I decided to purchase a d200 as I have access to some good Nikon glass and wanted to see what it was like over on the dark side
Initial impressions were really good. The camera body is the perfect size and weight in my opinion. It's not nearly as rugged as a 1D or even a d2x, but the build quality is certainly a step above the 20D. The grip is really nice and tacky though the camera doesn't feel like it fits as well in my palm like the Canon's do.
The LCDs are huge and a joy to use. It makes my 1D look very outdated. The controls were confusing for about 2 minutes but with a little fiddling I figured everything out. The help button is really nice. I've used a 1D for over a year now and still can't remember what some of the custom functions are, Canon needs to do this.
The viewfinder was ok. It's certainly a lot better than the 20D but it's step below the 1D and a d2x for that matter. The size of the viewfinder is pretty good, but you really have to press your eye against the viewfinder to see the corners. The focus points seemed nicely spaced out and the center point was really quick and accurate. The other points didn't fair as well and would hunt a lot in low light. This is to be expected I guess as I don't think they are cross sensors.
As for image quality..I'm not sure. I only shot jpeg and not a ton of pictures so I'm not making any conclusions really. The colors are certainly cooler than Canon's and have a slightly rougher feel to them. Noise is good up to ISO 400 but after that it is at least a stop behind Canon.
Finally, I didn't take to many pictures at iso 400 but I did see banding in a few normal shots and when I tested it by shooting a light in the dark ( I know, who does this!) I did see banding again. Because of this I decided to return the camera. I had to deal with banding on my 20D at 1600 and above and I could tolerate it, but I shoot iso 400 all the time and don't want to see any banding at this iso ever.
As far as which brand is better...I say who cares. Canon's feel more familar to me but I could just as easily get used to Nikons and be perfectly happy. There certainly is no point in switching over to either brand if you have a collection of lenses from the other unless you have a specific reason. If I had to start from scratch with a new system I'd pick the d200...if there was no banding
For years I was using both systems, I noticed more post-pro on the canon side. Especially on the D60, 10D, 20D, finally on a 1D there was a lot less post production. I just could never get an out of camera jpeg that was crisp, different story on the 1D, maybe it was cause it was a CCD sensor? Who knows really, canon sure made up for it in their body design, but fell short IMO, in the lens department. I was often caught using nikkors on them.
Not to bash your post, but shooting with the D200 over a 20D, 1D, was a purely pleasurable experience. Color, sharpness, speed, just smoked the canon. Noise, IMO was above and beyond better than a 20D, better than a 1D. Noise was much more film-like, and this is just one thing I always got on nikon D-SLRs. Noise patterns were much more random, and not linear like on a canon.
I'm sure others would agree with me. But you're right, who cares really? I care, I'm with the folks that have 75+ years of optical engineering.
Lovely photo, Doug! I was looking at an old photography primer published by Kodak the other day (Existing Light Photography) copyright 1984 so it as all about film.
I really loved the grainy look of those photos and am glad that Nikon seems to have a film like look at the higher ISO for existing light and really sharp at the lower ISO. I can't wait to get my D200.
Doug that's a really nice image. Great exposure. It's obvious you paid great attention to that, as it is very difficult to balance exposure correctly for darker skin tones. Nice work! I bet it would print rather well...
I agree on the noise issue... Nikon does produce more pleasant noise that is more like film grain
Well I wouldn't go that far...you can get basically the same effect with the Canon's by reducing the color noise in photoshop and I'd certainly prefer to start off with less noise overall to begin with. It looks like Nikon is doing color noise reduction in camera.
I can feel a Canon VS Nikon debate brewing though...so I'll shut up now
As far as which brand is better...I say who cares. Canon's feel more familar to me but I could just as easily get used to Nikons and be perfectly happy.
I'm with ya there Justin. I like my Nikons and am familiar with it so of course to me in particular it's better but it's biased. We can debate the merits of either for the fun of etc. but In the end either and both work so ... who cares.
For whatever reason I like my Nikons your reasons are equally valid for using Canon.
Canon's do produce better high iso shots. But Nikon's flash metering is heads and tails superior. Funny how that seems to be underplayed, yet you always hear about how great the high iso is.
Personally, the noise issue is not important to me, I shoot iso 100 at every chance, and flash when I need more light. For that, I find the Nikon way better. JMHO.
Canon's do produce better high iso shots. But Nikon's flash metering is heads and tails superior.
I completely agree on this one. My uncle has a d2x he uses for weddings and that thing is point and shoot with flash. My Canons are always acting up. It's consistent and you just learn to dial in some FEC but it isn't anywhere near as easy as the Nikon system.
You know, for those of us who are finally able to buy a more expensive camera, and who have respect for both Nikon and Canon, the buying game has become a confusing ordeal.
Nikon has been taking a beating on almost every photographic related forum I have read in the recent past few weeks for D200 banding issues. Still, the photos posted from non-defective cameras are just stunning...
Canon is debuting their 20d replacement shortly, and to be completely blunt, I am completely confused as my loyalty is simply to the better machine and glass.
Glass from Canon is amazing. Glass from Nikon is amazing. As I understand it, Nikon of today is for artists, while Canon is more about the science... however, to buy a fairly versatile lens (the 28mm-300mm "L" Lens with IS) will cost $2k+USD and the Nikon solution to versatility (17mm-200mm with VR) is $750USD... Both, I am certain would render some amazing shots, but what a hefty price to pay on the Canon side...
I began shooting with an older Nikon setup I inherited from my dad when I was 10. In the Digital world, I've shot with a 10d, a D-70, a Rebel XT, and an Oly C-8080.
I would like to ask, with all due respect, which setup really is better for different situations. Canon has always had some impressive, expensive glass and so has Nikon. The reality of expense vs. value has me wondering where the digital photography world is headed, since 2 years ago when the 300d was introduced. Quality is not something I am monetarily able to compromise.
Any help anyone can offer would be most appreciated.
Regarding the Nikon flash... I was at a party recently and had the 70-200 on the D2x, the SB 800, and was walking around shooting a few portraits. I agree that it is pretty much point and shoot w/ great color. Well way across the room a couple was heating it up on the dance floor, so I shot a few pics from what must have been 50-60 ft away. Pics were darn embarassingly detailed! I was amazed at what that flash can do.
D
We all agree both Nikon and Canon makes a good DSLR cameras and lenses.
As a starter, I had to go with a Nikon since I've read some error message on Canon EOS series after using 1 year. (Some says it's the connector of lens get's dirty and some say not.)
Anyway,,, I bought D70 with 2 good lenses and SB600 etc at such a good price. I'm also finding out lenses are so much lesser compare to Canon. Initially I was shooting with JPEG but after I start shooting with NEF (RAW), I wouldn't go back shooting with JPEG. NEF files are awesome and I just love it.
I'm still learning but this D70 is great.
surfing girl wrote:
Lovely photo, Doug! I was looking at an old photography primer published by Kodak the other day (Existing Light Photography) copyright 1984 so it as all about film.
I really loved the grainy look of those photos and am glad that Nikon seems to have a film like look at the higher ISO for existing light and really sharp at the lower ISO. I can't wait to get my D200.
Thanks, Susan.
I like the grain look, too... though I believe I would prefer the D200 over my D100.
chemprof wrote:
Doug that's a really nice image. Great exposure. It's obvious you paid great attention to that, as it is very difficult to balance exposure correctly for darker skin tones. Nice work! I bet it would print rather well...
Gerald
Thanks, Gerald.
I used autofocus and manual exposure (probably center-weighted on this image). No great attention, as I shot some 150 images during a band rehearsal. Two incandescent bulbs hanging down in the studio... definitely low light.
I don't have any reason to print it... but if the band wants to use it, I'll properly process it.
I just picked one up yesterday and I have been really pleased with the inital results.
It this crap weather we are having would ever let up I could actually go shoot something interesting.
I see I have not gone wrong with buying a D1x. I was a bit skeptical about the overall results with such an "old" tech camera.
A little ISOx work on that 3200 image and it would be even a nice large print I bet.
