Ok, thinking about jumping ship from Canon

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/02/2008 04:14:59 PM · #34

Originally posted by kellian:

How much difference are we talking here? Low-light, high ISO pics on my 350D are fairly noisey as it is... it gets worse than THAT with the D200?

No, hi ISO is better than the Rebel; it's the 400-800 range I find somewhat noisier.

option

Nikon D200

01/02/2008 04:18:28 PM · #35

40D 1600

D200 1600
D300 1600

Compare the D300 and 40D... pretty damn close if you ask me.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/02/2008 04:29:42 PM · #36

Originally posted by option:

40D 1600

D200 1600
D300 1600

Compare the D300 and 40D... pretty damn close if you ask me.

But we aren't talking about the D300...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/02/2008 04:41:05 PM · #37

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by option:
40D 1600

D200 1600
D300 1600

Compare the D300 and 40D... pretty damn close if you ask me.

But we aren't talking about the D300...

Not only that, nobody's saying the D200 is "bad" for noise; what's actually being said is the 350xt is marginal, and the 40D is a leap forward from that. Or at least that's what *I* said anyway :-)

R.

01/02/2008 06:23:48 PM · #38

I was thinking about jumping ship pretty recently too, mainly for more focus points. I don't understand why Nikon can pack 45 into their bodies, when Canon (for the same price pretty much) only has 9, it seems like they're dropping back a little in the camera stakes.

However, if I was going to get a Nikon, it'd have to be the D3 because it seems that until you get to the mega-bucks cameras the differences between the manufacturers aren't too big or numerous, it's just a simple matter of which you prefer in terms of ergonomic design and lens availability. Personally, I don't like the Nikonian idea of having to pay extra for an auto focusing lens, when Canon seem content to include it in the asking price already.

The image quality of Nikon/Canon seems fairly comparable to me at all the price ranges. Nikons seem to saturate the colours more and Canons seem a little greener but in terms of noise reduction, sharpness, low light capability there pretty much even until you get to the mega expensive ones, where I think Nikon (with the D3) now has the egde with its seemingly noise free high ISO (6,400) images.

In summary: you have the Canon lenses already, stick with it, buy a 40d (or even a 5d) and some lights. Then you can bust out weddings.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/02/2008 06:26:02 PM · #39

Originally posted by Tez:

Personally, I don't like the Nikonian idea of having to pay extra for an auto focusing lens, when Canon seem content to include it in the asking price already.

HUH????

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/02/2008 06:29:07 PM · #40

is that wrong? I though Nikon lenses had a certain suffix if they were AF as oppose to MF, and therefore more expensive?

option

Nikon D200

01/02/2008 06:29:40 PM · #41

Originally posted by Tez:

Personally, I don't like the Nikonian idea of having to pay extra for an auto focusing lens, when Canon seem content to include it in the asking price already.

Not quite sure what you mean by that... perhaps the fact that the entry level Nikon cameras will only AF with the newer AF-S (USM) lenses?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/02/2008 06:29:56 PM · #42

Originally posted by Tez:

is that wrong? I though Nikon lenses had a certain suffix if they were AF as oppose to MF, and therefore more expensive?

All modern Nikon lenses are Auto Focus.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/02/2008 06:31:33 PM · #43

then allow me to say 'oops'. Sorry, I was misinformed.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/02/2008 06:45:23 PM · #44

Coming from a Nikon dude....

40D and two flashes, forget Nikon unless you're willing to fork over for a backup and start with a D300, not a D200. So D300 and D80 minimum, or stick with Canon.

Your lenses are of supreme consideration, bodies seem to change out every two years, a great lens will last 10 (or more)

You need quality f/2.8 glsss, both telephoto and medium range, whether from Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, Canon. The best Canon or Nikon glass will be slightly sharper than equivalent Tamron/Sigma/Tokina. With a few caveats, stick with the high-end of these brands.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/02/2008 07:56:27 PM · #45

I know you've said you're keeping the 350D as "backup" and you appear to think that it's okay to have a Nikon then as your other camera. But let me make sure you've thought through this:

It's not always the primary camera that goes bad or the secondary either. It can happen to either one.

My point is, let's say you decide you really like the Nikon and start buying lenses for it. At this point, your 350D is useless as a backup because you can't use your Nikon lenses with it. So you need to sell the 350D and get a 2nd Nikon.

You're just so much better off if both the primary and backup cameras use the same accessories. Otherwise, one doesn't really back up the other at all.

mjwood0

Nikon D200

01/02/2008 09:17:34 PM · #46

When I decided to switch to the DSLR from a Point and Shoot, I did a lot of research. I don't do weddings if that is any consideration.

Frankly, after holding both the 400D and the D50 in my hands, the difference was a no brainer for me. I couldn't stand the ergonomics or feel of the Cannon body. The D200 felt great but was out of my price range. The D70 and the D50 were close enough in features I went for the D50.

Currently, I've got about $500 invested in the body but close to $1200 invested in lenses. Believe me, the lenses were also a big feature to me. I wanted prosumer type lenses (not f2.8 or anything) with vibration reduction which reached out to 300mm or so. That put me at my current setup. I'm very happy with it.

As I've given more time to my photography, I'd love to pick up some more lenses -- faster and longer. But I'm gonna stick with Nikon unless there is a reason for me to switch (which I haven't found yet).

If you don't have enough invested to worry about costs, pick up both and work with them. Which one feels better?

Prof_Fate

01/02/2008 09:27:31 PM · #47

Originally posted by kellian:

Wow this thread got attention!

Here is what I was thinking...

First of all, I've always used Canons, but the 350D is the first digital I've worked with. I like my 350d, but it has limitations and shooting more weddings, I'm starting to notice them.

I was considering the 40D, which I've used, and I like, but I've not shot with Nikons yet. As for lens investments, I'm just starting out, so all I have is the 350D kit lens which sucks and a 50mm 1.8 prime which I love but it was only $80. Again, I'm not getting rid of the 350D.

So when I started pricing the 40D, I decided to price the Nikons too since I'm not terribly invested in Canon yet. As for knowing the controls, the 40D is different enough from the 350D that I had to learn to use it like it was new anyways... so that's not too much of a factor.

The features I like of the D200 really aren't deal breakers, but little things that are enticing, like various flash modes, like rear-sync and slow sync, stuff the 40D doesn't have. Not sure I'd do too much with that, but I have used rear curtain sync functions on my old Minolta. The other feature is the AE bracketing. I do a LOT of that with HDRs and the 40D can only bracket 3 shots as opposed to the D200's 2-9 shots. That's a nice feature since right now I have to play with the AE bracketing to get 6 different exposures and more often then not I end up with a duplicate of the middle exposure. I know I can only bracket 3 shots with the 350D, I'm not sure about the 40D, having a hard time finding that out, although while I was playing with it I could only figure out how to do 3 shots.

Another thing, I used the 40D the other night and I was forced to use the built in flash. After about 4 shots the battery drained down so much I had to wait about a minute before it would let me flash again, something I have not experienced with the 350D. Again, it was built in flash and the standard battery which was fully charged (according to the display). That bugged me. Please don't crucify me if that's to be expected, all I know is that it was a pain in the rear.

But basically, I'm at a crossroads here. I'll be buying more and more equipment from this point on, and I know that some people swear by Nikon, so I thought I would consider it. I'm not invested enough yet for it to NOT make sense to switch.

40D has rear curtain sync. 'slow sync?' If yuu mean flash with shutter speeds in excess of X-syne (1/250) then yes, canon has that too.
Yes, of course the 40D can bracket shots. In over 30 weddings and 70,000 exposures i've never needed to do it. In the film days, yes, but with digital there is no reason.
Canon 40D has better high-iso performance than teh D200, and costs less. canon lenses are less costly as well, and more numerous in the used marketplace as well.
teh flash issue on that 40D? that's not normal. Perhaps if you asked it to pump out max power repeatedly it would not flash again until it cooled, that is to protect teh flash and camera. I never use teh built in flash, and for wedding you won't either.

01/03/2008 04:57:25 AM · #48

Just to add a little experience to the on-camera flash topic: the flash on muy 400d was used quite frequently when I was taking water drop pictures and I easily took 100 pics with the onboard flash on a single battery so there must have been something wrong with the battery, or it just wasn't charged.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve