lomond]

Then again, i've notices more of the PP staff are nionk shooters...

I think that's a fair point.

[SuzyView]

30D is going to start around $1300 for the body? The D200 is around $1499. I'd wait for a real comparison, when reviewers can test both models. Right now the 30D is way too new for an adequate review, IMO. But as a 20D user, I'm pretty happy with the performance of my camera. But if I was new to the market, it would be hard to pass up on either.

[Specialhawk]

You know what the big selling point for me is on the 30D?

The biggest is the EOS lens mount, i've got a good amount of money invested in EOS lenses, so that nikon, no matter how pretty it is, is of little use to me.

*there is a moral here, lets see if anyone can figure it out ;)*

[Rumjungle]

You know what the big selling point for me is on the 30D?

The biggest is the EOS lens mount, i've got a good amount of money invested in EOS lenses, so that nikon, no matter how pretty it is, is of little use to me.

*there is a moral here, lets see if anyone can figure it out ;)*

Um, he who is practical, saves money?;)

[Rumjungle]

30D is going to start around $1300 for the body? The D200 is around $1499. I'd wait for a real comparison, when reviewers can test both models. Right now the 30D is way too new for an adequate review, IMO. But as a 20D user, I'm pretty happy with the performance of my camera. But if I was new to the market, it would be hard to pass up on either.

I imagine that the image performance would be near identical to the 20D. The 30D article at DPR said as much. That being said, although I like the pro features of the D200, the image quality of the 20D/30D would win me over. I find myself using higher ISO's more and more often to take advantage of avail light and the D200 seems to be just plain noisy and fuzzy there.

[hemuni]

Even Canons cheapest DSLR have better IQ than the best pro Nikon, so until Nikon steps up, there really isn't any competition - unfortunatly.

[jfrancho]

The D200 is around $1499. B&H has the D200 body at $1699.

[Leorooster]

I imagine that the image performance would be near identical to the 20D. The 30D article at DPR said as much. That being said, although I like the pro features of the D200, the image quality of the 20D/30D would win me over. I find myself using higher ISO's more and more often to take advantage of avail light and the D200 seems to be just plain noisy and fuzzy there.

Yep, the IQ of 20d/30d is better than that of d200, although I have to admit that the d200 is a great camera for the price (and it's weather sealed too.....wish my 5d has that :( ).

[Croasdail]

If I had no investment in glass...... I would probably be leaning toward the Nikon. My Canon stuff has served me well for a lot of years - but I am let down by the 30d announcement. Neither of these cameras will make the difference enough to make you or break you as a photographer though.

[Dante King]

Although the review said the price gap was the significant decidnig factor, but the total cost including lenses used was almost the same.

This is because they had to put the best nikon glass on the d200 to even come close to IQ of the 5D. I find this debate in the photo rags funny. The d200 is crap at anyhting over 400 iso. Hello people. 5D is awesome at 1600 iso. I guess if I was given lots of nikon gear at my magazine, I would feel a slant toward nikon too.

[i2iSTUDIOS]

Ergonomics favor the Nikon side, noise favors the Canon side.

All else canon v. nikon take your pick which is more important and go withit.

[chtgrubbs]

except for the high ISO noise and banding issues.
That's a pretty big "except", in my opinion.

[hef]

I have both... I just received the D200 yesterday so I really can't compare anything as of yet. I will take some pics at iso 400-1600 and compare them. I took some sample shots early this morning and so far it looks pretty good at iso 800. The reason I bought it is that i have a host of nikon stuff from over the years. Some decent prime glass and some zooms. Also, tons of flashes not to mention a FM, FE, F3, 8008 & F100. Whew!

[Coolmac]

Ergonomics favor the Nikon side, noise favors the Canon side.

That is true, it always seems that any Nikon favouring review goes on about how great it feels in your hands, how tough it is, etc. The pro canon reviews always seem focus on the low noise and high quality pics.

The DPreview D200 review was very for the Nikon, yet I still finished it feeling I'd prefer to go with the D30 (which took care of at least a few advantages the D200 had over the D20).

[AzzA]

Personally for my use it seems the D200 is better than the 30D. However now with Canon lenses it's not easy to switch over...

As a 20D user I'm disappointed by the 30D spec. For me it's not worth the upgrade, my 20D value will drop like a stone, and for what :( I will hold out this year with my 20D... :)

[ghocking]

Quote
The most recent edition of Practical Photography ( UK ) rated the D200 better than the 5D.
UK mag AP gave the D200 better handling and build and the 5D better image quality, and in todays copy, the 5D was voted pro DSLR of the year, beating both the 1DsMkII and top of range Nikon. (The entlry level DSLR was the Olympus E500)
Everyone will have a different view.

[Tom W]

I have both... I just received the D200 yesterday so I really can't compare anything as of yet. I will take some pics at iso 400-1600 and compare them. I took some sample shots early this morning and so far it looks pretty good at iso 800. The reason I bought it is that i have a host of nikon stuff from over the years. Some decent prime glass and some zooms. Also, tons of flashes not to mention a FM, FE, F3, 8008 & F100. Whew!

You do realize that you will now be pressed into service to test the 5D, XT, and D200 in every conceivable manner, and will be required to post the results. :)

The D200 was strategically a good choice by Nikon, since it falls right into a price point that Canon doesn't serve, and it seems to be a competent contender.

[JMAS]

You do realize that you will now be pressed into service to test the 5D, XT, and D200 in every conceivable manner, and will be required to post the results. :)

The D200 was strategically a good choice by Nikon, since it falls right into a price point that Canon doesn't serve, and it seems to be a competent contender.

You beat me to it...

[Tom W]

Quote

UK mag AP gave the D200 better handling and build and the 5D better image quality, and in todays copy, the 5D was voted pro DSLR of the year, beating both the 1DsMkII and top of range Nikon. (The entlry level DSLR was the Olympus E500)
Everyone will have a different view.

Popular PHotography magazine put the 5D as "Camera of the Year", though I'm not sure of the value of that claim. The 5D's image quality is certainly as good as anything else out there, and it is the best of 4 DSLR's I've had in terms of producing good results right out of the box.

[sapearl]

That's one of the nice things about marketplace competition. It stimulates ongoing R&D for each vendor to "one up" the other guy and we make out in the long run with improved products, and hopefully better competitive pricing.

I have nothing against Nikon and will continue to buy Canon since that was my first SLR in 1971. But this good review of the D200 reminds Canon they can't just rest on their "white-lensed" laurels.

Good review for the D200. For it's price, it seems to be a superb value. Here's to hoping that it sells like hotcakes and gives Canon a reason to step it up, pronto!

[sapearl]

I'd be curious to see how it holds up under the pressure and varied lighting demands of a 10 hour wedding day ;) .

Edit: I hasten to add the shoot out was for lanscape shots only.

[hef]

You do realize that you will now be pressed into service to test the 5D, XT, and D200 in every conceivable manner, and will be required to post the results. :)

The D200 was strategically a good choice by Nikon, since it falls right into a price point that Canon doesn't serve, and it seems to be a competent contender.

I know. Good night, what have i got myself into.. harhar. So far I really like the d200. I had a d100, d1, d1x prior and sold them all for Canon. I'm really happy with the canon gear, but have quite a lot invested also in NIKON.. Otherwise, i would have put the money towards a MKIIn, which is definately on my list.

Ok then i'll take some pics between the 5d-d200 and post the results. Hope to get some taken later today at my son's karate belt test.

[Tom W]

I know. Good night, what have i got myself into.. harhar. So far I really like the d200. I had a d100, d1, d1x prior and sold them all for Canon. I'm really happy with the canon gear, but have quite a lot invested also in NIKON.. Otherwise, i would have put the money towards a MKIIn, which is definately on my list.

Ok then i'll take some pics between the 5d-d200 and post the results. Hope to get some taken later today at my son's karate belt test.

Take your time - it is nice to be able to work with the different brands at will.

[prime80]

Did everyone look at the comparison pics they used? In every one of them, the D20/5D pictures looked noticeably better to me, yet the reviewer called them a draw, or gave the nod to the D200 images for the most part. I can't believe we were looking at the same pictures.

[Dragos Jianu]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8214-8216

"More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again."


Nikon uses the Sony type of marketing, useless bells and whistles while in the real world the D200 is a failure compared to the 20/30D. What’s so bad about the 30D? Where is the disappointment ? Is it so bad to know that finally the technology has mature, the race is over and the investment is safe ? Just remember the D30-D60 era. Would you feel better to spend 2000$+ on a camera only for it to be replace in a few months by a far better one ?

Grow up guys, how come the 20D/30D suddenly stink ?

[Tom W]

Did everyone look at the comparison pics they used? In every one of them, the D20/5D pictures looked noticeably better to me, yet the reviewer called them a draw, or gave the nod to the D200 images for the most part. I can't believe we were looking at the same pictures.

That is one thing I really LIKE about DPReview's reviews - you get to see the evidence. Compare that with a lot of magazines that expect you to take their word for it. Phil Askey's opinions are respectable, but he lets you see what he's looking at, so that you can draw your own conclusions.

[EOSAddict]

Ergonomics favor the Nikon side

That is very much a matter of personal opinion, personally I hate Nikon ergonomics and love the clean lines and handling of EOS right back to the 600.

I find the constant comparisons of C vs N quite amusing, there is no doubt that both are good cameras, at different things, you pays your money and you makes your choice. Most of us here have obviously chosen Canon, but lets not be so blinded that there is nothing of value in the Nikon camp.

[EOSAddict]

Grow up guys, how come the 20D/30D suddenly stink ?

Well said:lol:

[Headcase650]

Regaudless of wether or not canon produces better IQ than nikon, they need to address the D200 with something better compleaty across the board. This wouldnt be hard to do or even very costly. Take the 30D and weather seal it, and make the body about 1/5 inch taller with vertical shutter and scroll wheel built in, this would prevent any leaks with an additionla grip and make it feel better in the hand. If they would have done this I would have been upgrading as soon as it hit the shelves and I would have been buying a sealed lens (much more money for canon). For now thats pointless sense I dont have a weather sealed body and dont want the size or price of a 1 series. Next add the 5D's additional invisable focus points to improve AI servo, tracking would be dead nuts on the spot. Lastly, add master capability built into the bodys pop up flash. I think its such a pain in the butt to have a big bulky master flash on the body to control your wireless ETTL-II slaves. Imagine how nice it would be to have 3 slaves on stands with their owne ratios controled by just the camera without the additional weight of a 550 or 580ex and forget about the ST-E2 controler, it only controls 2 groups and it cost nearly as much as a flash gun, pointless I think. Nikon and Minolta have been including this feature and at a lower price point.

Do all the above, leave it 8mp and A 1.6 crop sensor and Id pay between $1600 and $1700 without a second thought. Plus Id invest in a $1000+ sealed "L" lens, weather it be the 24-105 f4 IS or anything else.

Canon, please have the above product on the shelves by christmas, give me a reason to spend more money and not buy sigma EX lenses.

[defordphoto]

This thread is one click away from heading over to Rumorville. :lol:

[garbidz]

My friend has got the Nik and of course i was mighty curious to see the praised miracle of engineering. Admitted, it is quite an impressive piece with more features than anyone can imagine to handle without an intensive hands-on workshhop.

In short, I prefer my 30D because it is lighter, better in hands, simpler to use and -to a Canonist- far more intuitive. Probably in this tropical climate the D200 will turn out better after four years or more but then again, by that time there will be another Canon out, faster and sleeker.

I feel that the contest of who's putting more features in a (barely) hand-held package is just about to come to an end. Nikon has made a serious statement which fails to convince. Why the hell should I go through all the razmatazz when all I want is a machine that goes "snap" with the proper frame, focus and composition when the time is right.

My friend was right away at home with my 30D. I was lost with his D200.
-No...we are about same age.

If I could make a wish to Canon, please just improve the viewfinder on 350D and put in a Digic II processor. Thus far, it is the handiest SLR I've experienced.

[willg]

i thought the 350d had a digic II processor. anyway you are the first I have heard to say they like the size of the 350d. My friend bought one recently and just ordered the battery grip because he couldn't stand it any more

[Mitcon]

You are correct about the 350D/XT. It does indeed already have the digic II processor. But I must say Both my wife and myself quite like the feel of the 350D/XT. I also have a few friends (shock/horror lol) who prefer the feel/weight of the 350D as well. I think Canon have a real winner with it as it's a very able little camera.

[willg]

You are correct about the 350D/XT. It does indeed already have the digic II processor. But I must say Both my wife and myself quite like the feel of the 350D/XT. I also have a few friends (shock/horror lol) who prefer the feel/weight of the 350D as well. I think Canon have a real winner with it as it's a very able little camera.

yeah I guess I have another friend who prefers the size, but she is very small and has very small hands. Seems like a nice transition from point and shoot to slr too

[I Simonius]

My friend has got the Nik and of course i was mighty curious to see the praised miracle of engineering. Admitted, it is quite an impressive piece with more features than anyone can imagine to handle without an intensive hands-on workshhop.

In short, I prefer my 30D because it is lighter, better in hands, simpler to use and -to a Canonist- far more intuitive. Probably in this tropical climate the D200 will turn out better after four years or more but then again, by that time there will be another Canon out, faster and sleeker.

I feel that the contest of who's putting more features in a (barely) hand-held package is just about to come to an end. Nikon has made a serious statement which fails to convince. Why the hell should I go through all the razmatazz when all I want is a machine that goes "snap" with the proper frame, focus and composition when the time is right.

My friend was right away at home with my 30D. I was lost with his D200.
-No...we are about same age.

If I could make a wish to Canon, please just improve the viewfinder on 350D and put in a Digic II processor. Thus far, it is the handiest SLR I've experienced.

Canon RULES!

[benca1]

My friend has got the Nik and of course i was mighty curious to see the praised miracle of engineering. Admitted, it is quite an impressive piece with more features than anyone can imagine to handle without an intensive hands-on workshhop.

In short, I prefer my 30D because it is lighter, better in hands, simpler to use and -to a Canonist- far more intuitive. Probably in this tropical climate the D200 will turn out better after four years or more but then again, by that time there will be another Canon out, faster and sleeker.

I feel that the contest of who's putting more features in a (barely) hand-held package is just about to come to an end. Nikon has made a serious statement which fails to convince. Why the hell should I go through all the razmatazz when all I want is a machine that goes "snap" with the proper frame, focus and composition when the time is right.

My friend was right away at home with my 30D. I was lost with his D200.
-No...we are about same age.

If I could make a wish to Canon, please just improve the viewfinder on 350D and put in a Digic II processor. Thus far, it is the handiest SLR I've experienced.

It's like Coke and Pepsi.

Go take some low light pics at 1600 ISO and rub it in his face! :p

[Lord_Malone]

The D200 is a pretty awesome camera for the money. Feature set wise, it has pretty much everything you could hope for in a DSLR in that price range. With that said, I'd still choose the 30D.

[PhotographyNewb]

Hi all. Yes, I've been doing my research on the two online -- but I thought I'd ask if anyone has any experience with the two and what they 'like/dislike' between them from personal experience.

[ACDCROCKS]

From both expeirence nikon/ Canon, Canon always had less noise, canon alwasy had better reproduction, canon had better glass. If you ask a question on a canon froum your going to get 'buy canon" and if you ask on a Nikon Forum your going to get a "Buy Nikon" lol, If I were you I would bring in a compact flash into a camera store, and do test, download them on the computer and see the results

[coreypolis]

From both expeirence nikon/ Canon, Canon always had less noise, canon alwasy had better reproduction, canon had better glass.

all subjective and no real way of comparing glass.

[grego]

all subjective and no real way of comparing glass.

I saw a test a while back, and Canon's filter with the DIGIC chips handles noise better than the Nikon CCD chips. Othere than that, having used a D200, my only complaint is after shooting baseball, holding that grip, my hand felt uncomfortable. It's a solid camera though. Worth it for the Nikon owner or anyone looking to get into Nikon.
--------
Canon equaled the playing field with Nikon's D200 by adding the bigger screen and the ISO in 1/3. Now they are pretty much the same camera.

[GNMink]

The D200 is almost a pro body, feels very solid and is built like a brick. The controls are "old school" and less intuitive than the Canon 30D. The Canon has the upper hand due to its CMOS sensor, better high ISO IQ.

If you have a lens colletion already then you should go with what you already have. I've looked real hard at the D200 and would have bought one if I hadn't found a sweet deal on a very slightly used 30D.

Your going to get excellent results from either. It's just a hammer after all ! :D

[billmob]

Hi, well i am in a similar postition, between d200 and 30d, and have decided 30d, well definetly to do with less noise at a higher ISO and also i have some canon glass, i have also looked at literally hundreds of photos from both online, well i have seen that the nikon has more deeper shades of color and stronger color, i actually prefer the less powerful cleaner colors seen in most 30d shots, so will go with the 30d, the nikon does take some beautiful shots but the deep painting seeming colors are not for me and in my humble unschooled opinion the samples i have looked at above 800 iso have had too much noise so it seems 1600 and 3200 are not usable unless accepting noise, but d200 is a great camera but not for me, features wise it is bit better than the 30d because has multiple exposures and some other features, thank you,:)

[davidfig]

The main advantage Canon has is image quality. Even a 30D to D200 comparison shows this. But both cameras are great. If you have nikon class, get nikon. If you have canon glass get canon.

[dantor]

Looking to buy my first dSLR, I have tried both the D200 and the 30D recently.
The D200 feels like a pro camera.
I love its handling and ergonomics. Changing settings is a breeze.
Its viewfinder is big and bright. It made me realize that looking through the viewfinder is half the fun of taking pictures.
It has more custom settings. More features. One feels in charge, using the D200.
Noise? I expected more of it, after everything I had heard. I was surprised to see no noise at all on well exposed photos taken at ISO 620 and 800, even taken in the shade.
Focussing is accurate and fast.
Quality of photographs is excellent.
However battery seems to deplete relatively fast. A spare one is a must.

The 30D, which to me is what the 20D should have been in the first place, does not feel like a pro camera. Actually it seems to have been designed by people who don’t take picture. The Main Dial above the shutter button is in the wrong place. The Multi-Controller is weird. Fortunately, the Quick Control Dial is a beauty.
Changing some settings is a pain. Try auto exposure bracketing!
The picture quality is excellent.

To me, the D200 won. No contest. However, I ended up buying the 30D. Not because of the price difference but because of the lenses I wanted. I wanted a 70-300 zoom with IS or VR. Only Canon has one, or I should say two. When I realized that making up my mind was easy.

What did I learn from my research and tests? Most of all to stop fretting, to take a deep breath and to relax because both cameras are excellent. Even though I was not impressed with the handling of the 30D, I know that I will get used to it and enjoy it.

30D or D200? It's a matter of preference and only YOU can decide for yourself. Once you relax!

[grego]

The 30D, which to me is what the 20D should have been in the first place, does not feel like a pro camera. Actually it seems to have been designed by people who don’t take picture. The Main Dial above the shutter button is in the wrong place. The Multi-Controller is weird. Fortunately, the Quick Control Dial is a beauty.
Changing some settings is a pain. Try auto exposure bracketing!
The picture quality is excellent.
The 20D was a 1DMKII jr(and of course the 1 series are at the top of the market between Canon and Nikon). At the time, it was at the top of the market for a long time. Many people professionals using it. It wasn't perfect, but it was a high quality camera. Technology wise, it was right there. It expanded upon already great technology used to produce the 10D, 1D, 300D, etc.

30D was a reactive camera to traits that were needed and built upon an already successful model. But you needed someone before to build upon to get there.

Now if you are saying the 20D was crap, because you are comparing it to the D200, the 20D was out for almost a year before the D200 was out(because they didn't release anything for a while after the d100-to match the 20D).



To me, the D200 won. No contest. However, I ended up buying the 30D. Not because of the price difference but because of the lenses I wanted. I wanted a 70-300 zoom with IS or VR. Only Canon has one, or I should say two. When I realized that making up my mind was easy.
You picked Canon over Nikon for the 70-300 zoom with IS? That's one of the weakest lens in the lineup(Canon or 3rd party) relatively speaking.


30D or D200? It's a matter of preference and only YOU can decide for yourself. Once you relax!
Well if you already own lens, it's a matter of being smart and knowing that each company has quite capable bodies to meet your glass.

[Lani Kai]

Is the D200 really selling like crazy or is Nikon being ridicuously slow delivering them?
I don't recall ever seeing a camera on backorder for six months straight after being released to the market.

And I would try a more brand-neutral forum to ask whether the D200 or 30D is better. I can tell you I couldn't figure out the D50 interface for the life of me the other day...

[dantor]

Now if you are saying the 20D was crap, because you are comparing it to the D200, the 20D was out for almost a year before the D200 was out(because they didn't release anything for a while after the d100-to match the 20D). In no way I am implying that the 20D is crap. Actually, back in the fall, I was considering buying it. My only reservation was that it did not have spot metering, a feature I use a lot.

You picked Canon over Nikon for the 70-300 zoom with IS? That's one of the weakest lens in the lineup (Canon or 3rd party) relatively speaking. A month ago, I had tried the new Canon 70-300 IS on a 30D. I was able to get sharp photos although I found that focussing could have been faster.
I bought the DO version of that lens. A lot of the DO lenses are bad but the good ones are sharp. In the camera store where I bought it, they test those lenses in front of the customer. The first one they tested was soft. The second one was pretty sharp. I have done further testing with it around home and I am pleased with the results: sharp and fast focussing.

Well if you already own lens, it's a matter of being smart and knowing that each company has quite capable bodies to meet your glass. I had no lens. In that case, deciding on a camera, one has to take into account the set of lenses that serves her/his purpose. I felt I needed a 70-300 zoom with IS. Of course, if that lens had not been sharp, I would not have bothered.

Thank you Grego for your input!

[PhotographyNewb]

Thanks everyone. I think 'Dantor' did a nice job answering my question - as did a few others.

I wasn't asking which camera was better, I was merely asking what did you like (or dislike) about each. Yes, I realize I can go into the store and take shots on my own, I also know that I can read and review all the reviews and photos that I want online. But, sometimes, it's nice to get information from those more exprienced who have played/experimented with the items in question as well.

While I'd like to think I'm not an idiot -- and I'm quite adept at research -- I have found that I'm not too proud to get information from those with much more knowledge than I have in the photography arena. I've found that many times when I post questions to these boards (this and others) , I get information or ideas that I may not have thought due to my limited experience/knowledge.

Thanks everyone!

[delhi]

i was reading Photography Monthly magazine and they compared the 5d vs d200. the Nikon beat the 5d in terms of overall ergonomics and feel, but the 5d beat the d200 in IQ. Take your pick. IMHO, the 30d is not in the same class as the d200.

[Tut]

I believe image quality (IQ) is extremely good on both cameras. And as to noise at levels up to iso 800 they are both acceptable, just different. The Canon has a colored noise (red & purple) whereas the Nikon noise is black & grey. As to iso 1600 and 3200, how many pictures do you take a year at this level?

The Canon 30D is lighter than the D200 which is really nice if you are going to be carrying it around all day ( if you don't add battery packs or heavy lenses). The D200 is heavier and has a more substantial feel to it (if you like that sort of thing).

The 30D has the picture styles vs only a limited # of settings in the D200 for in camera image processing. This is important if you want to limit the post processing as much as possible (which I do).

The D200 has a much brighter viewfinder that is easier to see in bright sunlight. In fact on my 30D there are times I can barely see the displayed information.

The D200 has a much bigger LCD that is easier to read.

The 30D white balance settings can only be set looking at very tiny icons on the small LCD which I find next to impossible. I keep my camera in "auto white balance" to avoid having to work with the small icons (this works 90% of the time).

The D200 has an "auto iso" setting that I wish was on my 30D. You select your preferred iso, say 100 (this is the default). When you select "auto iso" (this is a different setting than the default iso) you then also select the "maximum iso" and "minimum shutter speed", let's say 800 and 100. In aperature priority mode if there is a lot of light a shutter speed above 100 will be selected. As the lighting changes (less light) and the shutter speed decreases then when it gets to 100 (the minimum set) the camera will then begin increasing the iso from 100 to 800 (the maximum iso setting) to maintain the correct exposure level. Once it is necessary to raise the level of the iso above 800 (the maximum) to keep the exposure correct the camera then starts to automatically lower the shutter speed below the minimum shutter speed of 100. This is helpful in situations where the lighting conditions keep changing and you don't want to concentrate on continually changing iso settings.

I selected the 30D because it is light (great for carrying around), the "picture styles" which allow more user latitude in setting up the camera to minimize post processing of images (which is important to me) and the claimed lower noise advantage (which I found out later is not that significant of a difference).

All of this is just my humble opinion and I hope I have not offended anyone.

[d6rth7ader]

I've done some research on dslrs and I know a ton, but I'd like to know first hand which some of you guys prefer. I 've heard from the local camera store that the Canon 30D is made for sports photographers where as the Nikon is marketed more towards portrait photographers. At the moment I have no bias towards either camera and I have no equipment..:)

thanks,

[RadAL]

get a Rebel XTi 400D... its only real weakness is its not as robust as the 30D... but it has the newest technology in cleaning sensors and its more Megal Pixels.

[stupot]

well this is a canon forum so you're not gonna get many nikon votes! but canon make a great system with lots of accessories and they are well supported by third party manufacturers too. dont go thinking megapixels are the most important feature... just buy into a system you like and then get the camera you are comfortable with, as they come an go.

[RossW]

...I 've heard from the local camera store that the Canon 30D is made for sports photographers where as the Nikon is marketed more towards portrait photographers.

Well, the Canon may indeed be a better camera for sports, but I'd hardly say it's "made for" sports more than any other subject. It is certainly also "made for" portraits, landscapes, and just about any other type of photography you can think of.

As for the Nikon being marketed towards portrait shooters... well, if it can't do anything else well, then I guess that's a safe enough market to aim for!

PS -- you're going to find more DSLR users on the "EOS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)" forum below this one... but likely few votes for the Nikon there either. Hope you make your choice and we see you posting some Canon shots in the future. ;)

[Curtis N]

Hopefully a mod will move this to the EOS camera section.I 've heard from the local camera store that the Canon 30D is made for sports photographers where as the Nikon is marketed more towards portrait photographers.Studio portraiture is not a very demanding environment for a camera. The things that separate the high end cameras from the entry level models - speed, large buffer, high ISO performance, weather resistance, battery life, durability and a few other things - aren't really advantageous in that environment.

Canon and Nikon both make great camera systems that can produce outstanding images in trained hands. Before anyone can offer meaningful advice, you need to be more specific about your needs and expectations.

[peterdoomen]

The D200 falls somewhere between the 30D and the 5D. So if your basic choice is between Nikon and Canon, these are the three cameras you certainly should take a look at. DPReview is a good source:

Canon 5D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

Canon 30D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/

Nikon D200:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/

P.

[REIGNftSOLDIER]

...i have used both, i personally am a canon man(duh)... some of the ways that the buttons are set & laid out on the nikon seen to be in akward places... but both are great cameras. I agree that Nikon is more accepted for some reason, they must give educational institutions discounts b/c most places ive looked into are Nikon setups... If you are just starting out in photography you really could go either way & be perfectly happy. But if you've owned a few advanced film or digital cameras of one particular brand you know what type of quality to expect... I guess an option could be to rent each camera for a day & see which one you like better.

[EOSAddict]

Go try them both. But if this is your first foray into DSLRs, also go try the XTi too!

[Tee Why]

Both are good cameras, some areas of difference, Canon has less noise Nikon has a bigger buffer, better flash system, and weather sealing. My personal feeling is that the Nikon feels nicer in my hand and if I was starting out with what I know, I may go for the Nikon system. Both are good systems and that's what you'll be buying into if you want to get into photography, I don't think you can go wrong with either one personally.

[Madweasel]

I made exactly this choice in May this year. I narrowed it down to these two after many years experience with film-based photography, but with a now-defunct system, so I had no experience with either Nikon or Canon. I felt the Nikon felt a little better in the hand, but of course it costs more. The main thing that decided it for me was the fact that Canon has the f/4 L-series lenses, giving (to my mind) the best possible combination of quality against price. With Nikon you either have the cheap consumer lenses, or the professional lenses which are all f/2.8 and therefore much more expensive. It seemed all or nothing. If you can afford that then fine, and Canon have lenses to match at that end of the market too, but if like me you don't think that extra stop is worth more than doubling the lens price, only Canon has the solution. Just my personal choice, as yours will be yours.

[cgratti]

Your buying into a system, not buying a camera. Your buying the lenses and accessories with it. Research the lenses, flashes, and accessories then decide. Your gonna have 10 bodies in a lifetime, but your lenses will last forever (if you take care of them).

[The Hardcard]

The only DSLR's on the market with a significant advantage for sports is Canon's 1 series, with their 45-point AF.

Other than that, it is a mixed bag of advantages and disadvantages between any two given cameras, unless you are prepared to spend a lot more.

EDIT: Actually, you need to be prepared to spend a lot more for those 1 series. So, really, its a mixed bag all the way around.

[Keith R]

Try searching this site for "D200"...

[GyRob]

although i use Canon if the nikon is better for you get it one thing to bere in mind is than nikon lenses tend to be more exspencive than canon .

[basroil]

for portraits, 5d will be much better than d200. for sports, 30d will come out ahead. for len quality from 20-80, nikon is in the lead. for lenses above 200, canon is far ahead. in terms of price, canon is again far ahead. if you like close distances, nikon is fine, but for wildlife and sports, canon has some really good lenses for less than the nikon counterpart (with 3-4 stop IS most of the time)

[carpenter]

get a Rebel XTi 400D... its only real weakness is its not as robust as the 30D... but it has the newest technology in cleaning sensors and its more Megal Pixels.


more megapixels is probably the LAST factor when chosing between cameras. (unless it's quite significant) 30D is a superior camera to the XTi.

[farrukh]

If you go for Nikon system, then new Fuji S5 pro dSLR has Nikon mount Its an impressive camera. So Fuji body and Nikon glass:-)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092502fujifilms5pro.asp

[im333]

I've been contemplating which DSLR to go for for a while. I am a new entran to SLR phoography, and want a camera I can grow into and not out of; hence not an entry level model like a 400d. I agonised over, and narrowed my choice down to:

D80, D200 or a Canon 30D (don't snigger!)

I finally made it to the high street and handled all three. I liked the feel of all three to be honest! I'd prefer the D200 over the D80, for the relatively smaller difference in price versus feel and the extra specs I'd be getting.

Now the tough part, the salesman (who has a D200) advised not to go for the 18-135mm lens, but the 18-70mm instead. He told me there have been customer returns to their store and some people were not too happy. So, I guess I'd buy the 18-70mm.

Now the hardest part; ....the Canon 30D felt great! I am by no means a pro, but the D200 and 30D felt very similar interms of size, weight, etc. The grip was excellent on both. I have researched and the specs are comparable...so where do I go from here.

The clear advantage of the Canon is the price. For the same as a D200 with an 18-70, I can get (with £100 rebate from Canon) a 30D with 17-85IS lens, a Sandisk Extreme III 2GB card, Canon bag and a Tamrom 70-300 lens. As you'll agree, it's a lot more kit for a newbie!

I kid you not, when I tell you - I am stuck as to which to buy! One salesman in the shop prefers Canon, the other Nikon...I'm stuck in the middle?

Help?

Imran

[RikWriter]

If I were you, I'd wait till the end of February...Canon is very likely to come out with the successor to the 30D around then.

[im333]

If I were you, I'd wait till the end of February...Canon is very likely to come out with the successor to the 30D around then.


I have read rumours, but thought each model cylce is around 18 months? Has the 30d been out that long?

If so, I will DEFINATELY wait! Although the £100 rebate is tempting!

[Damian75]

I owned a D200 for awhile and replaced it with a 30D because of hi ISO performance. From 100-400 iso the images from the two cameras are almost identical but above 400 the canon wins hands down the nikon has more noise at 800 iso than the canon has at 3200 iso. This alone made the canon much more versitile. Both are good camera with great build quality but if you think you are going to want to shoot above 400 ie sports photography then the canon is the hands down winner.

[Trasmc]

First off welcome to these forums - you will learn a lot regardless of which route you take.

It is true the 30D is only about 12 months old, and the "typical" cycle is 18 months. But the 30D was only a slight upgrade over the 20D, which has been out for...2.5 years (I think). Rumors are pretty firm that a significant upgrade to the 20D/30D is right around the corner.

Sit tight, see what comes in a month or so, and make a more informed and current decision!

[im333]

I owned a D200 for awhile and replaced it with a 30D because of hi ISO performance. From 100-400 iso the images from the two cameras are almost identical but above 400 the canon wins hands down the nikon has more noise at 800 iso than the canon has at 3200 iso. This alone made the canon much more versitile. Both are good camera with great build quality but if you think you are going to want to shoot above 400 ie sports photography then the canon is the hands down winner.

Finally! A response from someone who has actually owned BOTH models! Were there any aspects of the Nikon you preferred over the Canon?

[Jon]

Well, this is primarily a Canon user's site, so we've already, for what we deemed good and sufficient reasons (which will vary from person to person), opted for Canon. So that's what we'll suggest. The price advantage of the 30D over the D200 will also carry forward into lenses and manufacturer's accessories; generally Canon gear is less expensive than Nikon. Things the Nikon has the Canon doesn't include support for a GPS receiver (to code your location in the photos - handy if you use it hiking, for instance), wireless TTL flash without a separate transmitter and ISTR, when I was showing a friend how to use the histogrram on his D200, there was one other feature that I would have liked on my Canons. I'd say, if you liked the Canon feel better, and can get more for your money wit hthe Canon, go for it. Take the rebate while you can; don't sit on the fence waiting for a camera that may come out soon.

[im333]

First off welcome to these forums - you will learn a lot regardless of which route you take.

It is true the 30D is only about 12 months old, and the "typical" cycle is 18 months. But the 30D was only a slight upgrade over the 20D, which has been out for...2.5 years (I think). Rumors are pretty firm that a significant upgrade to the 20D/30D is right around the corner.

Sit tight, see what comes in a month or so, and make a more informed and current decision!

Ok....will do. Until it does surface, bye for now. No doubt, I'll be firing some more questions at you guys at that time!

Oh. and thanks for the welcome; these forums are invaluable when it comes to discussing the (new) world of photography for me - it's nice to talk to people who are keen and knowledgable.

Reagrds,
Imran

[021411]

Do you currently own any Canon glass? If so it would be a waste to switch over now. If not, good luck! Tough choice. I've seen really good stuff come out of both cameras.

[Damian75]

Finally! A response from someone who has actually owned BOTH models! Were there any aspects of the Nikon you preferred over the Canon?

The only thing that stands out were the dedicated buttons on the top left for iso, WB, Quality and I did really like the feel of the main body the rubber had a little more grip to it. That said I did have a few complaints. The vertical grip/duel battery adaptor felt very cheep compaired with the main body or the canon one for that matter. Also the batteries seemed to loose alot of charge even with the camera turned off, fully charged batteries would be dead in a week even if I didn't use the camera, this is a problem I have not had with the canon.

[im333]

Do you currently own any Canon glass? If so it would be a waste to switch over now. If not, good luck! Tough choice. I've seen really good stuff come out of both cameras.

Nope, I'm a complete NEWBIE!

[coreypolis]

fuji s5, feel of the nikon d200 with amazing color and dynamic range

[cbfabbri]

Hi,

do you intend to use your new camera with ISO 400 or more ?

if yes, go to 30D and just forget D200 forever.

I had both, I know what I am talking about.

Good luck,

Chris

[griftnet]

No question...
Buy the 30D, you just can't go wrong..

Mike

[blonde]

No question...
Buy the 30D, you just can't go wrong..

Mike

yes you can if it doesn't feel right to you.

seriously, you can't expect to get a good objective answer here. the best way for you to decide is to go to a shop and try using them both. i am a canon guy but i have no problem admitting that Nikon has some great features that i would love to have. the D200 has some killer functions that the 30D does not have and vice versa. i also think that people take this whole high noise issue a bit too far. i have seen images that were taken with the D200 at iso 800 and if you exposed the shot right, the image is just fine. do i think that the Nikon is as good as the canon at high ISO? no. however, i do think that saying "anything over 400 iso is trash in the Nikon" is just trash talk. honestly, things like this are so personal that the only way to truly chose the right gear is to try it yourself. as for me, if i wasn't so heavily invested in my Canon gear, i would have bought a Nikon D2Xs withough thinking twice about it just because it has some features that i like.

of course, i have no loyalty when it comes to consumer products and i simply buy what is right for me....

[ScottE]

You can't go wrong with either camera. They are both great cameras. The main concern about picking a DSLR is that you will start to accumulate lenses for it. If you decide to change brands in the future it is very expensive to replace all those lenses.

You should look at the lenses and accessories available for both systems and pick the system that seems most likely to meet your future needs. Most of the users of this site have chosen Canon on that basis. Obviously other people have done the same thing an chosen Nikon. Hopefully this competition will continue in the future.

[Madweasel]

Both are excellent cameras, there's no doubt. I was in your position last May and I had narrowed it down to the same two models. I've written this before in this forum, but the thing that swung it for me over everything else was to do with lens ranges.

Although both manufacturers make a range of lenses of equivalent focal lengths and performance extremes (i.e. cheap consumer lenses to expensive top-performing pro lenses), with Nikon I felt it was all or nothing: if you wanted high quality you also had to have high speed, with its attendant extra cost and weight. With Canon, you can have that if you want, but in lenses like the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L you have top quality with more modest top speed and lighter weight, and lower cost. If you're looking for quality without huge expense, only Canon offers it. That did it for me. As you can see in my sig, I bought the 30D and those two zooms, and I'm very pleased with the package.

[coreypolis]

yes you can if it doesn't feel right to you.

seriously, you can't expect to get a good objective answer here. the best way for you to decide is to go to a shop and try using them both. i am a canon guy but i have no problem admitting that Nikon has some great features that i would love to have. the D200 has some killer functions that the 30D does not have and vice versa. i also think that people take this whole high noise issue a bit too far. i have seen images that were taken with the D200 at iso 800 and if you exposed the shot right, the image is just fine. do i think that the Nikon is as good as the canon at high ISO? no. however, i do think that saying "anything over 400 iso is trash in the Nikon" is just trash talk. honestly, things like this are so personal that the only way to truly chose the right gear is to try it yourself. as for me, if i wasn't so heavily invested in my Canon gear, i would have bought a Nikon D2Xs withough thinking twice about it just because it has some features that i like.

of course, i have no loyalty when it comes to consumer products and i simply buy what is right for me....
+1

honestly at this point in time I'd have a tough time taking the 30d over the d200. maybe the upgrade will be better, but other than hihg iso performance the d200 looks like the winner IMO. But the Fuji gives you all the qualities of the Nikon, with the best color and DR of anything in the price range and then some.

[OS220sl]

I bought the D80 first and took it back. Then got the 30D. I like the Canon Better. But if you go to the Nikon site I am sure there are people there who purchased a Canon first and took it back and got the Nikon. If you are going for sports and fast action I don't see any hard decisions, it would be Canon hands down.

JON

[Hawg Hanner]

Cut to the chase...get a 5D instead. You'll only end up getting one later.

[im333]

Cut to the chase...get a 5D instead. You'll only end up getting one later.

Can't..it's double the price! As a newbie, could you justify that cost? I certainly can't. I was all set o go for an entry level 400d/D80 a week ago...

[Hawg Hanner]

Can't..it's double the price! As a newbie, could you justify that cost? I certainly can't. I was all set o go for an entry level 400d/D80 a week ago...

That said, I don't think the D200 is a ton cheaper than the 5D with rebates. I think you can get a 5D for around $2000 if you try hard enough.

[BeatPoet]

Try the Pentax K10D. Outstanding value for money and a cheap way in to a mass of great m42 lenses.

The D200 is also outstanding and a better camera than the 30D.

If you're brand new to DSLR's then a second hand 20D is well good enough for very little money.

[HughScot]

As a camera salesman let me point out one fact to keep in mind. Nikon pays more in commission than does Canon. Most salesmen try to sell Nikon first due to that simple reason. With that said the D200 has an all metal body and is built like a tank. Image quality is equal among the three bodies you mentioned, except for the ISO noise. But the bottom line is the lens.........buy a good but not the greatest body and spend the difference on the best lens you can afford. Here is a link to a good lens review site: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

[grego]

You buy the kit, not the body. The body is something you'll use for a while and will upgrade. The other accessories, don't change much, especially the glass. So look and compare prices of lens that are similar.

Like both Canon and Nikon have 70-200 2.8's. You can compare there and see if you think the price is worth it, etc. Look at 3rd party support. Look at the used market, if you consider it. See if you can get more deals on Canon or Nikon.

The differences between the two camera companies are very minimal. So finding best value in overall view is most important. Usually value takes into account price.

[Madweasel]

You buy the kit, not the body.

Like both Canon and Nikon have 70-200 2.8's. You can compare there and see if you think the price is worth it, etc.
That's only right if you want a 70-200/2.8. If you don't need the speed, with Canon you have the 70-200/4, every bit as good optically as the 2.8. With Nikon you've no other choice than an optically inferior alternative. My view is this is an overlooked important point.

[im333]

The problem is, I'm not yet at the stage of baing able to subjectively look at lenses and consider which ones I'll want in the future.
Therefore, my choice of lens will be something that will will be a good 'starter lens', giving me the ability to explore where I want my photography to go. I'd like to do some architecture, a little landscaping and some wildlife/macro shooting. Sports and portraits - definately not.
So, I cannot judge the two manufacturers yet as to their lenses and prices.

Imran

[zacker]

besides, if you go Nikon, you wont ever never ever be able to post here again...
lol get the 30D, dont worry about rumors of a 40D, it s just rumors, well see it when we see it, ya know?plus, it will prolly be more expensive that the 30D and only offer up smaller changes, like the 30D did over the 20D... and if your new to photography, why not fins a great used 20D? thats the cam to get IMHO ...a Canon classic !!

[HughScot]

.........................................The differences between the two camera companies are very minimal. So finding best value in overall view is most important. Usually value takes into account price.

As far as the manufacturing of cameras is concerned they are both similar but Nikon is a very small company compared to Canon. Canon is huge and I would not be surprised to see Nikon purchased by someone in the future.

But getting back to your question, buy a 20D or an XT with basic lens and use it for awhile so you can find out what you will really need. A 200D is so far beyond anything you will ever need it's not funny. Better to get a Nikon D50 and spend the difference on a better lens.........if you want Nikon.

[grego]

That's only right if you want a 70-200/2.8. If you don't need the speed, with Canon you have the 70-200/4, every bit as good optically as the 2.8. With Nikon you've no other choice than an optically inferior alternative. My view is this is an overlooked important point.

Of course. I was just trying to demonstrate one single lens that is in both areas. They also both have the Sigma 70-200 2.8. Then you have all the other stuff that naturally comes like the 85 1.8, 35 2, etc.

[steved110]

I would agree that Canon seems to have a far more comprehensive range of accessories - the lens range is superb, and offers professional level lenses at f/4 as well as f/2.8 - something Nikon does not. and nikon lenses are on the whole more expensive than nthe equivalent Canon lens.

Having said that, the D200 is a wonderful camera, and I am looking forward to Canon's answer to that one. At the moment, you either have a 30d which is lower spec, of a 5D which is in a different league and not directly comparable.

i think the putative 40D will be the camera that whups the D200 - but that is sheer speculation on my part.

If I was looking for a DSLR right now, I'd be torn between the D200 and the 30D - I'd agonise - and then I'd go Canon.

[Madweasel]

If I was looking for a DSLR right now, I'd be torn between the D200 and the 30D - I'd agonise - and then I'd go Canon.
We're much alike then Steve! :)

[Keith R]

seriously, you can't expect to get a good objective answer here.

I beg to differ - my opinion of the D200 is very objective..

I owned - and loved - the Nikon D70: my first DSLR, and it was great.

Because of that camera I was a Nikon guy, no question. A fanboy through and through.

And when it came time to upgrade - well the D200 had to be even better, didn't it?

I subsequently owned two D200s.

I now shoot with a Canon 30D and would not have a third D200 if it was tied to Selma Hayek and I got to keep her as a free gift.

Now, you might not be worried about its (not even particularly) high ISO performance, but to me that was very important.

And it stunk.

Yes, you might see good 800+ ISO pictures from the D200, but you have no clue about what it might have taken to get that one decent shot - and they're almost always in good light anyway. As long as whatever light is available is incident on the subject, you might be OK.

But shots which need high ISO because there's just no light to play with? Forget it - if you want detail, anyway.

"Nailing the exposure" is all well and good when you have the time to review the histogram, tweak settings, shoot again, review again... but for a lot of photography (bird photography for example) it's simply not an option.

Neither of my D200s metered accurately, and the metering bias seemed off - using Auto ISO (as I also did on the D70) and using the same lens, the D200 would routinely pick significantly higher ISOs than the D70 in the same situation.

Neither D200 AF'd very accurately either.

Oh yeah - both had banding too.

But that isn't the worst of it. I used to shoot RAW, and convert in Nikon Capture exclusively.

And yet - even with in-camera NR turned off completely, I would routinely end up with pictures that looked more like watercolours than photographs: like many other D200 users I found that no matter what I did, the camera would "smear" all the detail out of the picture, even at lower ISOs.

For no discernible reason whatsoever.

Just like really badly applied, over-done noise reduction.

Which is exactly what the problem was, in my opinion.

Nikon say that some in-camera NR is on all the time from 800 ISO up: I believe that it's on all the time (because they know it's a dismal sensor) and that the NR algorithm is a "blunt instrument" - good at conning people who are easily fooled into thinking that the D200 is good at high ISOs, when in fact all it's good at is blurring noise away, along with any semblance of detail.

I wrote this (http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/tp/index.php?id=144) about the D200, and I stand by every word.

Admittedly, Nikon seem to have quietly - without ever publicly acknowledging these issues - addressed some of these problems to an extent, and newer cameras seem to be better behaved: but I could point you right now at recent pictures on Birdforum.net that prove the D200 is still far from being the camera it's supposed to be.

Still, if the user has absolutely no interest in detail in his or her pictures, it's not a bad camera.

Just today, somebody else has posted more or less the same thing (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2610262&postcount=59) about Nikon cameras.

[im333]

Fair point -the ISO thing. I'm also in the UK - not far from you actaully, Newcastle!
The Salma Hayek image seemed to linger whilst reading your post the most though...:)

[Steiglitz]

Fair point -the ISO thing. I'm also in the UK - not far from you actaully, Newcastle!
The Salma Hayek image seemed to linger whilst reading your post the most though...:)


I shoot only Canon, but if Salma were tied to a D200....hmmm...I think high noise at high ISO is actually very lovely, artsy, and oh sooo Tri-X, don't you think?!?

[timsf]

Can I make an alternative viewpoint?

Between Nikon and Canon, especially with the 30D in the mix, I would definitely go with the 30D. Why? Nikon makes its cameras in Thailand, while Canon makes its in Japan.

For me, that is very important. When I have tried the store models, I think it is obvious that Canon's cameras are far superior in build quality than Nikon's, and I would argue that *at a minimum*, this has something to do with where they are constructed.

[blonde]

Can I make an alternative viewpoint?

Between Nikon and Canon, especially with the 30D in the mix, I would definitely go with the 30D. Why? Nikon makes its cameras in Thailand, while Canon makes its in Japan.

For me, that is very important. When I have tried the store models, I think it is obvious that Canon's cameras are far superior in build quality than Nikon's, and I would argue that *at a minimum*, this has something to do with where they are constructed.

not sure what camera you picked up and what store but the D200 i used was extremely TOUGH. it was built like a tank and i would never worry about it breaking in the field. i don't care where it was built, it felt great.

[HughScot]

For those of you wanting to compare the D200 to the 5D here is a link for another opinion. I personally prefer the 5D but this guy makes some good observations which really prove it is all about how you are going to use the camera. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/5d-d200.htm

[blonde]

For those of you wanting to compare the D200 to the 5D here is a link for another opinion. I personally prefer the 5D but this guy makes some good observations which really prove it is all about how you are going to use the camera. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/5d-d200.htm

my advice to you, remove that link and edit your post ;) every time someone brings up the Ken Rockwell site, a war begins and everybody starts foaming at the mouth. needless to say, Rockwell is not really valued around here because he showed time and time again his "love" for Canon products and his inability to provide even a single half decent review.

with that said, give me 2 minutes to go grab some popcorn because this is going to be a good scene and i want to be ready for it :)

[HughScot]

my advice to you, remove that link and edit your post ;) every type someone bring up the Ken Rockwell site, a war begins and everybody starts foaming at the mouth. needless to say, Rockwell is not really valued around here because he showed time and time again his "love" to Canon products..

with that said, give me 2 minutes to go grab some popcorn because this is going to be a good scene and i want to be ready for it :)

It is only another opinion and if you only listen to those that agree with you, you will never learn anything.:) I know he is quite the Nikon guy and we are the Canon people.

[BeatPoet]

For me, that is very important. When I have tried the store models, I think it is obvious that Canon's cameras are far superior in build quality than Nikon's, and I would argue that *at a minimum*, this has something to do with where they are constructed.

This is nonsense. The D200's build quality is appreciably better than the 30Ds. That's not to say the 30D's is bad in any way. Just that the D200's is better.

[grego]

I beg to differ - my opinion of the D200 is very objective..


Less subjective than people who have not owned Nikon at all who are Canon users, but still subjective....

Opinion is subjective.

[Woolburr]

This is a very informative thread...I have learned that N*k*n is only a bit player in the camera world and is apt to be bought out at any minute (bet that is news to them), that Ken Rockwell is a genius (oh wait, shouldn't that read dumbass?) and that people have opinions (subjective ones at that)....

The bottom line comes down to the individual behind the camera. Regardless of what the Canon and N*k*n fanboys tell you, in the end it is the photographer that makes the picture. A photographer can take as good a picture as his ability will allow...the camera is not the limiting factor.

Canon gear is what I choose to use based on my personal preferences. It doesn't matter to me at all if anyone else is shooting with a N*k*n, a Sony, a Sigma or a Pentax....gear should be selected to fit your needs, your style and your creative vision. In the end, a camera is just a tool.

[Tareq]

I have a friend or say friends who are using Nikon D200, thier images are incredible, You know something, if i didn't went to Canon then definitely i will go to Nikon.
D200 is a great camera and the photos are so nice even i feel it is better than some canon photos, so it is compared with 5D so it is second best camera of Nikon after D2X (D2Xs) and though it will perform perfectly, body build is tough enough similar to 1-series bodies.
But anyhow, Canon or Nikon both can produce Fantastic photos, i know people got amazing photos by sony and fuji and olympus so how come that Canon and Nikon are less quality? got the point.

[ashdavid]

I now shoot with a Canon 30D and would not have a third D200 if it was tied to Selma Hayek and I got to keep her as a free gift.


If Selma Hayek was a free gift I would buy the Nikon and throw it out and then get the the 30D!!! Actually , I would go the extra dollars and get the 5D, even if you are a newbi to DSLR's, you won't regret it.:lol:

[condyk]

I now shoot with a Canon 30D and would not have a third D200 if it was tied to Selma Hayek and I got to keep her as a free gift.


Sorry about your issues with Nikon ... wow, even sadder about your issues with Selma tho' :D I do believe that I would make different choice to you sir :cool: Any camera can take a shot but Selma is not any woman. She is the Leica of ladies AFAIC.

not sure what camera you picked up and what store but the D200 i used was extremely TOUGH. it was built like a tank and i would never worry about it breaking in the field. i don't care where it was built, it felt great.

Agreed ... the Nikons I tried (D200 and D80) were good build and handled well. Every country has levels of 'quality'. For example, is all AmeriKan cooking of the standard of MacDonalds? Of course not :lol: :lol: it is a laughable opionion in my laughable opinion.

Rockwell is not really valued around here because he showed time and time again his "love" for Canon products and his inability to provide even a single half decent review.

He does tend to focus on shooting tho' ... rather than gear. His shots generally suck but he seems to have the basic idea right.

Anyway, my dumb opinion is get the Canon because at the mo' you have a wider choice of lenses and stuff and not quite so pricey it seems. If you know the exact lenses you want and they are available then get the D80 ... seems a good camera at a very decent price in the UK at least.

[Glenn NK]

This is a very informative thread...I have learned that N*k*n is only a bit player in the camera world and is apt to be bought out at any minute (bet that is news to them), that Ken Rockwell is a genius (oh wait, shouldn't that read dumbass?) and that people have opinions (subjective ones at that)....

The bottom line comes down to the individual behind the camera. Regardless of what the Canon and N*k*n fanboys tell you, in the end it is the photographer that makes the picture. A photographer can take as good a picture as his ability will allow...the camera is not the limiting factor.

Canon gear is what I choose to use based on my personal preferences. It doesn't matter to me at all if anyone else is shooting with a N*k*n, a Sony, a Sigma or a Pentax....gear should be selected to fit your needs, your style and your creative vision. In the end, a camera is just a tool.


I agree with you about the camera being just a tool - but I really hate dull saws, and squares that aren't square.;)

Of course one can compensate by sawing harder and adjusting the square but at my stage in life, I will no longer put up with that kind of stuff with a camera.

[Exit]

The D200 is a much better camera than the 30D. What you should do though is look at the lenses from both companies and let that make your decision. Camera bodies change, but lenses last a long time

[pgulati]

Hi,

I had recently sold my 350D and bought new 30D (wanted to get 5D.may be next upgrade..oh well). Recently I got a chance to go out with one my office friends(he is a self-acclaimed photographer in the office) to shoot a stage performance (for Chinese New Year) inside one of the malls around the area.

He had his D200 with 80-200 2.8 + 17-55 2.8 VR. I was using 30D/70-200f/4L/17-40f/4L. To compensate for the lack of 2.8 in my lens, I was using ISO800 and was easily getting 1/320sec.

This morning we shared the pics we took yesterday. Pics from 30D looked better (even at ISO800) in colors/contrast and looked more real than D200.

I am a Canon loyalist for years and will be happy to be that way forever.:)

Also, 30D+myf/4Ls costs much cheaper than D200+2.8Lens.

Just sharing my experince.

Thanks

[Bonjour43ma]

meh

it's hard to compare results when there are so many factors that could affect the final outcome of the 2 cameras. A Nikon user can do the same "test" and claim that the Nikon images look better.

I'll have to say though, that the 30D will give you cleaner looking images than the D200, but anything else (color/contrast/realism) can't be fairly judged unless you do these tests under controlled environment.

What "factors", you might ask? let's see:

- in-camera settings
- lenses used
- phogtographer's skills
- file format
- post-processing techniques
- different metering system from both brands

so yeah, it's good that you're happy with your 30D, but I don't think it's fair to judge the D200 based on this little "experiment".

[Collin85]

Good for you!

Although keep in mind perhaps your skills resulted in the better photographs! ;) Just because he had all the 'right equipment' doesn't necessarily mean he would eventuate with the better pictures.

Also I also didn't know Nikon had a VR version of the 17-55 f/2.8. Are you sure about that?!

[Hellashot]

This is something that most people here already knew. Nikon pictures are said to need much more PP work to make them look good. And the d200 is 1 stop noiser than the 30D above iso400. (d200 is 2 stops noiser than 5D above iso400)

[Tee Why]

You know, I wouldn't let that experience be the sole judge for the D200. The D200 is a fine camera capable of producing excellent images. Composition, use of lighting, and processing is more important than a camera in my view.

I've held the D200 and it's a fine machine, I do think the Nikon has more noise at higher ISO but the colors and contrast is more dependent on the processing skills and lighting.

[sam0329]

I used to own a D2X and some experience with D200, they very very nice camera and I dont really see too much of a difference in image quality, I believe its how you use it, but yea, noise is an issue with Nikon.

[GBRandy]

That's an interesting comparison you did. But I would be hard pressed to make a decision off of that alone. As others have said, too many variables in the way. I own a D200...and the talk about noise being way bad is a bit if a reach...it has issues..but it isn't a cruddy camera.

I shot my D200+70-200VR in one hand and a 1DMKII +70-200 IS in the other a couple weekends ago. Both at ISO 1600.

The 1D images were quickly usable and I was pleased. Some work in Capture NX and the D200 were very close. You better know how to PP if you have a Nikon. If your friend did no PP work, or poor PP work, the pictures he has will not be as clean.

I can assure you that I can make an ISO 800 shot look better from a D200 than a 30D...I just need to work harder to do it :(

BTW...I am here because I bought the darn 1DMKIIN this week.....so I guess that says something as well...huh?

[blonde]

Hi,

I had recently sold my 350D and bought new 30D (wanted to get 5D.may be next upgrade..oh well). Recently I got a chance to go out with one my office friends(he is a self-acclaimed photographer in the office) to shoot a stage performance (for Chinese New Year) inside one of the malls around the area.

He had his D200 with 80-200 2.8 + 17-55 2.8 VR. I was using 30D/70-200f/4L/17-40f/4L. To compensate for the lack of 2.8 in my lens, I was using ISO800 and was easily getting 1/320sec.

This morning we shared the pics we took yesterday. Pics from 30D looked better (even at ISO800) in colors/contrast and looked more real than D200.

I am a Canon loyalist for years and will be happy to be that way forever.:)

Also, 30D+myf/4Ls costs much cheaper than D200+2.8Lens.

Just sharing my experince.

Thanks

great. i am sure that the fact that it was 2 different photographers shooting had nothing to do with the results...

[Damian75]

I had a D200 and ended up giving it to my wife who shoots mostly portraits and landscapes and bought a 30D do to the much better hi ISO performance I shoot mostly sports and have to do alot of shooting at 1600 and 3200 with indoor and night sports and all the PP in the world could not make that D200 match the 30D and 3200 ISO.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You should be saying

He had the more costly higher end gear, and I had the more affordable gear, and yet My pics are better. I overcame this disadvantage, so I must be a better photographer!"

That would be something to be proud of :) :)

[dpastern]

great. i am sure that the fact that it was 2 different photographers shooting had nothing to do with the results...

Of course not, how could it ever be that!!! (please note dripping sarcasm in my written tone).

OP: there are many factors that could have led to the Nikon's images not being as good as the 30D, which others have listed above. I can't believe the FUD that flies in this forum, it's worse than Microsoft anti Linux FUD, and that's saying something.

Dave

[Titus213]

Good for you! It's always nice to know that the gear and the operator are up to the challenge.

[blonde]

Of course not, how could it ever be that!!! (please note dripping sarcasm in my written tone).

OP: there are many factors that could have led to the Nikon's images not being as good as the 30D, which others have listed above. I can't believe the FUD that flies in this forum, it's worse than Microsoft anti Linux FUD, and that's saying something.

Dave

agreed :)

[elTwitcho]

Hi,

I had recently sold my 350D and bought new 30D (wanted to get 5D.may be next upgrade..oh well). Recently I got a chance to go out with one my office friends(he is a self-acclaimed photographer in the office) to shoot a stage performance (for Chinese New Year) inside one of the malls around the area.

He had his D200 with 80-200 2.8 + 17-55 2.8 VR. I was using 30D/70-200f/4L/17-40f/4L. To compensate for the lack of 2.8 in my lens, I was using ISO800 and was easily getting 1/320sec.

This morning we shared the pics we took yesterday. Pics from 30D looked better (even at ISO800) in colors/contrast and looked more real than D200.

I am a Canon loyalist for years and will be happy to be that way forever.:)

Also, 30D+myf/4Ls costs much cheaper than D200+2.8Lens.

Just sharing my experince.

Thanks


Now, mind you... I don't know for sure but I have my reasons to suspect that the people you see behind cameras are doing more than just holding the camera up so it can do all the work...

[blonde]

Now, mind you... I don't know for sure but I have my reasons to suspect that the people you see behind cameras are doing more than just holding the camera up so it can do all the work...

that's unpossible!!!

seriously, your post is almost saying that the person behind the camera really doesn't have any effect on the image which is just wrong. you should be happy that your images are better but not because your gear is better but because YOU are better.

[MDJAK]

Hey, listen up, whether or not there were many factors affecting the outcome, it's still nice to hear that we whooped the competition.

That said, I used to go shooting with a few members on this forum, and they would get better shots than me. I was using the 1dsmkII and one dude was using his rebel. Didn't make me too happy, but it was the fact.

me

[Peter G]

BTW...I am here because I bought the darn 1DMKIIN this week.....so I guess that says something as well...huh?

You did? ;)

Welcome aboard Randy, good to see you over here too :D

Oh yeah, good to see #4 coming back for another year. A class guy for sure

[Steiglitz]

As you know I'm a Canon guy, but both the d200 and 30d can be great tools to use for composing a picture....the most important tool/piece of photographic equipment is the gray matter behind your eyes...still, if one does their homework, research and approaches the purchase of a DSLR objectively, they will more often then not go with Canon, at least for now....one day maybe Nikon will be on top, and then where will all us Canon folk be? Owners of 2nd place kit! lol

[eduardk66]

Is anyone can give advise wich camera is better Nikon D200 or Canon 30 D . It hard for me to make a desission. Thanks

[Lord_Malone]

Here we go...

[021411]

Nikon has more noise at higher ISO's. Does that bother you?

[gjl711]

Both are great cameras and both will deliver outstanding pics. You have to be a bit more specific with your question though. What are you looking for in a camera? Do you have any existing equipment? Remember that the body is just a box to hold the lenses so you might want to compare lens selection as well. Is low light photography important to you?

Anyway, look at this site and it compares all of the features side by side.
"click me (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos30d%2Cnikon_d200&show=all)"

[gjl711]

BTW, welcome to the forum. Lots of good folks here and tons of info.

[photosheikh]

go for 30D, as my EF 1200mm works with it

[coreypolis]

the d200 is really really a great camera, I would have a hard time picking the 30d over it at this point. But the 30d should be replaced soon, and who knows what Canon will offer to compete.

If you have a few extra pennies to spend, the ultimate would be the Fuji s5, its a d200 body with fuji color and dynamic range, pretty much the best combo.

[eduardk66]

Thank you

[gjl711]

go for 30D, as my EF 1200mm works with itYa know, I am starting to feel inadequate. I think I am suffering from "lens envy". I have to keep telling my self that size doesn't matter, right ladies?:rolleyes:;):D

[eduardk66]

Yes the low light is very important to me, I have Rebel 400 , would like to go higher