| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2006 01:18:01 PM · #1 |
...maybe.
I've been a 300D shooter for 3 years now. I have only a 50mm 1.4 and a 24mm 2.8.
I was planing on buying a 30D and 70-200 L 2.8 IS. Those two together would run about 3 grand.
Here's the dillema: the Nikon D200 tested slightly ABOVE! the Canon 5D (according to a popular photography magazine that tends favor canon). It said the only advantage the 5D has over the D200 is the full size sensor. The D200 can be purchased at about HALF of what the 5D costs, and it performs better? Why would I stick with canon and get a 30D? Nikon lenses seem to be cheaper also.
Knowing that I could buy the D200 and a few lenses for the same cost as the 30D and one lens, why would I? I will have a MUCH better camera and more tools to use it with.
I know virtually nothing about Nikon, but maybe it's time to learn.
Any advice?
Message edited by author 2006-03-21 13:26:40. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:22:54 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:23:13 PM · #3 |
You just opened a big can of worms with that one. Hold on for the ride!
I say go Nikon. But then again I am a Nikon guy! :) I would love a D200 it is an amazing camera!
The crop/full size sensor debate is hard one, but as I understand it a full size sensor is not the most important thing but I am not as well verse as others on the topic.
On lenses- I love the Nikon Glass but the canon glass is very very good too!
Good luck!
Message edited by author 2006-03-21 13:23:33. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:23:57 PM · #4 |
| My advice would be to go with the lens system that you want. That the D200 tested slightly about the 5D really won't make much difference in two years when both of those cameras are obsolete. If you like the Nikon lens system better because it's cheaper (which might not be the *best* way to judge but whatever works for you) then go the Nikon route because of that. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:26:57 PM · #5 |
People are getting confused. The d200 is not a direct competitor to the 5d. It would be more online with a 3D if canon ever comes out with one.
For cheaper than a 5d you could get a 1D Mark II which is better than a d200...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:28:02 PM · #6 |
| This is such a personal decision. To me it is very much like the PC vs. Mac debate. There are solid points on both sides. Whatever makes the most sense to you is the best decision. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:29:36 PM · #7 |
Wouldn't a D200 and a Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR G combo also cost you about 3 grand?
What lenses were you looking at (for both systems)?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:29:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
People are getting confused. The d200 is not a direct competitor to the 5d. It would be more online with a 3D if canon ever comes out with one.
For cheaper than a 5d you could get a 1D Mark II which is better than a d200... |
I understand it isn't the direct competitor, but if it slightly outperforms it, why not go with it? It costs about half the price. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:30:11 PM · #9 |
(disclaimer) I've never owned a Canon SLR but I lived happily on an S1-IS for years and have many friends with Rebels and 10/20D bodies.
I fell in to Nikon almost by accident (stumbled across ridiculously cheap camera, couldn't resist the call of the SLR) but have since fallen in love. My D100 serves me very well and the D200 seems to be inspiring drool from both sides of the Canon/Nikon fence.
I've heard stories that, back in the day, Nikon glass was the top stuff. I must admit that I've drooled over the L glass attached to my friends' cameras but I've never had anything to complain about with the Nikon glass I've owned in the last 6 months.
If nothing else, I love the controls of the Nikon. Pointer finger = Shutter speed, Thumb = Aperature.
So ya, D200 definitely has my vote. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:31:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Wouldn't a D200 and a Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR G combo also cost you about 3 grand?
What lenses were you looking at (for both systems)? |
Even so, I would have a camera that outperfoms the 5D, let alone the 30D that I was going to purchase. I see it as more bang for the buck. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:32:48 PM · #11 |
Canon EOS-1D Mark II $3995.00 8.2mp
Canon EOS-5D $3,299 12.2mp
Nikon D200 $1699.00 10.2mp
Better maybe. Cheaper no.
Message edited by author 2006-03-21 13:43:33. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:34:27 PM · #12 |
^ Exactly.. I was wondering where he came up with the Mark II being cheaper. I was already to go and buy one of that was the case! :)
Message edited by author 2006-03-21 13:34:35. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:42:44 PM · #13 |
I just upgraded to a D200 from a D70 (which was my first DSLR and first SLR in 30 years). Ignoring the FF/DX debate, the tests I've seen show that the 5D has a bit better IQ and much lower noise at higher ISOs. Indeed, I find the noise annoying at anything about 800. But then I'm not a low light photographer. The feature set and feel of the D200 is fantastic and leaves the D70 (which was/is a great camera for it's price) far behind. It has more features and reportedly a better build than the 5D, so you are unlikely to find that the D200 doesn't do something you want that the 5D allows.
Of course there is also personal taste. Canons and Nikons do have different feels, user interface design, and produce default images to different tastes. When I bought the D70 I looked at the 300D and just prefered it. If you like the way Canon does things, you might not want to change. Obviously, the best bet would be to get your hands on a D200 for a day to try it out, but they are hard to come by at the moment.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:51:53 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by JayWalk:
^ Exactly.. I was wondering where he came up with the Mark II being cheaper. I was already to go and buy one of that was the case! :) |
Used around $2500-$2700. Even under 20,000, frames it's still pretty new & cheaper than a new 5D.
Nikon has a longer prodcut cycle than canon, so odds are that you'll see canon leap frog a couple of times past the D200 before nikon leaps tham again. Switching systems based on whats new is not sound.
Now, if you like the feel of and functionality of the nikon better than the canon, then that's why you should switch.
Bodies will be changing ever 1.5 years or so.
Message edited by author 2006-03-21 14:22:44.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 02:21:19 PM · #15 |
I'm confused...
Isn't the D200 more akin to the 30D in target price range. Yes, the D200 is 10mp, but in price, feature, performance, I think it's more akin to the 30D than the 5D.
The 5D is really a specialized camera for those who need a full frame at an budget cost ($3k vs $8k). Great for portrait photographers who don't need weather sealing, etc.
*shrug*
Just my 2 pesos |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 06:39:59 PM EST.
