-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon D200 competitor?
- Thread starter Judderman
- Start date
DuxX
Senior Member
There it's not just question about high ISO possibilities. Some people don't need to shoot at more than 800. But like to have weather seals even if never really need that. Strange, but that's it.Have fun with your expensive toys, Judderman.
(Iso 1600 on a Nikon?... no thanks)
Nikon "magical look & feel" is sometimes more important than overall image quality. Really strange, but that's it.
Someone is not interested in better choice of Canon lens because he don't intend to buy more than 2 lenses.
FF possibility. Who care about that. Someone just like to have 3 more buttons and one more switch on his camera.
Someone just want to drive Jaguar even if for that money can get much better car together with Honda TwinAfrica enduro motorcycle like a bonus. You can do nothing about that because he want to have that metal cat on his car! That's it Lani.
Best regards and keep a good work,
--
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
blinky led
Leading Member
Each has strength & weakness, but I think 30D stacks up real well to the D200, especially if high ISO noise is important to you.
The real hole is the lack of anything like the 18-200 VR, which I think is a real nice lens that will work for 90% of the needs of the average user.
Personally, I'd take the 30D.
The real hole is the lack of anything like the 18-200 VR, which I think is a real nice lens that will work for 90% of the needs of the average user.
Personally, I'd take the 30D.
zuikoguy
Forum Enthusiast
Completely false. Nikon's factories are working at full capacity, hence no shortage of sensors. Supply shortages of D200s are being caused by demand.
DuxX
Senior Member
And why you actually need to wait anything? You shoot with Canon and if you need great, reliable camera just go buy 30D and be happy.
You always will have to wait something. After 40D comes out you can wait for 50D. Instead of that think about some good lenses or tripod or at least about some good and expensive trip where you can relax your self and make excellent photos.
Best regards,
--
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
DuxX
Senior Member
--
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
That why we have users of Canon and Nikon cameras. And our loyal fan boys for both branches.There it's not just question about high ISO possibilities. SomeHave fun with your expensive toys, Judderman.
(Iso 1600 on a Nikon?... no thanks)
people don't need to shoot at more than 800. But like to have
weather seals even if never really need that. Strange, but that's
it.
Nikon "magical look & feel" is sometimes more important than
overall image quality. Really strange, but that's it.
Someone is not interested in better choice of Canon lens because he
don't intend to buy more than 2 lenses.
FF possibility. Who care about that. Someone just like to have 3
more buttons and one more switch on his camera.
Someone just want to drive Jaguar even if for that money can get
much better car together with Honda TwinAfrica enduro motorcycle
like a bonus. You can do nothing about that because he want to have
that metal cat on his car! That's it Lani.
Best regards and keep a good work,
--
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
geoff-corn
Active member
The D00 is a nice camera I have used one, lovely body. However I gave it back and stayed with my EOS 350D, why?. Well the 350 takes better pictures, smaller to carry around, quiter shutter than D200 & EOS 20D. As someone earlier quoted from dpreview here is another.
" Overall Image Quality / Specifics
It won't come as much of a surprise if we were to say that we are just as impressed with the EOS 30D as we were with the EOS 20D, no surprise because they share the same sensor and image processing engine. Because of this then it's remarkable that eighteen months after the introduction of this sensor / image processing combination (in the EOS 20D) we've still not really seen any competition that can get close to this overall package of resolution, quality image development and low noise at high sensitivities."
Geoff.
" Overall Image Quality / Specifics
It won't come as much of a surprise if we were to say that we are just as impressed with the EOS 30D as we were with the EOS 20D, no surprise because they share the same sensor and image processing engine. Because of this then it's remarkable that eighteen months after the introduction of this sensor / image processing combination (in the EOS 20D) we've still not really seen any competition that can get close to this overall package of resolution, quality image development and low noise at high sensitivities."
Geoff.
austinphotog
Leading Member
Greg,
I'm curious, how would you compare the AF system on the cameras.
I'm curious, how would you compare the AF system on the cameras.
I prefer the D200 the most, mainly because of the control layout
and menu system. I believe the 20D to be on par with the D200.
Anyone that thinks one is really much better than the other is
simply a brand loyalist. I have produced fantastic images with all
of them, and I feel no limitation with either the D200 or 20D.
My favorite lenses for both are:
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR
Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS
Again, both lenses are equal my experience.
Greg
--Which camera do you use most of the time from yer major arsenal?
Must be something keeping track of all the different glass too?
Nikon and Canon and others to fit wherever on the specific bodies????
Thanks for any details.
Ubi.
http://www.screamandfly.com/home
Greg Terzian
Senior Member
Having taken many thousands of images using all of them, and comparing them side to side, my experience is as follows:
Both model pairs (350D and D70, and 20D and D200) are equally fast at acquiring focus, however the slight edge goes to Nikon for precision focus ability. Again, it's very slight, but the Nikon AF seems to be a bit more accurate with focusing on very small targets in 'busy' scenes. The D200 can also track fast moving objects coming toward the camera much better than the 20D. Low light performance seems about the same.
Both model pairs (350D and D70, and 20D and D200) are equally fast at acquiring focus, however the slight edge goes to Nikon for precision focus ability. Again, it's very slight, but the Nikon AF seems to be a bit more accurate with focusing on very small targets in 'busy' scenes. The D200 can also track fast moving objects coming toward the camera much better than the 20D. Low light performance seems about the same.
Nikon133
Forum Enthusiast
Why? It is a good lens for what it is - walk-around hobbyist one-size-fits-all glass with some nice things - VR, ED, reasonably sharp - and handful of compromises as well (distortion being the biggest, much as I could learn). Here in New Zealand, it has a price tag of 1300nz$ (in one of more expensive shops). In same shop, Both Nikon's 70-200 VR and Canon's IS were about 3000nz$. I guess comparing price/performance, it is not such bad product.have you ever seen the bokeh on that lnes? yuck.. no..let me think
again..yeah..BIG YUCK
nice range but with such bad bokeh, no thanks.
the d200 however is a nice camera. I would not want the 18-200 if
they would give it to me but that's me.
I'm just curious, are you finding it too expensive, too bad or something else..?
Nikon133
Forum Enthusiast
Maybe because there was no VR/IS macro lens so far? It seems like good idea to me. Shooting, lets say, bugs with tripod seems a bit, well... impractical. There are angles you can not manage from tripod. And bugs are not always keen on waiting for one to set tripod anyway.
Just my thought...
Of course its also very good when you use the 105 as a short tele or for portraits.
--
Updated jan 9: [ http://tri-xstories.blogspot.com/ ]
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
U
Ubilam
Guest
Thanks for the info, Greg.
Ubi.
====================
Ubi.
====================
I prefer the D200 the most, mainly because of the control layout
and menu system. I believe the 20D to be on par with the D200.
Anyone that thinks one is really much better than the other is
simply a brand loyalist. I have produced fantastic images with all
of them, and I feel no limitation with either the D200 or 20D.
My favorite lenses for both are:
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR
Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS
Again, both lenses are equal my experience.
Greg
Which camera do you use most of the time from yer major arsenal?
Must be something keeping track of all the different glass too?
Nikon and Canon and others to fit wherever on the specific bodies????
Thanks for any details.
Ubi.
Carlo219410
Forum Enthusiast
Every time a new camera comes out we always get these types of threads. As so many have proven it is the user 95% of them time that makes the good shot. Just look at Daniela’s pics she gets me mad because I could go buy the 5D/D200 hell I could go buy the 1D and my pictures will still not look like hers.
I guess what I am trying to say stop worrying about what you bought 6 months ago whenever a new camera comes out and worry about learning how to take good pics.
Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax in the right hand they will all shine.
My 2 cents because that’s all my wife says I’m worth.
I guess what I am trying to say stop worrying about what you bought 6 months ago whenever a new camera comes out and worry about learning how to take good pics.
Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax in the right hand they will all shine.
My 2 cents because that’s all my wife says I’m worth.
U
Ubilam
Guest
I dunno. Think i disagree. When the discussion is sane and friendly,
some things can be learned in this forum.
Daniella ain't perfect, neither am I by any means.
What we type often does not mean what 'we mean'.
Nikon will overtake the planet soon according to the tease that Phil
showed. All Canon users be prepared to convert to the dark side.
Save water and canned goods.
Ubi.
=====================
some things can be learned in this forum.
Daniella ain't perfect, neither am I by any means.
What we type often does not mean what 'we mean'.
Nikon will overtake the planet soon according to the tease that Phil
showed. All Canon users be prepared to convert to the dark side.
Save water and canned goods.
Ubi.
=====================
Justme
Forum Pro
I shoot with someone who uses the D200 and 200-400 F4 lens. Images are great and sharp but he does try and use no higher than ISO 400 exposed well to avoid noise.
--for high ISO the 5D will be much better. but you can't compare the
d200 and the 5D because they are way too different. the 5D is a
full frame..
the d200? well it is NOT a full frame camera. period..no need to
say more.
--I think canon have a problem here. The 5D is compared to the D200
in Phil's reviews, as the 30D has also been compared - but they
(canon) don't have an in-between. Something in the 10mp range.
Doesn't anyone else think there's a gap here?
If I could start again, and had no canon equipment, I think I'd
probably go with a D200 - just seems like a better choice. I'd miss
white lenses though
No seriously, I'd like to hear people's comments on this. I'm still
a 350D owner, but I know there'll come a day when I'll want to get
a more professional feeling camera, something I know won't die in
50,000 pictures time.
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
U
Ubilam
Guest
Man, thanks for this bit of news, ohyva. What a genious.
What the h^ll is "robustness of the camera"????????!
Ubi.
karneyli
Forum Enthusiast
Honestly I used to think my 18-200 VR was pointless. I bought it, and for the first 2 months i left it off the camera and just continued using my primes. I then brought it with me on a recent trip to europe along with a nice collection of prime lenses. Turns out 85% of the pictures were taken with this lens.
Unless you've tried this lens I don't think it is fair to judge it. Everyone that has used this lens has praised it for being extremely versatile and its sharp (enough). Most of the situations yield very nicely to VR. Its very rare that you really need faster than 1/60 to stop things like people. I can name a lot of other use cases, but really this lens is a god send.
Lets keep in mind that yes primes are very nice. But often taking a picture at f/2.8 or larger is not ideal. I don't want the shallow depth of field. So having a lens that can do f/5.6 and shoot at 1/8, and not have to setup a tripod in the middle of a busy street is the differnce between getting a shot and nothing at all.
Unless you've tried this lens I don't think it is fair to judge it. Everyone that has used this lens has praised it for being extremely versatile and its sharp (enough). Most of the situations yield very nicely to VR. Its very rare that you really need faster than 1/60 to stop things like people. I can name a lot of other use cases, but really this lens is a god send.
Lets keep in mind that yes primes are very nice. But often taking a picture at f/2.8 or larger is not ideal. I don't want the shallow depth of field. So having a lens that can do f/5.6 and shoot at 1/8, and not have to setup a tripod in the middle of a busy street is the differnce between getting a shot and nothing at all.
350D
-------
To me, the 350D is perfect. It has all the basic features together with a super clean 8MP CMOS. The money that we save up can be used to invest in L glasses. Interesting to see that someone sell the 350D and jump the boat to D200. I don't believe the D200 can produce better IQ than the 350D. Perhaps the 18-200 VR is relatively attractive. And Canon didn't produce such kit lens. All in all, both Canon and Nikon are good. One of the main reason is that they've a very mature product line of lenses.
A100
-------
The new comer, Sony A100, could be a competitor to the D200. For people who are more focused on body features may be attracted by the A100 (it's cheap and got plenty of features). To me, the lens system is the most important factor of consideration. The KM lens system is not attractive. I do like Zeiss lenses of the Contax era but now it's the Sony-Zeiss edition. The choice of Sony-Zeiss lenses is not that many and the actual performance is unknown. If we need to choose the brand now, I prefer choosing either Canon or Nikon. For Canon, the 30D is a good option. For Nikon, the D200 looks pretty good (however, pls note that a new Nikon 10mp DSLR is coming).
-------
To me, the 350D is perfect. It has all the basic features together with a super clean 8MP CMOS. The money that we save up can be used to invest in L glasses. Interesting to see that someone sell the 350D and jump the boat to D200. I don't believe the D200 can produce better IQ than the 350D. Perhaps the 18-200 VR is relatively attractive. And Canon didn't produce such kit lens. All in all, both Canon and Nikon are good. One of the main reason is that they've a very mature product line of lenses.
A100
-------
The new comer, Sony A100, could be a competitor to the D200. For people who are more focused on body features may be attracted by the A100 (it's cheap and got plenty of features). To me, the lens system is the most important factor of consideration. The KM lens system is not attractive. I do like Zeiss lenses of the Contax era but now it's the Sony-Zeiss edition. The choice of Sony-Zeiss lenses is not that many and the actual performance is unknown. If we need to choose the brand now, I prefer choosing either Canon or Nikon. For Canon, the 30D is a good option. For Nikon, the D200 looks pretty good (however, pls note that a new Nikon 10mp DSLR is coming).
Hi All,
First off I'm a canon 350d owner, otherwise I wouldn't be posting
in this forum! Anyway, my question regards a direct competitor to
the D200 camera.
My friend was also a 350D owner until very recently when he
purchased a Nikon D200. I don't know what all his reasons were for
selling the 350D but I suspect some of them were better the D200's
better build, longer shutter life, higher resolution images e.t.c
and he said he wanted the nikon 18-200. Seems like a great
walkabout range and strangely canon don't offer this, another pet
peeve of mine.
Fair enough I said to him, but why not choose the 30D instead? I
think the 30D is a fantastic camera, but there isn't a massive
amount of difference in price between the two, so considering it, I
would probably just go for the D200. You'll get higher resoultion
images, be able to shoot more raw pictures in a row amoungst other
things. I know it's close between the two cameras but just reading
the numbers the D200 is technically better is it not?
I think canon have a problem here. The 5D is compared to the D200
in Phil's reviews, as the 30D has also been compared - but they
(canon) don't have an in-between. Something in the 10mp range.
Doesn't anyone else think there's a gap here?
If I could start again, and had no canon equipment, I think I'd
probably go with a D200 - just seems like a better choice. I'd miss
white lenses though
No seriously, I'd like to hear people's comments on this. I'm still
a 350D owner, but I know there'll come a day when I'll want to get
a more professional feeling camera, something I know won't die in
50,000 pictures time.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum