Nikon D200 competitor?

Nikon133 · Jul 20, 2006

dylanbarnhart said:
All D200 users will start to feel really aweful once the Sony A100
comes out. They both use the same sensor, but the Sony has image
stabilization, anti-dust feature, and a cheaper price tag.

I don't really see the point. Informed users know it is not all about sensor resolution. Others will consider A100 same (but cheaper!) compared to D200, but they will also consider A100 better (2Mp more!) and cheaper than 30D as well.

And before we start talking (again) about high ISO performance, keep in mind tha lot of P&S consumers were shooting with ISO 50 and ISO 100, and back in film days, just a handful of them ever went over ISO 400 film. Now I would personally like better high ISO from my camera, but they? - I really doubt.

Daniella68313 · Jul 20, 2006

I have about 80k now on my XT..still going strong.

cbradley said:
sorry but for the price of the 350d if it needs to be repaired at
50,000 shots that is still a pretty good deal in my books.

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 20, 2006

Justme said:
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.

we're kind of stuck with the same future..lets face it.. 1.6x crop factor..how much mega pixel can we stuck in there? there is a limit and I feel we're pretty close to it.

Justme said:
Justme said:

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.

Justme said:

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.

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

--
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

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Nikon133 · Jul 21, 2006

Hellashot said:
Even though D200 has 2 more MP (only a 25% gain) Nikon still has 1
stop noisier images above iso400 than the 30D which has same image
quality as the 20D. Which means Nikon's new camera can't beat the
low noise of a camera that was out for 1 year when the D200 came
out.

Nikon has bells and whistles (really more like buttons and
switches) Canon has more settings in menus and ontop of the camera,
but it's a moot point once you use a Canon and get comfortable with
it.

For me and many, image quality is what is most important and Canon
has and has had a leg up on Nikon for years now.

Well, Canon 30D could not beat Canon 20D...

I'm just wondering... during 35mm film era, how many of us were using frequently films with ISO over 400? And now, there isn't Canon user who can live without ISO 1600. As I've just finished watching movie Underground: Evolution, my only conclusion is that, er, there are many vampires among Canon users..?

But over the fence, no one can live without flash commander mode as well. Yeah, right.

Old saying among my people: Every Gipsy's praising his horse.

That aside, Canon was much more aggressive in DSLR market from it's beginnings, but also Canon WAS kind of quiet lately. Just by checking reviews from the beginning of 2005 here on DPReview, Nikon had 3 new cameras - D2X, D50, D200, two updates - D70s and D2Xs, and there's new camera coming soon. Canon had 350D and 5D, plus a bit more radical update for 20D in shape of 30D. Did I miss something?

Anyway, looking at that, I'd say Canon will come out with new DSLR any time soon. Maybe more than one - I can imagine them releasing 350D replacement before Christmas, and coming out with something between 30D and 5D within a few months after New Year.

thw · Jul 21, 2006

Nikon133 said:
I'm just wondering... during 35mm film era, how many of us were
using frequently films with ISO over 400?

Urrr... technology improves, times change. In the past, trying to hand hold a 50 mm at 1/4 sec is impossible, but now you've got VR/IR/OIS/SSS/SR etc.

So, why can't you accept that?

Or is it because the company you're supporting does NOT have this capability? Sour grapes???

Nikon133 said:
But over the fence, no one can live without flash commander mode as
well. Yeah, right.

Not really. There are many wedding photographers who rely on flash... and they use Canon.

Nikon133 said:
Old saying among my people: Every Gipsy's praising his horse.

Talking about yourself?

Nikon133 said:
That aside, Canon was much more aggressive in DSLR market from it's
beginnings

NO. Nikon came up with the first DSLR, and was also very aggressive. They lost their market share because (i) their D70 came later (and more expensive than) after Canon 300 (ii) they still haven't offered a FF DSLR.

Nikon133 said:
checking reviews from the beginning of 2005 here on DPReview, Nikon
had 3 new cameras - D2X, D50, D200. Did I miss something?

Urrr... did you count the number of years between the D100 and D200, D1X and D2X?

Nikon133 said:
Anyway, looking at that, I'd say Canon will come out with new DSLR
any time soon.

I will be very surprised and disappointed if Canon does not release a new camera with some startling new technology. Not those useless wireless, GPS, more MP stuff... more along the lines of improved dynamic range and even better ISO performance. Something like the live view on the Oly E330 is also fascinating (although I don't care about it).

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

Darrel LaBossiere · Jul 21, 2006

Independant professionals by their gear with their own money. Governments put things out to tender for the lowest price they can get. How is what I said incoherent or flaming? You think they go to Bill or Tom and say hey go buy us some cameras and make sure they are Nikon's?

So going by what you come back with I should buy a Neon because the City of Calgary buys them? You're nuts. That RAF analogy by Phil was just plain stupid. Contracts and bids, that is how gov't and their agencies buy things, not because they know something no one else does.
--

http://www.pbase.com/darrel_labossiere

John Pennington · Jul 21, 2006

I have owned a d70 and a 350d and, believe me, the 350d is far cleaner at high iso's.

John

ohyva · Jul 21, 2006

Nikon133 said:
dylanbarnhart said:

dimar said:

Show me equivalents of 18-70/3.5-4.5 that beats any Canon non L
zoom

Click to expand...

Sigma 17-70 has less barrel distortion at 17mm, slightly better
resolution at 70mm and slightly worse at 17mm. The Sigma also has
F2.8 at the wide angle.

Nikon133 said:

, 18-800 VR

Click to expand...

Wow, a 44X zoom lens? I gotta have it.

Nikon133 said:

105 macro VR and so on. Also I prefer use

Click to expand...

Don't know anybody who don't do macro on a tripod. VR helps
up/down and left/right motions, but not front/back motion.

Click to expand...

Maybe because there was no VR/IS macro lens so far? It seems like
good idea to me.

Not perhaps for macro work as there any smallest changes in the distance usually destroy the work (and any VR/IS cannot help), but I guess this sort of a lens is also used as a general purpose lens and there VR/IS is good.

Nikon133 said:
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.

For this sort of a "semi macro" work perhaps ..

Nikon133 said:
Just my thought...

ohyva · Jul 21, 2006

Ubilam said:
ohyva said:

There are two sometimes quite separate issues: the "feeling in your
hand" and the robustness of the camera. When you look the different
forums you cannot help getting the feeling the Canon cameras are
made to last even the cheapest ones of them. In some other brand
forums you get a lot more report for the gear is breaking into
parts or otherwise loosing its funstionality.

Click to expand...

Man, thanks for this bit of news, ohyva. What a genious.
What the h^ll is "robustness of the camera"????????!

I do not know if this is more jargon used in our company, but it means the device is made to last for normal and a bit rought use according to our standard product requirements. Does not break down easilly.

Synonym (taken from MS Word thesaurus) of heftiness, sturdiness, strength, toughness, ...

OK may be our company internal slang

Member said:
Ubi.

pc168 · Jul 21, 2006

Sure the 350D is far cleaner. I'm very happy with it.

John Pennington said:
I have owned a d70 and a 350d and, believe me, the 350d is far
cleaner at high iso's.

John

Nikon133 · Jul 21, 2006

thw said:
thw said:

I'm just wondering... during 35mm film era, how many of us were
using frequently films with ISO over 400?

Click to expand...

Urrr... technology improves, times change. In the past, trying to
hand hold a 50 mm at 1/4 sec is impossible, but now you've got
VR/IR/OIS/SSS/SR etc.

So, why can't you accept that? Or is it because the company
you're supporting does NOT have this capability? Sour grapes???

You're missing my point... but I'm pretty sure you're well aware of that. Every improvement is cool. But for lots of people, it is not of most importance. As of my brand of choice, being amateur, I have no problem at all - if I really need good high ISO, I can swap my D70s with D50 and have ISO comparable or better than 350D/20D/30D.

thw said:
thw said:

But over the fence, no one can live without flash commander mode
as well. Yeah, right.

Click to expand...

Not really. There are many wedding photographers who rely on
flash... and they use Canon.

And you're missing my point again. That line was reflecting on Nikon's side. Me, I'm perfectly happy for people choosing Canon for flash. As well as choosing Nikon for high ISO. As well as choosing Sony for, err, whatever.

thw said:
thw said:

Old saying among my people: Every Gipsy's praising his horse.

Click to expand...

Talking about yourself?

That sounds a bit defensive - guess you have reason not to like it. Feel free to keep it for yourself.

thw said:
thw said:

That aside, Canon was much more aggressive in DSLR market from it's > > beginnings

Click to expand...

NO. Nikon came up with the first DSLR, and was also very
aggressive. They lost their market share because (i) their D70 came
later (and more expensive than) after Canon 300 (ii) they still
haven't offered a FF DSLR.

I didn't say AT the beginning. I said FROM the beginning. Until 2005, there were more Canon DSLRs out there, and Canon was updating them more frequently. Am I wrong?

thw said:
thw said:

checking reviews from the beginning of 2005 here on DPReview,
Nikon had 3 new cameras - D2X, D50, D200. Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Urrr... did you count the number of years between the D100 and
D200, D1X and D2X?

I did. That refers to my statement that Canon was more aggressive from the beginning - for some reason, you haven't agreed with that statement. Guess you know why. To me, it looks like you didn't read carefully. Again.

thw said:
I will be very surprised and disappointed if Canon does not release
a new camera with some startling new technology. Not those useless
wireless, GPS, more MP stuff... more along the lines of improved
dynamic range and even better ISO performance. Something like the
live view on the Oly E330 is also fascinating (although I don't
care about it).

We agree with that at least - I'm hoping for some fresh ideas as well. Would be sad if they come out with 450D featuring spot metering and bigger display.

Hellashot · Jul 21, 2006

Nikon can only produce cameras when they have sensors. Canon has much more capacity to produce cameras than Nikon. Nikon is a small company compared to Canon.

photoforfun · Jul 21, 2006

dylanbarnhart said:
The 18-200 VR is optically pathetic. Buy it only if your priority is convenience rather than performance. VR is useless in the wider half of that focal range anyways. I mean the idea is not even new. A Minolta D5 (with sensor based VR) and the Tamron 18-200 will give you what the Nikon 18-200 VR offers, for a much cheaper price.

Complete nonsense, I had a Tamron 18-200 before I purchased the 18-200 VR, the nikkor 18-200 blows the Tamron away on EVERYTHING(speed, focus accuracy, no hunting, image quality, vignetting etc.). About VR being useless at the wider half, nonsense as well, why should otherwise Canon make a 17-55 IS lens?
And about D200 being noisy...not if you know how to use a D200 @ high iso.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

Nuno Vedder · Jul 22, 2006

lol....

Its so easy make sensor. Nikon don't make sensor's probably beacuse is less expensive buying to sony..
Any electronic engineer make easily a sensor...
--
Nikon D70
Sigma 10 20 Ex
Sigma 24 70 Ex 2.8
Nikkor 80 200 2.8 ED
Nikkor 50 mm 1.8
Tamron 90 mm Di
Sb 800

ohyva · Jul 22, 2006

Nuno Vedder said:
lol....

Its so easy make sensor. Nikon don't make sensor's probably beacuse
is less expensive buying to sony..

Most certainly it's less expensive for Nikon to buy sensors than to try to make their own. they have tries with the LBCAST, but found it perhaps too demanding for them.

And of course it's easy to make sensor - for those companies who have the knowhow. But getting the knowhow require several million $$$ investment and active development work for several years. Not a business any company is capable of.

Nuno Vedder said:
Any electronic engineer make easily a sensor...

Yes, all companies making the sensors employ several electorinc engineers and PhDs and other scientists.

Nuno Vedder said:
--
Nikon D70
Sigma 10 20 Ex
Sigma 24 70 Ex 2.8
Nikkor 80 200 2.8 ED
Nikkor 50 mm 1.8
Tamron 90 mm Di
Sb 800

Hellashot · Jul 22, 2006

..why isn't Nikon making them?

You're making Nikon look pretty bad if they can't hire one electrical engineer to make them millions of sensors. They should just hire a new graduate and they'll have their FF sensor a month after than, right?

DNAmaster · Jul 22, 2006

I see what you are saying. Cars serves a purpose more than transportation. I totally understand. I buy a nicer car than needed because when I drive to the local coffee show, I want to look like I live here and not a lawn mower on the way to do yardwork.

If the camera is used for purposes other than taking pictures - I'm all for getting a more robust better built camera.

Years ago, when I did weddings for friends, I would bring all my equipment and always hang two cameras off my neck. I had a winder too. Even though I can wind faster by hand. One of the cameras always hold a really big expensive lens. It really worked. The customers were impressed and thought I got a lot of respect.

Judderman said:
I understand what you're saying, but I can come up with another
analogy that I hope explains why build quality is important to me.

Cars! - sure you can buy a cheap car, and it will get you from A to
B, but will it be as reliable in the long run, will it be a better
driving experience and, will it's resale value be decent and son
on. Okay so your cheap car may do just fine and it might be the
most reliable car you've ever had, but I'm shallow! I like nice
things! When I purchased my First L lens I saw what really
excellent lenses could be like and It made me want more decent
glass.

The original intention of this thread I think is getting distorted
a bit. My friend who posted (shamhead) earlier has bought his D200
and is happy - I still have my 350D and will simply see what canon
do in the next 6 months to a year. The 30D whilst it looks like an
excellent cam, isn't for me.

Greg Terzian · Jul 22, 2006

FYI - Nikon developed and produces the sensors in the D2H, D2Hs and D2x. They also designed the 4-channel sensor in the D200.

--
http://www.screamandfly.com/home

rendra · Jul 22, 2006

Judderman said:
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.

imo, determine your capturing style before deciding to spend on more expensive body.

Agree that D200 has more sophisticated features comparing to EOS 30D. But in the end, are they utilized for your needs ? For me, results are everything which is comply to my own benchmark.

Why don't you spend your money to better lenses ? It's more effective rather than think to new body ?

--
from darkness to HIS everlasting light...

dennis tennis · Jul 22, 2006

I am building a spaceship and using 100 dollar bills to light my BBQ out back. My fellow Canonites and I will colonize Mars and one day in the distant future, our descendants will return to liberate the homeworld. Have faith.

dennis

Ubilam said:
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.
=====================

Carlo said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
if I made sense, I'm sorry

Nikon D200 competitor?

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts