Reading mode: Light Dark

Beginners choice - 40D vs. D200?

Go to last post
I agree that it is rather naive for people to think that the D200 was such an advanced camera when it was released that it is automatically better than a new design. Of course it will be better to some people because of the ergonomics alone. I personally HATE Canon ergonomics and it would take a really significant IQ improvement to entice me. I am not willing to miss shots to ergonomics that don't make any sense to me. Especially when some of the supposed better IQ can easily be overcome by shooting properly and processing expertise instead of relying o in camera noise reduction.

When you come in calling people fanboys you are going to get hammered. My guess is that you know that and you were, in fact, wanting to pick a fight no matter how much you deny it.

Again, please just buy Canon. It is pretty obvious that you will still show up here to try to stir people up but at least we won't have to listen to you whining about not getting the results you expected from the camera that wasn't designed for your level of expertise.

--
Ed C.
 
Automatically taking everything Canon marketing says about a camera and everything the Canon discussion board says is also being a "fanboy." Do you beat yourself up for being a Canon fanboy on pre-released products?

--
Ed C.
 
Probably the AF and CLS. Ergonomics too...

Gridlines in the viewfinder and AUTO ISO.
wmouse said:
Of course 40D.

Name one thing that D200 better than 40D.

ISO
speed
anti-dust

Everything on 40D is superior.
Click to expand...
 
drobcheck said:
So you are new to "serious" photography, want to buy a D-SLR,
consider only Nikon and Canon (where for example Pentax has a great
range of D-SLRs) and take prosumer model with a budget of 3000 usd.

Why do you want to buy a D-SLR?
Did you already came to a point where Canon S3 IS holds you back?

I was in a similar position 2 years ago. I wanted to buy a D-SLR,
because I wanted to move on with my photo skills. I had a few photo
jobs that were paid (nothing special, couple of dollars) so I had a
budget of lets say 1500 usd. I bought used Nikon D70 + 18-70 + I was
left with 250 usd (Europe is expensive, a new D200 costs here 2000usd
body only, so dont compare it to the US prices). I have spent them on
Nikkor 50/1.8 and SB-600. I never felt that D70 wouldnt satisfy my
needs. I didnt feel that neither when I sold it and bought a D80. I
did that because of 2 reasons : D70 had 35K+ shots and could fail any
time and D80 have some great features (11point AF, huuuuge
viewfinder, battery grip with shutter, ...).

Since then I realized, that a D70 would do almost the same job (ok,
not with the small viewfinder when manual focusing macro). If you are
new to D-SLR, go get some used equipment. I have nowadays over
8.000usd in equipment and still could invest at least the same before
I would consider replacing D80.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your advice. I will think twice about spending that amout of money on my first DSLR, but as i previously have mentioned; I like to have the best equipment I can affort.

Why I wan't a DSLR? IQ is the biggest reason. And a DSLR have some nice extra features these days that might come in handy.
 
There are too many nitpickers and feature mongers out there.

The differences are negligible. If you are starting from scratch then maybe I could see why you would choose the 40D. If you are already invested in my company or the other, what's the point.

For me I would chose the D200 over any Canon body, even the 1DsMIII

The ability to use AIS glass is a godsend.

--
If you have a moment, check out my site:
http://www.zotsandboo.com
 
Why do people have such a hard time picking a camera body? I wonder if they have trouble setting the clock on their VCR.

Seriously, if you can't figure what camera to purchase after reviewing the specs, reading the review and holding one in your hand then your in some trouble. Photography can be very complicated. I suggest you give up and try something less challenging. I hear paint by numbers is a lot of fun. Just remember to stay in the lines.
 
If a D80 will make a tack sharp 17" x 25" print (and it will in the proper hands), why would you need more resolution or image quality? Image quality lies with the photographer and his knowledge of his equipment, not in a camera body. This race to have the BEST is pure nonsense. Better you should spend your time studying composition, proper use of raw files, Photoshop CS3, and how to get the best from cameras designed for amateurs. If you must spend the money, spend it on GLASS which might very well make a larger difference in IQ.

Remember, photography should be FUN - unless you are a pro. Then it becomes work. Been there for 50 years.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Hi!

I think you are making a mistake by basing your choice of DSLR on minute image quality differences alone. One of the most important things about a camera is how it feels in your hands and how it handles.

So I would recommend to go to the shop and have a look at all the cameras in your price range (or maybe wait until the 40D is available). Try a few shots, see how responsive it is, how the AF works, how you like the viewfinder, how it balances in your hand.

Then think what kind of photography you would like to do and see what lenses are available in the system you liked the best.

IQ differences due to your handling of the files will probably be bigger than differences between cameras.

Hope that helps

Best regards

Joachim Wabnig
 
Ed_C said:
I agree that it is rather naive for people to think that the D200 was such an > advanced camera when it was released that it is automatically better than a new > design. Of course it will be better to some people because of the ergonomics > alone. I personally HATE Canon ergonomics and it would take a really significant > IQ improvement to entice me. I am not willing to miss shots to ergonomics that > Adon't make any sense to me. Especially when some of the supposed better IQ > can easily be overcome by shooting properly and processing expertise instead of > relying o in camera noise reduction.

When you come in calling people fanboys you are going to get hammered. My > guess is that you know that and you were, in fact, wanting to pick a fight no > matter how much you deny it.

Again, please just buy Canon. It is pretty obvious that you will still show up here > to try to stir people up but at least we won't have to listen to you whining > about not getting the results you expected from the camera that wasn't > designed for your level of expertise.
Click to expand...
Ed_C said:
Automatically taking everything Canon marketing says about a camera
and everything the Canon discussion board says is also being a
"fanboy." Do you beat yourself up for being a Canon fanboy on
pre-released products?
Click to expand...
Yep, I knew I would get hammered a bit, but I dont think thats what I wanted. Sure, I'm not affraid of conflicts and I'm not shy of criticizing people, but I dont do it if it doesn't serve a purpose.

I don't se myself as a fanboy. At first I was going to go for the D200, then I had a change of mind and was planning to go for the 30D. And I dont think that it is "fanboy'ism" to be exited and have high expectations when one of the two giant are releasing a new camera.

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.
 
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.
 
Well reading the specs, Canon now has Auto-ISO up to 800 (not as good as Nikon), but the AF is 9 sensors all 'cross-type'. The D200 has only 1 cross type sensor, so it's likely the 40D is going to do better as far as AF. CLS is a Nikon strong point......I agree.
FoolyCooly said:
Probably the AF and CLS. Ergonomics too...

Gridlines in the viewfinder and AUTO ISO.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.southfloridapics.com
 
I hope the D300 will be released soon and that it will suit my needs (ok, my wants) even better than the 40D.

As I said, I like the ergonomics and construction of the D200, and I't would be nice to have that too.
 
Carl A Barr said:
But really like 30.000 swedish crowns, but with tax and all, I guess
its like 3000 dollars approx.
Click to expand...
If that's your total budget, combined with the fact that you have never owned a DSLR before, I think you'd be better off buying a cheaper body, and spending more on the lenses. I spent about $3000 on lenses alone when I initially bought my D200. You also have to consider the external flash, extra batteries, maybe battery grip, Memory cards, flash bracket... etc. If you spend around $1500 on the body alone with that total budget, you're going to be kind of limited lens wise.
 
I think this time 40d is really a challenge to the 2-year-old D200. But to me, D200 still have some edges over 40d in some aspects.

First is the 2% spot metering that associates with AF points. Canon's has a 3.5% spot metering stick to the center.

Second is the user menus. D200 has four custom banks and one user-define menu, which is very handy. 40d's should be much similar to that of 1d Mark III.

Finally D200 has many buttons outside, much more than 40d actually. MLU, AE-L, af-on, ..., all are very handy. 40d is close to it, but not that close.

I don't know about IQ. But for high ISO scenarios we should assume 40d is better than Rebel XTi and Rebel XTi is on par, if not significantly better, than Nikon equivalents.

40d is really a good camera.
Carl A Barr said:
Hi, I have planned to buy my first dSLR for a while and have
previously had a hard time choosing between 30D and D200. I thought
that it was like choosing between best IQ (High ISO) vs. best
functions/construction, but now that 40D is out, it fells like that
really should have everything I want and to even consider the D200 is
out of the question for me.

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?

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

And oh, I'd prefer not to get answers by neither canon or nikon
fan-boys, I'm sick of you...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top