21farms
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #10 · canon 20D and nikon D200 samples | |
khiromu, the ergonomics and user-interface on the D200 are top-notch...near perfect button placement and the button size is perfect, an outstanding LCD readout and terrific menus. however, my first few shots, i nearly freaked...bad vertical banding was apparent but it has not happened since. it has been quite the learning experience just using the nikon as EVERYTHING turns the opposite way as canons...the zoom rings, mounting/unmounting lenses. to be sure, there are niggles that bother me as well. canon rear lens caps and body caps fit together nicely and sit snug in your camera bag...nikons are loose. the zoom rings on my 17-40L and 70-200/4L are light and feathery whereas the nikon zoom rings are s-t-i-f-f. canon's charger has the integrated folding plug but the d200's requires an extra cord. oh, and the other thing i learned the hard way was that the d200 numbers the files from the beginning with every CF card by default...i mistakenly wrote over my first set of files before i realized this because i was so used to the canon's continuous numbering system.
EOS20, i'll let you know about the high ISO performance...i have some ISO1600 shots i took too but they metered differently on those and will have to re-do them. so far, the d200 highly prefers shooting in RAW whereas the 20D does very nicely even in JPEG. regarding the color, from past experience, i know my 17-40L runs on the cooler color temperature side but, still, i'd say the actual colors were between what i ended up with from both cameras. the mirror slap on the d200 is very nicely damped...it doesn't sound nearly as "mechanical" as the 20D nor is it as loud.
mcarr, i agree the canon shot looks sharper but that may be the lenses. the 17-40L is only a 2.35x whereas the nikkor 17-55DX is a 3.24x so there are less design compromises. also the 17-40L is a FF lens but the nikkor is optimized for a cropped sensor so there may be less glass at the edges? i dunno. still, at half the price of the nikkor, i'd say it does pretty well!
joesmith, i'm not really sure. the d200 manual says that some NR is *always* applied at ISO800+ but i also turned it down to 'Low' in the menu just to be safe (the default is 'normal'). and, yes, the pics were taken just minutes apart at the exact same ISO, SS, and f and i converted from RAW at only ACR's default settings.
BenM, yes, i totally agree...i don't see much difference in IQ either and am happy to use either. the 20D has been wonderful and i still love it. yet, next to the D200, it does seem to be getting long in the tooth because of the design and ergonomics.
Sam Bennett, i don't have a way to post the RAW files but i'm happy to share them with whoever wants them. the NEF is over 15mb though and i'm not sure my email program allows me to send out such a large file. any thoughts here?
joesmith, yes, the D200 seems to nail the exposure and white balance very well although i keep telling myself that the 20D is an old man in comparison.
well, i am surprised no one has asked about the viewfinder. i put on 85mm f/1.8 primes on both yesterday and repeated held up the cameras to my eye. the D200 is slightly bigger but that's about as much as i can tell...definitely not as large as i had hoped for.
|
here ya go: