Beginners choice - 40D vs. D200?

[Gary0001]

I like the D200 because of it weather resistant. And again we're
comparing old Nikon vs. New Canon.

Would it change your mind any if you knew that Nikon doesn't make ANY
weather resistant lenses, BECAUSE THEY DON'T!!!

They make a small subset of lenses that do have a rubber seal at the
mount point, but the lenses themselves are not fully weather
resistant. The rubber seal is to prevent dust penetration.

--
Cheers,
Eric

If you've ever picked up a
17-35mm
28-70mm
70-200mm
200-400mm
200mm
300mm
400mm
500mm
600mm

You'd know those are weather resistant, And if they aren't they work fine in the Snow, rain, hail, sand dunes and tropical rain forest, which is what I consider weather resistant, you might be thinking waterproof.
--

 

[Mark Tuccillo]

an auto-focusing system which actually works.

 

[uk102]

1) Hi troll. My response will be directed at anyone who honestly
poses such a question.

2a) You don't choose your "system" based on which particular body is
better at any given time. Of course the 40D is looking a little
better than the 2-year old D200. I won't argue that someone with too
much money to spend and little regard for anything other than instant
gratification should go for the 40D when it becomes available.

The question for me is not the number of AF points, but how good they are we all know that the center AF point always seam to work best. Have more low grade AF points may well not be a good thing.

2b) But what next? What if Nikon released a new product based on
that Sony CMOS announced today? One of the main features is supposed
to be much better sensitivity.

3) The answer isn't that simple. Choose your system according to
your needs. If you have any interest in SuperCCD SR based SLRs in
your future, than the Nikon system is your best option. If you think
you might like to go full-frame eventually, then Canon is obviously
for you.

Looks to me Nikon is looking the best it has for a long time, great cameras and super lens. Canon is working very hard to keep up with consumer cameras and stay ahead in the Pro area.

4) I also think the David and Goliath analogy has some significance.
Given fairly similar options, I tend to side with the underdog.
Canon is clearly a juggernaut in this area. Some could argue that
Nikon is no David either. That's true too. If I had to start over
with Olympus or something like that, I don't think I'd really mind
most of the time.

 

[saarela]

Wasting your money on an expensive body in lieu of better glass is moronic.

For $3k US I'd get either the D40 or the 400D and a nice high quality lens or two. You might outgrow the body. A quality lens will serve you well over several generations of bodies. Pick which system you want based on the lenses that best meet your needs.

If you make your choice solely on body specs you're wasting your time and will end up selling all your gear when the 'next best' body comes alone. That's fine if you have money to burn and don't really want to learn the system you buy into.

And unless you have a specific need that's addressed by the 40D, you're wasting more money buying the latest and greatest. Since you haven't owned a DSLR before it makes no sense wasting money for features that you don't know you're going to use anyway. A D40/400D would cost you a lot less and would meet 99% of your needs at this point.

If this doesn't convince you to think differently, you should bite the bullet and get a 5D with 24-105 L lens and be done with it. That's running around ~$3200. Buy that and you can brag to all your friends how you're camera is 'full frame'. You'll get a nice piece of glass too.

 

[Gary0001]

No you should wait for the 5D Mark II
--

 

[rhlpetrus]

I started out with a Canon S3 Is a year ago and at this time, it
feels like photography is going to be a big interest of mine, I might
even try to make a living of it turns out that I'm good.

My budget is approx. 1500 for the body and the same for a couple of
lenses.

--
rhlpetrus
equipment in profile

 

[thomas2279]

Shouldn't the thread be 40d vs D200x/D300, for now I would probably buy a interim camera either 30d or D200 and pay the difference on lenses. The initial launch price of 40d & D200x/d300 seem sky high at moment.

After couple of months with big 3 Sony, Canon & Nikon bringing out comparible DSLR's the competition and prices will come down...
--

 

[erichlund]

I like the D200 because of it weather resistant. And again we're
comparing old Nikon vs. New Canon.

Would it change your mind any if you knew that Nikon doesn't make ANY
weather resistant lenses, BECAUSE THEY DON'T!!!

They make a small subset of lenses that do have a rubber seal at the
mount point, but the lenses themselves are not fully weather
resistant. The rubber seal is to prevent dust penetration.

--
Cheers,
Eric

If you've ever picked up a
17-35mm
28-70mm
70-200mm
200-400mm
200mm
300mm
400mm
500mm
600mm

You'd know those are weather resistant, And if they aren't they work
fine in the Snow, rain, hail, sand dunes and tropical rain forest,
which is what I consider weather resistant, you might be thinking
waterproof.
--

But, if you ask Nikon, which I did (because I own a D200 and was curious, I'm a fair weather shooter, myself), they will tell you that they do NOT make weather resistant lenses. That doesn't mean they don't work. But don't go crying to Nikon if your non-weather resistant lens gets damaged by weather.
--
Cheers,
Eric

 

[joao731]

I Think you should consider the Pentax - If you are a beginner...

I am an amateur and the 40D or D200 are over my budget. Are you sure you want to spend so much money on a body?

The D80 Looks ok - It´s good enough for me. However I held a K10 the other day and was very impressed... Very, Very impressed...

This is what you should do. Hold the cameras, play with them a little bit and choose the one you are more confortable with.

Oh, and if you are a Beguinner, please buy a fixed lens...

This is my humble advice.

Good Luck!

 

[Redandwhite]

--
I hope you got my point,
Redandwhite from Malta.
Photos at --> http://redandwhite.deviantart.com

 

[point2]

IF you are a beginner, many of the features of an advanced camera like the D200 or 40D, etc, will be lost on you.

If you hope to get good pictures just because you happen to own a semi-pro camera, then you are sadly mistaken.

IF you are on a budget, get a second hand D70s (or 350D) and develop from there.

IF budget is not a problem, why not get a 1D Mk III -- only then you can't blame the camera if you get poor results...

 

[roelofj]

I am in the same boat, have been taking pictures with my Pana FZ5 for two and a half years, now I desperately want to upgrade.

I read almost all the earlier comments, many people recommend rather spending the money on lenses. And also first buying a D40x or 400D.

The problem for me is budget. When I buy my camera body I will use it for at least the next 3 years, probably longer. So while I am a novice in DSLR photography, I want to buy something that will leave me space to mature as a photographer over the next 3 years. And something that will hopefully not be too outdated.

I am still undecided, and will probably change my mind many times as I read all the reviews over the next few weeks! Whether its D200/D300/40D/D80 I don't know yet. But my point is that for a lower budget it might be better to buy something more pro-like that you can grow into.

Do the people that gave the advice for the D400 and D40x agree?

 

[cgove1]

How negative. One year after I started I had already a big solo
exhibition in one of the main galleries of Amsterdam. And talking
about equipment. These days I do a lot of exhibition work with
so-called amateur camera's. Works perfect. In my opinion pro's care
less about their equipment than amateurs. Pro's take photographs.

I'm curious, what equipment did you start with? How important do you think it was in your success? and...did you start your career by trolling forums like this one?

The D200 was my first DSLR and over the last couple years I've learned to use it effectively for what do. Having said that I'd probably would have been better off starting with a D50 or 70 and would go that route if I had it to do over.

 

[boto]

How negative. One year after I started I had already a big solo
exhibition in one of the main galleries of Amsterdam. And talking
about equipment. These days I do a lot of exhibition work with
so-called amateur camera's. Works perfect. In my opinion pro's care
less about their equipment than amateurs. Pro's take photographs.

I'm curious, what equipment did you start with? How important do you
think it was in your success? and...did you start your career by
trolling forums like this one?

The D200 was my first DSLR and over the last couple years I've
learned to use it effectively for what do. Having said that I'd
probably would have been better off starting with a D50 or 70 and
would go that route if I had it to do over.

My first camera was a Nikon F90, then a F5. Changed to Leica M & R, plus Hasselblad. These days I prefer my camera's as small as possible. The type of camera had nothing to do with my success, I think it was more my attitude to my subjects and the way I was working. Strange enough I think it was also a kind of naivety that worked for me. The same with writing. I'm also a writer, but sometimes I think that in my early 'naive' years I wrote better articles.

 

[cgove1]

As I said earlier, I will wait for the reviews, and it would be great
if nikon came out with D300 soon. And it would be even greater if
that D300 would outperform the 40D. Thats just more camera for me.

Doesn't matter what you get. You're always gonna want something else within a couple of months anyway. We see your kind all the time here.

Buy a D40. You may be surprised but I think for a first DSLR it's better then either of the 2 your considering. It's designed to give the best results to first time users.

It's harder then you may think to get high quality from a more advance DSLR. I have tremendous respect for the many of the photographers here seeing their work. I have spent almost 2 years with a D200 and I still marvel at how others get the quality they do.

I'm not a hack either. I did a lot of film work in the 70's won an award or two at that time. My skill seems to be in the composition area.

 

[FrithjofA]

A expensive camera body is useless if you are not willing to spend some bucks on good lenses. The difference between a 6MP camera and a lousy lens and a 12MP with a lousy lens is only the pixel count. The resolution and contrasts remains lousy.

It makes more sense to by a D40 and 17-55DX lens than a D200 and a 100-200 lens. Moreover , the livetime of a good lens outlives the lifetime of a body. So it is even economically a waste of money to save on lenses and buy a expensive body.

As estimmate you should spend the same amount of money on a zoom lens as the money you spend of a body -- if you want to use a zoom lens.

Frithjof

 

[saarela]

Do the people that gave the advice for the D400 and D40x agree?

No, I don't agree.

You're always better off spending the money on top quality glass if you're budget constrained. High quality glass will last you decades. A body, any body, will likely be outdated in three to five years anyway. You should pay the minimum amount you can for a body unless you absolutely know you need a particular feature from a particular model.

Buy the least expensive body for your needs. Spend what you save on high quality glass for the long run. Buying an expensive body with cheap lenses does you no good and may in fact frustrate you so much you'll sell all your gear in disgust.

 

[roelofj]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do not mean to buy cheap lenses. My idea was to buy the Nikon 18-200 VR, which while not pro glass should be good enough for my needs and allow me to experiment with a wide optical range.

I was trying to find a good body to go with this lens while staying in my budget, not an easy task!

Then someday maybe I will be able to afford something like the 12-24 Nikkor

 

[PicMax]

Where are the facts? It does have a few nice features that Canon put a lot a lot of press buzz on them but none are really new and never gaming changing. Remember, it was Nikon who introduces cameras at higher performance/price ratios, not Canon. Canon actually just did a lot of catch-up to the two year old D200.

Max

In the eyes of beginners, the 40D has tons more use-able specs than
the D200, and at a lower price point. Unless the D200 drops to $1100
or so and the D300 comes out at $1400 or so, Nikon just lost TONS of
D200 market to the 40D.

--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Digital photography tips and tricks
http://www.dptnt.com

 

[dzeanah]

But now I see that many of you nikonians thinks like "meh... okey,
now canon have made 40D to ALMOST stand up to the D200" etc. and I
don't quite get this. Is this only fan-boy talk or have I missed
something in the performance of the D200?

Define "performance."

One of the problems with digital photography is the ease at which you can open a file, zoom to 100%, compare files from two competing cameras, and think you have a great understanding of the tradeoffs involved in those cameras. It's obvious, right? More megapixels = best, and noise = icky. So, you end up looking for maximum megapixels and no noise at speeds up to and beyond 3200 ASA because anything less is "unprofessional" (insert your term of choice here) and you never get off the upgrade treadmill. Every 12 months you'll need to buy a new camera because it's "better" when you open a file to 100% in Photoshop and compare it to what's coming out of your current camera. Clearly your current camera is now obsolete, its images are now unacceptable, and you need to eBay it to some sucker ASAP so you can get the camera that you really need - you know, the one that will actually improve your photography. The one with all the magic in it.

Unfortunately such a camera doesn't exist.

Now, back to your questions...

Shouldn't the 40D clearly outperform the D200 in almost everything,
exept maybe construction and ergonomy?

Well, the Canons generally have less high-ISO noise, and a touch more megapixels (haven't kept up with the newest announcements, so I can't reply more accurately than that.) There's a cost though: less dynamic range, lower build quality and higher failure rates, more expensive lenses (also apparently with build quality issues), poorer focusing in low light (something you'd think they would do better given their low light sensor performance), and a flash system that many think doesn't compare to Nikon's iTTL.

Hell, most Canon shooters I've talked to shoot on center-weighted metering and compensate manually for exposure, because the evaluative is so unreliable. Matrix, at least for me, just works the vast majority of the time.

And oh, I'd prefer not to get answers by neither canon or nikon
fan-boys, I'm sick of you...

Well, I shoot with Fuji.

My perspective is as one who's been shooting film for a while, and who spent years in the darkroom. I've got around 30 images in the other room (I'm hiding from them as I need a break from framing) that are all printed at sizes from 16x16 all the way up to 30x40. Some were shot on 645 (medium format), some with 35mm, and a couple with a lowly 6 megapixel Fujifilm DSLR.

In all cases, the deciding factor in deciding which image is "best" is the image itself: lighting, composition, whether "the moment" I was looking for is there, and so on. Photography trumps equipment.

Beyond that, to my eye (and my wife's) the 6 megapixel trumps the 35mm, and the 645 trumps the digital (though the 645 shows more grain -- after all it was shot on "real" B&W film) primarily due to resolution. The 35mm looks great at 20x24 inches (the largest I chose to print from it, though I've sold 30x40's from 35mm that thrilled clients).

So let's assume that any DSLR can produce better quality than 35mm assuming you know what you're doing. That said, what kind of performance are you looking for? If it's everyday shooting and you're not making large prints then I'd say my "lowly" 6 megapixel camera has it all over Canon or Nikon due to its ability to capture a greater range of tones. And that goes double if you're shooting photos of people (and I'm a people photographer -- that's why I shoot Fuji). If you want to make large prints of landscapes then odds are eventually you'll have enough sense to shoot in optimal lighting so DR isn't as important, and overall resolution becomes more important. But even there, you're looking at minor differences that likely don't matter -- Galen Rowell was selling 40x60 inch prints from 35mm after a touch of digital processing for huge amounts of money. You can make the argument that 35mm is more than good enough, and if so, any camera you decide to choose will likely be more than good enough.

The rest is nitpickyness. If you're not printing above 16x20 then you won't notice it. Even then you'll likely only ever notice it if you've got 2 shots to compare, and in all cases all of the options are likely good enough assuming you can capture a worthy image.

Those who disagree with this sentiment are generally those who wouldn't accept any landscape shot on smaller than 4x5 film, and nowadays they're leaning toward medium format capture. IMHO they're too caught up in the technical details, but I don't want to fight over it. After all, I'm a people photographer.
--
Derek