Please help me with lens + camera selection.

Ok so I'm still undesided whether I'm going to buy a Canon 30D or a Nikon D200. I'm getting back into photography after a few years away from it. I used to own a Nikon F90x previously until I sold it a few years back.

I'm going to be doing mostly motorsport photography at local tracks. Go karts, motorcross etc. Also interrested in macro, urban, candid and general action.

What interrests me about Canon 30D:
-Great lens selection
-Great stepping stone to proffesional models
-great image quality and also at higher ISOs

What interrests me about Nikon D200
-Construction and sealed body. (Big deal for me since I'll be working in very dusty environments)
-It's basically a mini-Pro camera with lots of features and quality
-The grid in the view finder is cool too.

My biggest concern is AF speed. While from reviews the D200 seems fast I don't know to much on the 30D.

Since this is the Canon forums I'll ask what lenses you would suggest for my needs. I'm looking at the 70-200 f4 and need one other lens to cover the lower mm and a macro too I guess but not as important to start out with.

This is a very hard decision for me because which ever company I end up chosing, I'm buying into that system for the long haul. So I'd also like to know why you all chose Canon over the others?

if you look at a major sport event do you see more Nikon or Canon gear
also Canon lenses tend to be less to buy than Nikon lenses .I dont know enough about the 30d to comment but the 20d its predsesor is fast at focus.
just my thoughts on this.
Rob.

The weather sealing on the D200 can't be too great. From what I understand, it has a pop up flash. Go with Canon if you truly want to build a good system. The lenses are much better, IMO.

I dont think the pop-up flash would compromize the sealing, you can buy a $5 flashlight thats water tight. If I had to start from scratch the D200 would get a very long look.
What canon has going for it is the image quality at high ISO's is noticably better than nikons, this can be cleaned up with most noise reduction programs.
What I like about the D200, weathersealing, its smaller and lighter than a 1 series, nikons flash system is far superior to canons plus you can control off camera flashes with the body, no need for a master flash on the hotshoe.
Both systems are great, each has its strong points but the D200 definately raised the bar and canons prosumer cameras a just a little behind in some areas. Im hopping by the fall canon will release a small bodied 1.6 crop procamera with the D200 features that were left out of the 30D. Price it at $1700 and Id buy one in a heartbeat and a sealed "L" lens.

Go with Nikon, it has sealing, more buffer, 5 fps, better batteries, and from what I hear better/faster AF then the 20D from what I hear. Their 80-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8 VR would be a great lens. The difference between the performance of a 30D and D200 would be small but I think the Nikon would work better for you unless you shoot alot at ISO over 400 or so.

Well there you go. Noise on the d200 is absolutely unbelievable on the d200 at anything over 400. cant believe the let this thing out of the factory with out noise ninja extreme built into the OS of the camera. Why would you want to buy a camera that sucks at iso over 400? Well unless its a 1ds of course!

I disagree, the D200 is noisier than the 20D/30D. There currently is no camera that has less noise than Canon's Digic II sensors. But I don't find that it's intolerable though. I have seen plenty of high ISO images taken with the Nikon that I think is fine.
Is it noisier than a Canon? yes. Does it ruin a shot? No.
As Rick Sammon said, if peole are noticing noise in your shot, then your shot is too boring.

Hi there, I think you should go for canon 30D even though I used to like D200 until i saw the review about noise in dpreview.com. The main difference is that canon is using a Digic II CMOS sensor. The lower mp on the Canon also means that pixel pitch is larger, resulting in a cleaner image. Even though that current Adobe CS2 has a new noise reduction alogarithm, it does this by slightly blurring the image. Battery is not a much problem, buy the vertical grip and stock yourself with more batteries.

You guys should lighten up on the noise issue. If you go look at samples on the FM Nikon board, the D200 at ISO 1600 looks no worse than what the 10D put out. No one slammed on the 10D, everyone thought it was very usable and its just as usable on the D200. All you need to keep in mind with either nikon or canon is to keep noise to a minimum get your exposeur right.

I heard really great things about the D100 from my friend who uses N*kon, but I have a 20D and it is a fantastic camera. When my friend and I compare cameras, we can tell our pictures are really great. He takes amazing pictures, especially portraits in B&W of his kids, and landmarks from all over the world. I take pictures of events, groups and weddings. Pick a camera brand and stay with it. I started with Canon, and I love the variety of lenses I can buy. He started with N*kon and stayed with it. Decide what is more important today, what will be important to you later (like lenses and accessories) and then decide. You really can't go wrong either way. But since this is a Canon Forum, I recommend the Canon, I really enjoy having the 20D in my hands.

Thanks for the advice guys. I found a D200 near where I live and I'm going to take a look at it today. Still a week before the 30D comes out. It's funny how one hour I'm all set on Canon, then the next I'm all about Nikon, then the next I'm back to Canon etc...

The 10D came out in what, January 2003? The D200 represents almost 3 years later technology. It certainly should be better than the 10D.

Well the 20D, and the 30D which OP asked about, also do 5 fps. Canon's greatly enlarged the buffer on the 30D as well as improved the dual-porting so the camera can write to buffer while the buffer's writing to card. Shooting motorsport, you're not unlikely to need higher ISOs; in addition to superior noise levels at 400 and above, the 30D has ISO 3200,while the Nikon stops at 1600. Canon's 70-200 lenses are outstanding, including the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (IS can be very helpful in panning). The 24-70 f/2.8 would be an excellent complement to one of them.

Very true, and I often point this out myself. However, the choice here is between Canon's 30D and Nikon's 200D, not their upper level pro lines.

I don't know just how true this is. I did take at look at a few lenses and find there's not so much difference and even less so when comparing "international" lens prices at B&H (I almost always buy "international" Canon lenses and flashes). I just don't know if there is enough difference to warrent that consideration across the board.

If I may add, I don't shoot motorsport or motor cross events, but both sound as though a rapid fire/weather sealed camera would be the best choice. I'd consider the 1D2n if I could.

Ok one important thing I forgot to mention is my budget. It's around 3000$ Canadian. So my choices become limited. Had I a bigger budget the choice would be much simpler.

If I chose Nikon my only choice that I can see is:
-D200 + 18-200mm

If I chose Canon:
-30D + 70-200mm f4 + one other lens.

Both these bring me in the 3000$ range unless I look into used lenses. So Canon might have an edge on lens speed and Nikon with the body build. For the moment I'm leaning towards Canon since it's the lens that will be in my arsenal much longer than the body will be.

BTW, I went to the store a played with the D200 for a bit. It's impressive to say the least. Unfortunatly, the saleman seemed to have no interrest in selling me a camera and I struggled to get a conversation going with the guy. He was happy looking off into space as I looked at the camera telling him my needs and budget. I asked for suggestions on a lens package and got no real responce or answer. Don't you all hate stupid salemen?

for sports, you probably need a fast lens. For your budget probably the NIkon 80-200 f2.8 ED or a Canon 70-200 f2.8L. If you need to reach further occassionally, then a 2xTC will do. If you need long reach most of the time, then something else. Perhaps a prime or a 100-400L.
If you are set on a 70-200 then a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is cheaper than Canon or Nikon's version as well.