rwalls3 wrote:
Man! These shots just make me want to see more. IF iso1600 is very comparable to the 20d, I'll probably switch. I know, I know, impulsive. But if I were a betting man, I would bet that canon won't match the bells and whistles (specifically the viewfinder, auto ISO, detailed battery info, iso in viewfinder, MLU, wireless firing of external flash using on board flash, time delay shooting built-in) on this thing until 2007 in a consumer body.


Do you have a money goat hidden somewhere? A switch with your current gear replaced (for a few odds and sodds other call features and I call gimmicks) will cost you in the region of $10000. Will you switch back to Canon if Nikon isn't replacing the D200 in 2 years time when it's resolution and gimmicks are found in a 4000D?
Besides the 20D has MLU, a good viewfinder - given that the area of the sensor determines the size of the image that can be used for the viewfinder isn't that much different it can either be brighter and smaller or bigger and duller. You do the maths, there is no free lunch in optics...
Detailed Batteryinfo needs to be seen in 2 years time when the $9000 (according to the Nikon Germany website) Battery is ending it's servicable life, after the Sony InfoLithium disaster (I've once had such a gadget and the batteries showed full 2 hours life when in fact they had 15 seconds to shutdown - ruining a once in a lifetime chance to film) I have no trust in such a system... The wireless transmitter for the flash doesn't cost an arm and a leg either and is by far cheaper than switching system so buy that and you'll have that problem of your chest.

charlyw wrote:
rwalls3 wrote:
Man! These shots just make me want to see more. IF iso1600 is very comparable to the 20d, I'll probably switch. I know, I know, impulsive. But if I were a betting man, I would bet that canon won't match the bells and whistles (specifically the viewfinder, auto ISO, detailed battery info, iso in viewfinder, MLU, wireless firing of external flash using on board flash, time delay shooting built-in) on this thing until 2007 in a consumer body.


Do you have a money goat hidden somewhere? A switch with your current gear replaced (for a few odds and sodds other call features and I call gimmicks) will cost you in the region of $10000. Will you switch back to Canon if Nikon isn't replacing the D200 in 2 years time when it's resolution and gimmicks are found in a 4000D?
Besides the 20D has MLU, a good viewfinder - given that the area of the sensor determines the size of the image that can be used for the viewfinder isn't that much different it can either be brighter and smaller or bigger and duller. You do the maths, there is no free lunch in optics...
Detailed Batteryinfo needs to be seen in 2 years time when the $9000 (according to the Nikon Germany website) Battery is ending it's servicable life, after the Sony InfoLithium disaster (I've once had such a gadget and the batteries showed full 2 hours life when in fact they had 15 seconds to shutdown - ruining a once in a lifetime chance to film) I have no trust in such a system... The wireless transmitter for the flash doesn't cost an arm and a leg either and is by far cheaper than switching system so buy that and you'll have that problem of your chest.



Troll?

Gerald

chemprof wrote:
Troll?

Gerald
Why am I a troll if I point out that it's quite illogical to switch a system for a single body alone. If someone had a D100 with a good lineup of lenses I wouldn't suggest going for a Canon system either as the economics of doing so aren't in the least sensible, at least not as long as the system is being serviced by the manufacturer.
IMHO the D200 finally is what the D70s should have been in the first place. It's a valid competitor to the 5D or 20D (whichever of the two) but no reason to switch from either to the Nikon system unless you only have very limited lenses, in which case I still would suggest better getting decent lenses instead of blowing your money on a switch that will in 1 or 2 years time look and sound stupid as then the next generation of cameras will have even better features...
I don't see what the D200 can do much better than the 20D and I don't see anything the 20D does much better than the D200... There are differences, as there are in philosophy of the manufacturers. So let's get realistic: The only market share that the D200 will eat into (and if it's noise performance is as good as suggested this will happen) is the D2X which isn't that much better specced than the D200.

I agree, in principle, that if all the other aspects of a system like Nikon is on par or better than another system--- and a single component that is inherently designed to be outdone within a few months by new technology momentarily surpasss your Nikon system, it is economically unwise to jump ship.

However, if you just don't care and want that 5D so bad you can taste it...then have at it. Canon is a good system. I don't like it for two reasons. I don't like the unfilmy overprocessed look of the images out of camera and the fact that I would have to learn all the little quirks and foibles of a new system.

charlyw wrote:
chemprof wrote:
Troll?

Gerald
Why am I a troll if I point out that it's quite illogical to switch a system for a single body alone. If someone had a D100 with a good lineup of lenses I wouldn't suggest going for a Canon system either as the economics of doing so aren't in the least sensible, at least not as long as the system is being serviced by the manufacturer.
IMHO the D200 finally is what the D70s should have been in the first place. It's a valid competitor to the 5D or 20D (whichever of the two) but no reason to switch from either to the Nikon system unless you only have very limited lenses, in which case I still would suggest better getting decent lenses instead of blowing your money on a switch that will in 1 or 2 years time look and sound stupid as then the next generation of cameras will have even better features...
I don't see what the D200 can do much better than the 20D and I don't see anything the 20D does much better than the D200... There are differences, as there are in philosophy of the manufacturers. So let's get realistic: The only market share that the D200 will eat into (and if it's noise performance is as good as suggested this will happen) is the D2X which isn't that much better specced than the D200.

I agree that if one has a significant investment in one system that it would be a significant mistake to switch without good reason. I also agree that Canon is a solid system that provides excellent images if one owns the right (or shall we say "some very good"?) lenses.

I do not necessarily agree that the D200 will not eat into Canon sales, nor do I agree that it will not possibly cause some users (perhaps only those with too much money?!) to switch. We will not really know until the camera is available on the market, but there are indications that this camera will be significantly better in many ways than just about anything up to double it's price... (including the fabled FF 5D).

Gerald

That D200 looks good, I like it. It's a shame it's taken so long but I guess all good things come to those who are patient

I think I might even be able to read this with out squinting.

	http://