Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Emersonp on March 26, 2006, 10:03:01 am
-
First of all, I'm a newbie; so pardon my innocence.
This is going to be my first DSLR purchase. I'm a beginner enthusiast and am looking for a great camera to grow in. I would most be interested in taking the following pictures: land/sky- scapes, sports, wildlife, portraits, and macros.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get this sense that Canon and Nikon users feel very 'critical' (to say the least) about each other's equipment. I would like to get your opinion on the contrasting Pros & Cons of owning a Canon 30D or a Nikon D200. Also, I would like to get your thoughts on the lenses, performance, hardiness (weatherproof?) between the two.
Lastly, I can't sort out the lens nomenclature for Nikon.
Thank you so much. I would truly appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Emerson
-
First of all, I'm a newbie; so pardon my innocence.
This is going to be my first DSLR purchase. I'm a beginner enthusiast and am looking for a great camera to grow in. I would most be interested in taking the following pictures: land/sky- scapes, sports, wildlife, portraits, and macros.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get this sense that Canon and Nikon users feel very 'critical' (to say the least) about each other's equipment. I would like to get your opinion on the contrasting Pros & Cons of owning a Canon 30D or a Nikon D200. Also, I would like to get your thoughts on the lenses, performance, hardiness (weatherproof?) between the two.
Lastly, I can't sort out the lens nomenclature for Nikon.
Thank you so much. I would truly appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Emerson
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am very commited to the Canon system because they got me started with the Digital Rebel. Currently I own a 20D and a 5D with a collection of expensive Canon glass (which keeps me tethered to the Canon system). I view the 30D as being very similar to the 20D.
Having said that, and contrary to your expectations of brand loyalty, if I were in your shoes I would go for the Nikon D200. The only caveat would be the sense of comfort you feel when you hold the camera - you need to assure your level of comfort. I have worked along side of a few D200 photographers and have a great appreciation for the camera as a cohesive whole. Based on my perception, I feel that the Nikon offering is a higher-quality build and and delivers equivelent images.
-
Lastly, I can't sort out the lens nomenclature for Nikon.
Thank you so much. I would truly appreciate the feedback.
Best,
Emerson
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=61043\")
A few to get you started
[a href=\"http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/index.htm]http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/compa...urces/index.htm[/url]
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
http://www.bythom.com/index.htm (http://www.bythom.com/index.htm)
This will help in the Nikon world. The mir site also covers Canon.
Bob
-
I've got to agree with Bob. However the 30D is quite a bit cheaper and is certainly in the same class as the D200.
Everyone makes good lenses these days. (The Nikon 18-200 vr looks like the coolest vacation lens ever made.)
One thing to note is that Nikon has made no indication that they will produce a 35mm equiv camera. So if you want to go full frame in the future (and not do a complete lens swap at the time) you might want to go with canon now.
I would get the D200 unless the price difference forced me to go cheap on my lenses. (In which case I would get a 20D used.)
-
Emerson,
I wonder if it is fair to decide between Nikon and Canon, using camera bodies as the basis for comparison. It seems to me that lenses are what really matter. If boku and DarkPenguin were starting fresh -- with insurance money provided after a fire, theft or other catastrophe -- what would the decision be? To me, that’s what matters.
In thinking about the various cameras I have owned, the only ones whose capabilities I can say I even came close to exploiting were a Kodak Signet 35, the Canon FTb, and maybe my Olympus XA. All are basic, straight ahead boxes that do the job. To paraphrase a sexist joke, a camera body is nothing more that a life support system for a lens. Some look better than others, cost [a lot] more, and do little tricks way beyond the average, ordinary FTb. In the final analysis, the lens is what counts.
The D200 may very well be superior to the 30D. Today. The next release of either company may reverse that fact. I am comfortable with my collection of expensive Canon glass, as I am sure boku and DarkPenguin are with theirs.
Consider your needs in terms of lenses. Does Nikon offer something you need that Canon doesn’t? Is a tilt/shift lens in your future? The answers to questions like these should have more to do with your decision than the relative merits of two camera bodies that will someday be distant memories.
Boku, I read every word you post on this forum. People like you are a big part of what makes LL the valuable resource that it is. You are welcome in my home at any time. But, just this one time, I think you are a little off the mark.
DarkPenguin, the points you add regarding full frame and cost differences are valid. I differ with you where you agree with boku. Praise for boku applies to you, as well.
Richard
-
Before I give my speil, I must say that I have no hands on experiance with either camera, just what I've read or heard and my own conclusions.
That being said, you mentioned that you might want to shoot sports. Sporting events are often shot in venues with very poor lighting, or, at best, barely minimal lighting. From what I have read, and I'm especially thinking of something writen on Rob Galbraith by the publishers, the D200 is said to have worse noise than the equivalent canon at high ISOs. This would translate into decreased image quality in such situations. One of the reasons I went with canon gear was seeing that difference myself between the two cameras I was using at that time from each company.
That being said, I think the D200 is one attractive camera as well as the 30D, and I really doubt that you could go wrong with either.
-
Boku, I read every word you post on this forum. People like you are a big part of what makes LL the valuable resource that it is. You are welcome in my home at any time. But, just this one time, I think you are a little off the mark.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You response makes sense. I'm not sure that what I wrote is in any way contradictory. We are describing different dimensions of the solution.
It has to be said - my collection of lenses has equivelents in the Nikon lineup. I know that each manufacturer has some unique offerings, but these do not affect me because of my needs. (Except for, I lust for a imaginary Canon 200-400 f/4 IS - Nikon offers one.)
My point is this - either camera can generate equivalent quality images. From what my eyes and hands tell me the Nikon body has more "finish" (but that really doesn't matter except for putting a smile on your face). I was under the assumption the 30D and D200 were about $100-$200 apart - that shouldn't be the deciding factor.
If you have glass - like me - its a no brainer - stay with what you have. If you need special glass that only one offers - your choice is again obvious. If you are starting out and you can get the glass you need from either Canon or Nikon, I'd go for Nikon. If you think full frame is in your future, I'd avoid the whole APS-C thing now and go directly to the 5D. I spent a bundle switching from the 20D to 5D - the only lens I reused was the 17-40. The 1.6 factor makes quite a difference. Might as well pony up right out of the gate.
-
If I were you, I'd wait for the DPreview review of the 30D.
That will provide a first level of objective information on the body. Most of us assume that it is basically a 20D with only minor modifications, but there might be plus or minus that the spec sheet doesn't really reveal.
This being said, my personnal view is that the D200 is probably significantly more camera for not that much more money.
High iso noise is probably the only area where the 30D is a bit ahead, the rest, including the DX lens line up, is IMHO in favour of the Nikon. Nikon does also have a clear commitment to the DX format, that will help preserve the value of your investement in lenses in the coming years.
In case you haven't read it yet, the Thom's review of the D200 is interesting:
http://www.bythom.com/d200review.htm (http://www.bythom.com/d200review.htm)
Regards,
Bernard
-
I'm in the Nikon system, but I don't think it makes a lot of difference unless you have some specific interests that might weigh more heavily toward one side or the other. For example, if you think you might shoot architecture, I'd go with the Canon for a better range of shift lenses. If you think you might do wildlife, I'd go with Nikon for the 1.5 lens factor. High school basketball, probably the Canon for high ISO; lots of flash work, maybe the Nikon because of the great flash system. So, there are differences, but for most people, I think there are more differences perceived in Internet forums than in photographs. IMHO, of course.
JC
-
Take a look at http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=419 (http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=419) for an interesting comparative review.
-
One thing to note is that Nikon has made no indication that they will produce a 35mm equiv camera. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, Nikon has given every indication that they are going to design all their DSLR bodies in the DX format, ensuring development of a full range of lenses up to their highest quality specifically adapted to the needs of DX format cameras like the D200.
On the other hand, Canon has indicated that their highest level offerings will continue to be 35mm format bodies and EF lenses, so their is more risk that Canon will not develop a full range of high quality lenses adapted to the needs of EF-S format cameras like the 30D. Normal to telephoto 35mm format EF lenses will work fine on the 30D, but the risk is that there will limited high quality EF-S lens options for the shorter focal lengths. One example is the lack of an EF-S 180º fisheye; a 35mm format fisheye loses its 180º coverage on the 30D.
However, the new Canon 17-55/2.8 IS mitigates this concern; Canon seems to be pushing EF-S format at least to a quite advanced amateur level, even if they so far refuse to use the adjective "professional" for EF-S products, or to put the "L" label on any EF-S lens.
Nikon's single-minded commitment to DX format seems to offer a clear advantage of likely forward compatibility and future support for the purchaser of a DX format body or lenses, compared to Canon's more equivocal attitude to EF-S.
-
I have to agree with BL on the lens issue. Canon frustrates me in the regard. (OT, but does anyone know when reviews of those 17-55's should start showing up?)
-
Hello Emerson,
Looks like quite a lot of ink has been spilt in trying to answer your question.
I feel very much in Bob's shoes, insofar as I have been a Canon shooter for the last 10 years, through Film to Digital. Were I to start afresh and had to chose between the 30D and the D200, I would go for the latter. As a Camera BODY the Nikon definately has the edge. A much more pro level camera for the bucks (it even competes against it's own big brother, the D2X!!!). Nikon have listened to what (some) photographers want and have loaded this camera with features that will keep you busy for quite a few years. The 30D camera is instead a minor upgrade, and you can expect a better camera in 18 months.. not that much better, but a step up from what it is today. In that sense Canon = Windows.. ugrade often. Nikon = Apple.. Your investment will last longer. This is a generalisation, forumdwellers. It's made as an example, not to step on anyone's toes! So keep your replies in kind please.
Lenswise... Both Nikon and Canon make great lenses, and each have their own top notch lenses. Case in point is the 200-400 VR f4 Nikon which must be a dream to shoot. Canon has it's straight IS telephotos which are also superb. On a more practical level the 18-200 VR Nikon is (to paraphrase another post) an excellent all-round lens. If you just buy one lens, go for that.
There is of course the FF vs reduced frame debate.. But I would avoid it if I were you. In Canon turf there is an offering for every concievable consumer.. and you'll find yourself upgrading often as you outgrow your photographic needs. Nikon's philosophy is to pack their bodies with as much stuff as possible.. so you have room to grow and don't have to trade in your camera after 18 months. With Nikon patience and well though out camera ergonomics is the name of the game. If you feel that you are an "upgrade junky" with other things in your life (think stereos, walkmen, cars etc) then rather go for the Canon. There WILL be a better product in 12-18 months, which you will want to buy...
If appreciate upfront quality and durability then go for the Nikon.
If you are a PHOTOGRAPHER then either machine and lenses will be quite adequate for taking pictures.
-
DPreview has just released a very positive review of the Canon 30D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/)
Regards,
Bernard
-
It's hard to go wrong with either system. I know Nikon guys who are would like to see VR on their 500mm and 600mm lenses like Canon has done. I know Canon guys whose tongues hang out and they start panting when they see a Nikon 200-400 VR lens.
Nikon also has done some great things with remote flash systems. I know many people don't value the flash system as highly as the lens system, but light is still the way we record images on the digital sensor or the film.
-
First of all, I'm a newbie; so pardon my innocence.Emerson
Only the guilty need to be pardoned - you have no worries ;D
This is going to be my first DSLR purchase. I'm a beginner enthusiast and am looking for a great camera to grow in. I would most be interested in taking the following pictures: land/sky- scapes, sports, wildlife, portraits, and macros.
That's a pretty broad palette!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get this sense that Canon and Nikon users feel very 'critical' (to say the least) about each other's equipment.
I don't think the term "very critical" is called for here.. No, I think "maniacally malevolent" is more appropriate
Example: I am going to take my camera , and maniacally malevolent your head with it until you are dead".
I would like to get your opinion on the contrasting Pros & Cons of owning a Canon 30D or a Nikon D200. Also, I would like to get your thoughts on the lenses, performance, hardiness (weatherproof?) between the two.
OK - here goes. I would like to respectfully disagree with many of the opinions put forth by the previous good-willed posters. This will just show to go you that an informed, rational decision is impossible in these matters.
Some points:
1) As a newbie, you can't walk up to a sales counter and try out different DSLR bodies, and make any kind of intelligent decisions about whether one "feels better" than the other one or not, or will one camera be easier to use. You don't yet know how to use one, so how would you know?
2) What you CAN feel is the relative solidity, size, bulk, and weight of these cameras. I will go out on a limb and predict that - at least if you are like me - you will come away with the conclusion that both the D200 and the 30D are built like Sherman tanks.
And this should give you insight into the validity of all the posts you will no doubt read claiming that one camera is built so much better then another. Both ergonomic designs have their advocates, and you will get used to whichever one you buy in short time, and will therefore despise the other camera forever, because it doesn't "feel" right. Just so you know.
3) While what we really spend money on, and what we keep in our bags forever are our lenses, tis true - digital camera bodies are not anymore just interchangeable boxes. The sensors and computers inside make a pretty big difference in how the pictures look, and to some extent, even what kinds of photographs you can take.
=> Fair disclosure - I have a Canon system. I am definately biased. The 20D I have was my first sophisticated camera, and I was torn between it and the D70. If deciding today versus the D200, my decision, however, would be the same - but that's just me. Here's why I went the way I did:
4) The Canon CMOS sensor and accompanying processor flat out produces less noise while still retaining fine detail at all ISO levels above 100 compared to the Nikon system, although both work identically well at ISO 100. The difference in noise/suppressed detail gets greater as ISO goes up. This is either a crises or a trivial matter, depending on which brand of camera you own
This was important to me , and judging from the genres of photography you listed, just might be important to you, ie landscapes, skyscapes; sports; wildlife.
Yes - even landscapes, as there will be times when you want to take a hand-held ISO 800 landscape, with fine detail, and print it at large size. (Also, Tilt-shift lenses, available from Canon, are a huge sophistication and advantage for your landscape photography.)
Skyscapes, and especially, long-exposure night-time and astrophotography, are a situation where the CMOS sensor is an absolute blessing, if not a necessity.
Low-light sports is another common situation where higher ISO performance is much appreciated, as is wildlife shooting.
Add to all of this the fact that the lens selection of the Canon system is quite a bit larger than the Nikon.
My conclusion was that these were all advantages for Canon, and that Nikon offered no counterbalance, as far as inherent image quality potential. All I heard was "FUD". Arguments spreading "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" that the Canon advantages were actually advantages you really needed.
However, what the D200 does give you is a fair amount of electronic features that the 30D lacks. I especially like the exposure bracketing flexibilty, the built-in wireless flash controller. Those are REALLY useful features that require extra money or a work-around on the 30D.
The D200 gives you weathersealing as well, although to be fair, not all the camera is sealed and it is not promoted as fully sealed. Better than the 30D, though.
5) There is something to be said for buying into the camera company with the best R&D, supply line, and product breadth as well. Canon develops and manufactures their own sensors.
Nikon has them made out of house, by companies now about to compete with them head to head in the DSLR marketplace. While they claim to have settled on a single sensor size - eschewing the larger full-frame size with its inherent advantages (some drawbacks) and potentials - they still haven't even settled on a sensor technology, as they go back and forth between CCD and CMOS. This is a tad troubling to me.
6) Full-frame.
I am about to move up to a 5D, while keeping my 20D as a backup. All my lenses will work on both cameras. The larger sensor on the 5D has a lot of advantages over the smaller sensor in the 20D. And, down the road, the potential for image quality upgrades is likely to come only with larger format sensors. One has to question whether 'tis wise to invest in APS-size only lenses, or a sensor size whose potential for image-quality improvement is limited by physics, not human imagination.
7) Performance
Man I can not tell if one of these cams is better than another! I read some professional reviewers say one thing, others the opposite, and the same goes for owners. The 30D seems a slightly better focuser than the 20D, and now has a spot meter. The D200 has a smaller spot meter, and some sportier metering modes. Time will tell, I guess.
All that said, the NikonD200 and Nikon system may be perfect for you. The D200 takes darn good pictures . Really good pictures.
What counts is how much you enjoy taking the photos you take, and how they come out. I hope my absolutely biased perspective at least offers something fresh for you to ponder. Good luck with your purchase!
Gingerbaker
-
OK - here goes. I would like to respectfully disagree with many of the opinions put forth by the previous good-willed posters. This will just show to go you that an informed, rational decision is impossible in these matters.
Gingerbaker
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose one has to go into these buying situations with a bit of Blind Faith?
-
I suppose one has to go into these buying situations with a bit of Blind Faith?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OUCH!! Good one, though.
I live in Vermont, home of Magic Hat Beer. One of their best is, you guessed it - "Blind Faith". Definately recommend some serious Blind Faith contemplative ruminationaryisms on the D200 - 30D thing. Eventually, the .... Cream will rise to the top? ............
.........................................
...................................
(crickets)
-
For landscapes and macro work, Canon has a clear advantage. Their TS-E lenses help you get the entire subject into sharp focus, rather than just a plane parallel to the sensor in focus. And when used with extension tubes, you have much more control over the shallow depth of field available at high magnifications by tilting the lens.
Nikon makes only one lens with tilts, the 85mm. Canon makes three, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm.
-
Thanks for pointing that out, Peter. I corrected my post.
-
Add to all of this the fact that the lens selection of the Canon system is quite a bit larger than the Nikon.
5) ... Canon develops and manufactures their own sensors.
Nikon has them made out of house
6) Full-frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some comments.
a. the question is about the 30D and D300, neither of which is full frame, and Canon's 35mm format DSLR are way out of this price range, so frankly, item 6 is irrelevant. As irrelevant at the fact that Pentax makes MF camera is to choosing a 35mm film camera or "APS-C" format DSLR.
b. It makes no sense to compare lens systems by sheer numbers, or to compare lens systems designed for one format (35mm) when choosing a camera for another format. For example, Canon and Nikon's offerings of 24-something and 28-something zooms for 35mm format are far less importance than their offerings of EF-S and DX format lenses, where Nikon arguably has parity or a lead.
[Added later. I would suggest instead looking at the lens options for the D200 and 30D, deciding which of those lenses one is interested in now or in the foreseeable future, and judging which system better fits those needs.]
[Added later.
c. Sensor outsourcing is not nearly the disadvantage that some people make it out to be. For example, in the compact digicam market, Canon outsources all sensors, mostly from direct competitor Sony, and I have seen no suggestion that this is a disadvantage of Canon in comparison to digicam makers like Sony, Kodak, Fuji or Panasonic, who make some or all of their own digicam sensors.]
-
Some comments.
a) the question is about the 30D and D300, neither of which is full frame, and Canon's 35mm oramt DSLR are way out of this price range, so frankly, item 6 is irrelevant. AS irrelevant at te fact that Pentax makes MF camera s to choosig a 35mm film camera or "APS-C" format DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I respectfully disagree, BJL. One of the consequences of opting for the D200, is that the first-time purchaser has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the option of full-frame format digital photography. Nikon has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of making anything but reduced-sized sensor DSLR's.
The purchaser can then buy DX lenses, engineered,sized, and priced to work for full-frame sensors yet now destined to spend life on a reduced sensor camera. Or, the purchaser can buy smaller, less expensive EF-S lenses, which will never work on a full-frame camera.
However, since Canon offers both full- and reduced -frame formats, the first-time purchaser can keep his options open. Knowing that he may want to move to full-frame someday - perhaps some day soon, as real prices of the 5D are only now $800 more than the D200 - he can purchase lenses for his 30D that will work perfectly on his full-frame camera.
If you think you may want to go full-frame someday, you only need to buy your kit once if you go with Canon.
It makes no sense to compare lens systems by sheer numbers, or to compare lens sysems dsigne for one format (35mm) when choosing a camera for another format. For example Canon and Nikon's offerings of 24-something and 28-something zooms for 35mm format are far less importance than their offerings of EF-S and DX format lenses, whr Nikon arguably has a lead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think I addressed part of your well-taken point here above. While Nikon does have a lead in efs lens offerings, that lead is shrinking, as Canon came out with some new efs lenses just recently.
But Canon is also coming out with new non-efs sized lenses, for its full-frame digital, for its reduced frame digital, and, I suppose film (did I just say film?) cameras. These lenses work on all of its cameras - think of the shattering harmonic beauty! ;D
Does Nikon have much, if any, impetus to develop new non-efs lenses?
If not - then I would contend they are painting themselves into a technological corner, as the aps-sized sensor is about at its theoretical technological image quality limit.
If they do - which I suspect - it means that they will indeed come out with a full-frame DSLR as soon as they can, despite their current protestations to the contrary.
And finally, I stand by my assertion that more lenses in the line up is better than less. How can choice be bad?
-
I respectfully disagree, BJL. One of the consequences of opting for the D200, is that the first-time purchaser has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the option of full-frame format digital photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only to the same extent that a purchaser of 35mm format (film or digital) "eliminates" the option of changing to a larger format like 645 medium format. In each case, the evidence suggests that only a very small fraction of SLR buyers will feel much need to change to a larger format, and the few who do can do so by trading in.
It would make little sense to hamper a choice of 35mm system by choosing a brand (Pentax) that also offer medium format and using mostly or entirely medium format lenses, just to prepare for the small probability of wanting to change format later. It likewise make no sense to me (or to the vast majority of DSLR buyers why are buying EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such lenses) to hamper current choices and performance in order to prepare for that remote and unlikely change.
Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats, as surely as medium format became in the '60's as 35mm film format SLR's took over.
-
... the aps-sized sensor is about at its theoretical technological image quality limit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you have any evidence for this claim that DX format is about to hit it theoretical limits (while 35mm format has room for significant further progress, apparently), or is this simply rehashed from the credo of the cult of "35mm film format will prevail in digital despite its current 3% market share"? When I first heard this pessimistic claim, DX was at the D100 and D1X: it has made considerable progress since then.
-
......the evidence suggests that only a very small fraction of SLR buyers will feel much need to change to a larger format, and the few who do can do so by trading in.....
(snip)
...It likewise make no sense to me (or to the vast majority of DSLR buyers why are buying EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such lenses) to hamper current choices and performance in order to prepare for that remote and unlikely change.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right now onecall.com is reporting a 3 to 6-week backorder on the Canon 5D due to the recent $300 rebate on the camera. I daresay nearly all of these buyers are moving up, not down the digital food chain.
I myself will soon augment my 20D with a 5D. My lens purchase decisions for my 20D were predicated on the eventual availability of affordable full-frame DSLR's. To my delight, that day has arrived sooner than expected.
Please, tell me how my purchase of my Canon 24-70L and my Sigma 12-24, instead of the efs equivalents has "hampered my choices or the performance" of my camera systems? What hampers my camera systems is my incredible ineptitude and near complete lack of artistic sensibility! ;D
Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats..... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To quote the owner of this site on this very subject:
" As I've written before – no one asked for smaller image sensors. Please sir – could I have a smaller negative? They were adopted by camera makers because larger sensors are much more expensive to make."
Today, the difference in cost between the 5D and the D200 is barely more than the difference in cost between the D200 and the Canon 30D. The scuttlebutt is that Canon may even introduce a lesser and cheaper version of the 5D at the exact price level of the D200.
Go to the dpreview Nikon D200 forum. You will find thread after thread of Nikonians venting their disappointment that Nikon refuses to introduce a full-frame alternative.
Full-frame a "niche format"? Perhaps not for long.
-
Do you have any evidence for this claim that DX format is about to hit it theoretical limits (while 35mm format has room for significant further progress, apparently), or is this simply rehashed from the credo of the cult of "35mm film format will prevail in digital despite its current 3% market share"? When I first heard this pessimistic claim, DX was at the D100 and D1X: it has made considerable progress since then.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=62848\")
This is a good article that explains it better then I can
[a href=\"http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html]http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html[/url]
-
The one point to take from a D30 vs D200 comparison is that we should be moving beyond a pure comparison of technical specifications to one of total solution - i.e. both the equipment and the service that sits behind it.
Perhaps as important as which is the better camera is which company provides the best service (and I tend to fall into the camp that believes that both cameras will meet 90% of the requirements of 90% of photographers and the remaining photographers will know what they need to get the other 10% of photos that can't be caught with these two camears).
Service needs to be:
1/ Pre-sales support = Either 'on the web' or 'in-store' information to evaluate whether either camera meets the customers requirements.
2/ Knowledgeable in store staff to advise the customer on which camera, lenses and accessories.
3/ Out of box experience - Does the box contain all hardware, software, etc to get the customer using the camera as quickly as possible...how does either Nikon or Canon compare with Apple for ease of use - both companies have some way to go with respect to ergonomics and usability. How good is either company at providing manuals and training on how to use the camera effectively - Digital is bringing in a lot of new photographers, surely there needs to be in the box training material (or pointers to training courses to get people taking better pictures).
4/ Post sales support - Something, somewhere is going to go wrong sometime. How good is either Nikon or Canon at resolving customer issues? Providing firmware updates? Resolving queries and fixing customer equipment faults?
I sometimes feel that the discussion forums focus too much on trading off equipment and not looking at the overall solution. Top companies are those that provide best overall customer experience - and neither Canon or Nikon can lay claim to being best in class yet.
-
This is a good article that explains it better then I can
http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html (http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I asked for _evidence_, not the speculations of another 35mm die-hard like Bob Atkins. The evidence I see includes
1. a small and shrinking DSLR market share for 35mm format as the smaller DSLR formats experience far larger sales growth: about 3% now, far less than in the early days of the 1Ds and 14n.
2. a price gap of around US$2,000 that has not come down much in the almost four years since the 1Ds and 14n were announced.
If Atkins' "bigger formats will prevail" argument worked, medium format would have taken over from 35mm format film rather than the other way around. The basic flaw of all such arguments is ignoring or denying the advantages of smaller formats, such as size, weight and cost, advantages which have driven shifts in market dominance from 8x10" format to 4"x5" format to medium format to 35mm format, and now to APS-C and smaller digital formats. History shows that as image quality improves at any given format, an increasing proportion of photographers opt for the advantages of a smaller format.
Likewise for Michael Reichmann's "Please sir – could I have a smaller negative?": that is _exactly_ what a great proportion of photographers asked for when they started buying 35mm gear instead of the previously dominant medium format, particularly in the late 1950's and 1960's, once SLR's like the Nikon F came along.
-
Please, tell me how my purchase of my Canon 24-70L and my Sigma 12-24, instead of the efs equivalents has "hampered my choices or the performance" of my camera systems?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My comment was about someone choosing lenses for use with a 30D or D200, not with a 5D. I leave it for you to work out the disadvantages of a standard zoom with wide angle coverage limited to "37mm equivalent", when the alternatives include the Canon or Nikon 17-55/2.8 lenses.
The scuttlebutt is that Canon may even introduce a lesser and cheaper version of the 5D at the exact price level of the D200.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the wishful thinking anyway: again, do you have any evidence for this? Such a cost reduction seems unlikely, partly because Canon states on their website that their 24x36mm sensors require a more expensive "double exposure" process, as no stepper is capable of making them with the usual single exposure, which can be done for DX and smaller sensors. And would the cost cutting in this "lesser" version include a frame rate even slower than 3fps while the 30D and D200 do 5fps? Or even less environmental sealing, already an advantage of the D200 over the 5D?
-
re physics of pixils size, noise, diffraction:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/ (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/)
upshot is apc-s size sensors have about reached their limit as far as number of decent-sized photoreceptors allowing low noise.
-
The Tyranny of choice...
In a previous post someone mentioned the advantage of Canon's wide choice of lenses.. Well, have a read of this article and see if maybe you change your mind a bit.
http://www.godspy.com/culture/tyranny_of_choice.cfm (http://www.godspy.com/culture/tyranny_of_choice.cfm)
Choice is marketer's way of making us buy more, spend more, own more and upgrade more. It is not necessarily a good thing. Though Canon has a wider lens selection than Nikon, the important focal lenghts are all represented by Nikon. Even Minolta with it's relatively meager selection has some wonderful lenses. So the lens selection is a false promise in my book.
I know a friend who ever since he moved from Nikon to canon is absolutely obsessed by lenses. In the space of a few months he's bouthg 5 L lenses, and talks of buying more.. My view is that he'll be spending more time changing lenses than actually shooting.
-
Hi jd1566
That's an interesting article!
Not sure it exactly buttresses your argument that the wider Canon lineup instigates too much lens buying, though. The article says too much choice may stymie purchasing:
"Shoppers who confront a display of 30 jams or varieties of gourmet chocolate are less likely to purchase any than when they encounter a display of six."
"The more funds employers offer their employees in 401(k) retirement plans, the less likely the employees are to invest in any, even though in many cases, failing to do so costs them employer-matching funds of up to several thousand dollars a year."
On the other hand, the article describes "maximizers" - those who want the optimum result from their decisions - [or perhaps their lenses?] - as:
"When maximizers, as opposed to satisficers, go shopping for big items or small ones, they spend more time looking, have a harder time deciding, look around more at what others are buying, and are less satisfied with their purchases."
Boy, if that doesn't describe the dpreview forums, I don't know what does!!
-
5) There is something to be said for buying into the camera company with the best R&D, supply line, and product breadth as well. Canon develops and manufactures their own sensors.
Nikon has them made out of house, by companies now about to compete with them head to head in the DSLR marketplace. While they claim to have settled on a single sensor size - eschewing the larger full-frame size with its inherent advantages (some drawbacks) and potentials - they still haven't even settled on a sensor technology, as they go back and forth between CCD and CMOS. This is a tad troubling to me.
Gingerbaker
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In a category of inmature technology with a high velocity of change, betting on one technology is often a road to ruin.
Canon has been correct so far and has build an lead. But Canon doesn't have a lock on promising technology. In labs all around the world, scientist and engineers are working feverishly to top the current technology. Keeping ones options open can avoid getting trapped by a single technology. I see that as what Nikon is doing. Their last 4 camera's all had different chip designs, yet they all worked well enough. I have noticed that they get the new chips from (Sony,etc.) before the rest of the camera (non-Canon) industry. That is a strength of being a long term market leader with an broad array of lenses and accessories.
I see Canon, potentially more at risk being wedded to one technology.
Bob
-
In a category of inmature technology with a high velocity of change, betting on one technology is often a road to ruin.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon has put CCD sensors in its high-end cameras until quite recently.
Canon has been correct so far and has build an lead. But Canon doesn't have a lock on promising technology. In labs all around the world, scientist and engineers are working feverishly to top the current technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are these the same scientists who are working feverishly to make my underarm deoderant work harder as my stress level goes up? ;D
Keeping ones options open can avoid getting trapped by a single technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you have an insiders view of what happens deep in the bowels of the super-secret Canon R&D facility, hidden miles deep below Mt Fuji, behind vanadium-plasma-enriched steel doors ten-feet thick?
I see that as what Nikon is doing. Their last 4 camera's all had different chip designs, yet they all worked well enough. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Another interpretation might be that they are flailing about in hopes of finding something that will work better than the last incarnation they were sold on by the previous sensor manufacturer they had their last contract with. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;D
I have noticed that they get the new chips from (Sony,etc.) before the rest of the camera (non-Canon) industry. That is a strength of being a long term market leader with an broad array of lenses and accessories.
I see Canon, potentially more at risk being wedded to one technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why? Surely, if and when another company produces the MostStupendouslyAdvancedSensorEverSeen, they can sell it to Canon just as easily as to Nikon?
-
Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats, as surely as medium format became in the '60's as 35mm film format SLR's took over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Before the Canon 5D, 35mm (full-frame) digital was "niche". You needed two things to enter the club:
1) Huge money - a 1D series Canon would run $5000-$8000+
2) Huge forearms - these full-frame cameras are huge and heavy
=> these entry criteria are true no longer.
The 5D is the same size or smaller than the D200, and only marginally more expensive.
It looks, and more importantly, it operates and handles just like a 30D or 20D.
Your analogy of comparing Canon's full-frame offerings as being as different as a medium format camera is to a 35mm film camera are off base, I think.
Todays medium format camera, especially a digital medium format, is a totally different beast from any DSLR. Way more expensive, way more complex, way more technically challenging to use, and very different in form and function.
The 5D, on the other hand, can be picked up and used immediately by anyone with experience using a Canon 30D or lesser DSLR.
BJL, You used the somewhat demeaning phrase "Get over it", above. It seems to me you are very defensive on this issue of full-frame and Nikon.
-
Something I posted on the Nikonians D200 forum, on a similar topic:
At the level of the D200 and 5D (and likely the D30), it's not the tool....it's the "tool" behind the tool that makes the difference. Most cameras in this class are better than the photographers that own them. Many of the posts on Nikonians and other forums would attest to that.
Check out my "Lion about D200 Sharpness" thread. It might help dispell some of the incorrect opinions bandied about here about D200 sharpness. More to come on high ISO noise when I get a moment later this week as well.
Ignore the pixel-peepers....since most of them couldn't take a good picture with a Haselblad with a 39megapixel back if their life depended on it.
Do your homework.....go to a good pro-level camera shop and check out the ergonomics of the D200 and Canon 5D and/or D30 and then go take lots of pics. Don't ever look back, since that won't help your photography.
I'll be shooting with a friend early June in Tennessee and Illinois, and then again around home (Barrie, Ontario, north of Toronto) early July. She has a 5D and a Rebel. I have a D200, D100 and D70. We're going to swap for a few hours to see how the "other half" lives, just for fun. I expect that we'll both have a ball doing that, but will be relieved to get back to our own gear after the experiment. And on a good day, our pics are excellent and indistinguishable. On a bad day....well, let's say that the high end camera gear lets you take crappy shots so much more easily and quickly.
Oh...and she has asked me more than once how I get such sharp wildlife shots, where every piece of fur is distinct. Like I said...it's not the gear...it's the photographer (and the post-production workflow as well).
-
re physics of pixils size, noise, diffraction:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/ (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/)
upshot is apc-s size sensors have about reached their limit as far as number of decent-sized photoreceptors allowing low noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The usual nonsense of comparing at equal f-stop and ISO, even though he in several places notes the pattern that using equal aperture (focal length divided by f-stop) is what gives closer to equivalent results. This equal ISO and f-stop assumption flies in the face of the long established trend of using larger f-stops in larger formats. Going to a larger format, larger pixels and larger focal lengths will very often need the use a higher f-stop because
- getting adequate DOF requires it, and getting _enough_ DOF is a very common goal
- lens size, weight, and cost require it: for example, cost and weight are about equal for 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6 lenses, with a pattern of minimum f-stop changing in same proportion to the focal length (equal effective aperture diameter of about 70mm in these example). Going from 200/2.8 to 300/2.8 to 400/2.8 instead greatly increases both weight and cost.
- The available lenses require it, because the minimum f-stops of the fastest lenses available tend to increases as focal length increases: f/1.4 to 85mm, then f/2 to 135mm (Canon) or 200mm (Nikon), then f/2.8 to 400mm, then f/4 to 600mm, and beyond that, you are probably using TC's which increase minimum f-stop. Zoom lens speeds fall off even faster: Canon zooms drops from f/2.8 to f/4-5.6 once one goes beyond 200mm.
Once the larger format uses a higher f-stop, it needs to use a higher ISO speed to get the same high shutter speed, invalidating S/N comparisons at equal ISO speed. For example, if focal length changes in proportion to pixel size (to get equal pixel counts) and then f-stop changes in proportion to focal length (to get similar lens weight, cost and DOF), then equal shutter speeds deliver an equal amount of light to each pixel, and so gives roughly equal S/N ratio. Actually, larger pixels generate more electrons of dark current noise, so with an equal number of electrons of signal, the S/N might be a bit worse.
P. S. Some compact digital camera sensors with pixels 2.8 microns or smaller give excellent low noise images when used at optimal (low) ISO speeds, so when high shutter speed is not important (and this is a landscape forum remember, a domain where low ISO film used to dominate), the APS-C format could easily go to over 5000x7500, over 30MP. Lens resolution limits and the desire for somewhat higher shutter speeds will probably impose a limit below that, but still significantly beyond the current 12.5MP maximum.
-
I'll be shooting with a friend early June in Tennessee and Illinois, and then again around home (Barrie, Ontario, north of Toronto) early July. She has a 5D and a Rebel. I have a D200, D100 and D70. We're going to swap for a few hours to see how the "other half" lives, just for fun. I expect that we'll both have a ball doing that, but will be relieved to get back to our own gear after the experiment. And on a good day, our pics are excellent and indistinguishable. On a bad day....well, let's say that the high end camera gear lets you take crappy shots so much more easily and quickly.
Popping my head out from lurk mode. I'm the friend he's speaking of and it's true--we can both take good photos with our equipment and we can both take bad ones. And I can't wait to get totally confused when I use his D200.
To the original poster: My humble suggestion is for you to visit a good camera store that will have both cameras in stock. Take along a couple memory cards (if you have them), and take a bunch of photos. A local store here will let me step outside (but in plain view of them) to test out equipment. Then take your pics back home and compare to see what you like best. By being able to handle both cameras you'll be able to see what is physically more comfortable to you and what seems to make the most "sense" in operation. And with the photos you've taken, you can get somewhat of an idea what each camera will do. When I was debating on buying my original Digital Rebel, I nearly drove myself crazy reading reviews. It turns out I was very happy with the camera (with a few exceptions) but it would have been a much easier decision of I'd only handled it in a store before buying one.
Oh...and she has asked me more than once how I get such sharp wildlife shots, where every piece of fur is distinct. Like I said...it's not the gear...it's the photographer (and the post-production workflow as well).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True. He's given me tips on the settings he uses in Photoshop and it's greatly improved the sharpness and detail in my photos.
Donna
-
Before the Canon 5D, 35mm (full-frame) digital was "niche". You needed two things to enter the club:
1) Huge money - a 1D series Canon would run $5000-$8000+
2) Huge forearms - these full-frame cameras are huge and heavy
=> these entry criteria are true no longer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 5D has a US MAP of US$3,300, about as much as a Leica M7 and about $2,000 more than a 30D, from which it differs mostly in the larger sensor. Meanwhile, the great majority of DSLR's sell for under US$1,000. 24x36mm is still priced _way_ out of the budget of most SLR buyers.
And the longer telephoto lenses needed with larger sensors and pixels can still require "Huge forearms"!
BJL, You used the somewhat demeaning phrase "Get over it", above. It seems to me you are very defensive on this issue of full-frame and Nikon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was borrowing a catch-phrase that our host Michael Reichmann has used many times in chastising people who are to slow to accept the changes bought by the digital transition. Given the very small and shrinking digital market share of 35mm format (even with 5D sales) and its abandonment by most SLR makers, I think that it is you who are very defensive, of that format.
-
Why can people not grasp the fact that both formats have their pluses and minuses and neither is perfect for everyone? Die hards on both sides will fight to the death, neither is a clear winner. Choose which will work best for you and the given cost and value.
-
Why can people not grasp the fact that both formats have their pluses and minuses and neither is perfect for everyone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In case you misunderstand me, I completely agree: I expect 24x36mm digital to continue to be very successful in its appropriate role, because it does have some real advantages; just as medium format film cameras continued to be the best choice for some tasks.
-
True. He's given me tips on the settings he uses in Photoshop and it's greatly improved the sharpness and detail in my photos.
And I appreciate having Donna as a friend and fellow digital photography enthusiast to bang ideas around with and compare techniques/images. It has improved my photography. and keeps me more enthused. Passion is not a zero sum game....shared passion for something like photography makes it more enjoyable for both of us.
Who says Ebony and Ivory (Nikon and Canon respectively) can't get along? All that matters is the final result, not how you got there. Even Sir Paul McCartney agrees with that sentiment.
-
I asked for _evidence_, not the speculations of another 35mm die-hard like Bob Atkins. The evidence I see includes
1. a small and shrinking DSLR market share for 35mm format as the smaller DSLR formats experience far larger sales growth: about 3% now, far less than in the early days of the 1Ds and 14n.
2. a price gap of around US$2,000 that has not come down much in the almost four years since the 1Ds and 14n were announced.
If Atkins' "bigger formats will prevail" argument worked, medium format would have taken over from 35mm format film rather than the other way around. The basic flaw of all such arguments is ignoring or denying the advantages of smaller formats, such as size, weight and cost, advantages which have driven shifts in market dominance from 8x10" format to 4"x5" format to medium format to 35mm format, and now to APS-C and smaller digital formats. History shows that as image quality improves at any given format, an increasing proportion of photographers opt for the advantages of a smaller format.
Likewise for Michael Reichmann's "Please sir – could I have a smaller negative?": that is _exactly_ what a great proportion of photographers asked for when they started buying 35mm gear instead of the previously dominant medium format, particularly in the late 1950's and 1960's, once SLR's like the Nikon F came along.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=62866\")
Uh-oh, BJL. Prepare for ritual seppeku. Looks like Nikon is going to produce a full-frame DSLR. :
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18100184]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18100184[/url]
-
Uh-oh, BJL. Prepare for ritual seppeku. Looks like Nikon is going to produce a full-frame DSLR. :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18100184 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18100184)
Looks like yet another rumor to me.
BTW, the link provided in the forum points to a web page where the "full frame Nikon" isn't mentioned at all.
-
Uh-oh, BJL. Prepare for ritual seppeku. Looks like Nikon is going to produce a full-frame DSLR. :
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63359\")
Yet another unsubstantiated rumor of Nikon returning to 24x36mm format, joining hundreds of previous ones. And from a magazine, ColorFoto, that has got it wrong once already, declaring in a 2003 cover story that Nikon was about to adopt a new lens mount, larger than the F-mount, to support a move to 24x36 format digital:
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18086659]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=18086659[/url]
As I said before: please show us evidence, not rumors, scuttlebutt, or this strange mixture of great optimism about 24x36mm "Film Format" and deep pessimism about the progress of all other formats.
P. S. I actually think that Nikon is "less unlikely" to launch a 24x36mm system than anyone else, but it is still very low chance, and any such product would be to compete against the 1Ds series for the former medium format market at the top of the price and performance range. I will save seppeku for a 24x36 DSLR from Olympus, Pentax, Sigma, Samsung, Sony or Panasonic.
-
Yet another unsubstantiated rumor of Nikon returning to 24x36mm format,...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that's what rumors are - unsubstantiated. And that's what makes them so much more fun to discuss. Cold, hard facts are so difficult to deal with.
As I said before: please show us evidence, not rumors, scuttlebutt, or this strange mixture of great optimism about 24x36mm "Film Format" and deep pessimism about the progress of all other formats.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I think the smaller format will be here for quite a while, if only to satisfy those who like long telephoto shooting, as well as those who don't care about making enlargements the size of living room windows. And I think, as you rightfully have pointed out, that the smaller format will likely offer full kits which are lighter, and lower priced than larger format cameras, which is a good thing.
I plan to keep my 20D when I get my 5D, and will appreciate it for the tele end of things, and as a back up cam. But I am one of those folks who wants to be able to make crisp livingroom window-sized enlargements , and I do look forward to more megapixils, more photons, less noise and large bright viewfinders.
P. S. I actually think that Nikon is "less unlikely" to launch a 24x36mm system than anyone else, but it is still very low chance, and any such product would be to compete against the 1Ds series for the former medium format market at the top of the price and performance range. I will save seppeku for a 24x36 DSLR from Olympus, Pentax, Sigma, Samsung, Sony or Panasonic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL!! And in 5 years I will be complaing because I want a 100MP DSLR with no noise at ISO 64,000 for $2,000, while my 20D will be worth $2500 as a quaint collectors item.
-
Given what Nikon has done with the smaller format in the D2X and the D200, I see no reason to rush into so called 'full-frame' sensors. What is full-frame anyway, but another hold over from the 35mm days. There is no reason digital technology has to be limited to 35mm paradigms.
And the advantages of the smaller frame are many - smaller, lighter lenses being one of the big ones.
I think we will see technological advances make the so called 'full-frame' SLR unnecessary. Remember, digital imaging is still in its very early years.
-
I would like to add that my one and only digital camera at this time is a non-slr with an 8 megapixel APS sized sensor. The images it gives are fantastic. I attribute the quality to three things - the chip, the lens, the anti-shake system. And, if I may be so bold, the photographer occasionally does a few things right.
-
Honestly you cant go wrong with either the Nikon D200 or canon 30D.
However, The Canon is better at the high extreme of the iso range.
Ive had both Canon and Nikon systems, I stuck with Canon because at the time nikon's best camera was the D1x which didnt come close to a 1Dmk2 in performance or a 1Ds.
Today things are a bit more even thankfully.
Both companies have lenses the other doesnt. Nikon has some great teles like the 200mm f2 VR and 200-400 f4 VR. Canon has the TSE series.
Regarding full frame VS APS-C its and endless debate, basically if you do a lot of telephoto work in sports/events/wildlife the smaller sensor is an advantage, more reach with less glass.
Full Frame comes into its own when photographing people due to shorter DOF posible due to the fact that you can use longer lenses closer to the subject given equal subject and composition. If you like that shorter dof look and the slight change in perspective that being closer causes (without the need to go to a wider lens) then full frame helps. But full frame is brutal on glass, only the best need apply.
BTW (Ive had a Fuji S2 pro, Canon 10d and currently have a 1Dmk2 and 5D + an assortment of L glass)
-
Honestly you cant go wrong with either the Nikon D200 or canon 30D.
However, The Canon is better at the high extreme of the iso range.
Ive had both Canon and Nikon systems, I stuck with Canon because at the time nikon's best camera was the D1x which didnt come close to a 1Dmk2 in performance or a 1Ds.
Today things are a bit more even thankfully.
Both companies have lenses the other doesnt. Nikon has some great teles like the 200mm f2 VR and 200-400 f4 VR. Canon has the TSE series.
Regarding full frame VS APS-C its and endless debate, basically if you do a lot of telephoto work in sports/events/wildlife the smaller sensor is an advantage, more reach with less glass.
Full Frame comes into its own when photographing people due to shorter DOF posible due to the fact that you can use longer lenses closer to the subject given equal subject and composition. If you like that shorter dof look and the slight change in perspective that being closer causes (without the need to go to a wider lens) then full frame helps. But full frame is brutal on glass, only the best need apply.
BTW (Ive had a Fuji S2 pro, Canon 10d and currently have a 1Dmk2 and 5D + an assortment of L glass)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! Someone actually gets it!
-
To the original poster..personally I say go for the canon.
And even if the Nikon fans adhered to their own logic, they too would agree on buying the canon... see the Nikon guys think that big 35mm format is old and antiquated, just like they compare it to old 35mm film. Now, the 30d isn't this type of useless, big, heavy, expensive, technology, but the 30d HAS a smaller imaging sensor(barely), is cheaper, smaller, and lighter than the d200. So as you can see, what the Nikonians feel is bad about the Canon 5d, they just plain ignore on the d200.
30d has less noise.
30d is cheaper.
30d is smaller.
30d is lighter.
30d 100mm lense = 160mm ...Nikonians viewpoint being this is better(not mine)
d200 100mm lense = 150mm
30d/Canon user interface easier/more intuitive(most will agree that have tried both)
d200 resolution not really an advantage
personally believe the canon lenses to be superior
most sports photogs use canon..white lenses(in my sport, motocross, over 90%)
many press going canon as well
the following is a quote from www.completedigitalphotography.com
Your camera salesman might try to pitch you on pixel count as a deciding factor, but this is really a non-issue. While the difference between 8.3 million and ten million may sound significant, in practical terms it's really not. The extra pixels provided by the D200 simply aren't going to give you a significantly higher degree of cropping possibilities, or improved image quality at large print sizes.
As you can see I am a canon fan. It started with a Rebel 2000 film cam, then an Elan 7E, then Digi Rebel, then 20d, now I have a 30d. I have used Rebel XT, and Nikon d50(cool for the price). I have always LUSTED for a full frame DSLR, and was dissapointed to find out that they(the affordable ones) were cropped version. I couldn't come close to affording the high end FF canons. When the 5d came out, I was blown away. I still can't spend the $$ on 5d yet, but I will, or I will get the next version of it. I fully believe in FF cams, I believe we are in the infancy of their development. Really they are not that expensive(5d=$2700 all day long). Remember DSLRs aren't that old. The canon d30 (not 30d) came out in OCT of 2000 for $3500. This is only 6 years ago. This was a slow 3.1mp basic DSLR, yet it was the firts affordable DSLR. To think that you can get a monster like the 5D magnezium, full frame, 12mp work of art for $2700 makes it a bargain IMHO.
(http://www.creativepro.com/img/story/img_11530_1.jpg)
This 5D is barely bigger than a 30D, not heavy by any standards. The image quality is amazing, as is the ultra low noise it produces. You think this is a dying breed? Are you kidding, it has only begun. Prices will come down, speeds/quality will go up as they have been, and Canons FF will be the only way to go for serious pros if Nikon doesn't man up. BTW, the small collection of lenses that I do have for my 30d will work great on a 5d(17-40f4L 50f1.8 85f1.8 and soon the 100mm macro). I'm sorry, but if you actually think that an APS sensor is as capable as a full frame sensor, then you don't understand the fundementals of photography. The arguments against FF sensors suck, "its harder to go long on a FF camera..yadda yadda". What about "its harder to go ultra wide on a APS camera"? A sigma 8mm fisheye yields a 180 degree angle of view only on a full frame camera. Theres always room to improve and Canon knows that there is a future in this larger format sensor size.
Both cameras are great, the Canon system is better, IMHO.
-
The difference between comparing 35mm and Medium format and APS-C digicams vs. 35mm digicams is that in the first comparison the Medium format cameras are larger, heavier, bulkier, take MUCH larger lenses, have more restrictions, and fewer whiz-bang features.
At the moment there is not much of a difference in size & convenience between APS and 35mm digital cameras and so in the end the only thing stopping 35mm is price. I know some people desperately want to believe there is something special about sensors which means they are not going to get cheaper but eventually they are. Getting the 5D successor up to 5fps or the 1Ds Mk 3 up to 8-10fps is going to happen, it's not as big of a problem as building the sensor more cheaply.
Either one of these cameras would give you the choice to go with either APS or 35mm down the road if you choose your lenses carefully. It is not THAT hard to get a 30D or D200 and use regular Nikkor lenses and regular EF lenses as opposed to buying EF-S or DX lenses. Maybe making a sacrifice to the EF-S/DX gods at the wide angle but keeping everything else compatible.
If you've got no existing stuff right now to influence your decision just go into the store and handle both and you're going to like one more then the other. Done, get the one that feels right to you. As long as you don't buy a ton of lenses right away it wouldn't be that hard to switch if you later on decide you made the wrong decision. Neither is going to hold you back so in the end your own whims are more meaningful then the endless camera battles on the internet.
-
Hi folks
Funny how these brand-warrior arguments develop. This all began with a self-confessed neophyte seeking advice (inevitably, opinion) between two cameras but the question being asked got somewhat lost along the way.
I have a D200 and also an F3. Previous to that I earned my living with both Nikon 35mm (F to F4s)and Hasselblad 120 film modes. There was never any problem with picking up the appropriate film camera for the job at hand. Suddenly, the game would seem to have become confused - if only in amateur circles - and a great deal of time and effort is taken up in somewhat futile exchanges, many of which confuse the issue by comparing apples with oranges.
My own D200 was bought as an experiment in digital; I found it to be pleasant enough an experience, but perhaps only because the camera allows me to 'de-digital' it to the extent that I can use it with manual lenses I already own, non-AF at that, and the basic art of photography does not get messed about with needless camera pyrotechnics which, for me, do little but get in the way. (I don't think HC-B had much trouble working manually... )
So, for our beginner, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The first lesson that should be learned is that trying to cover too wide a spectrum of subjects will hold back progress in any particular one. Pick a subject you just can't live your life without exploring and then buy your equipment to suit. If you aren't particularly drawn to anything special, then I would advise that you save your money because photography can become like yachting: a bottomless pit which costs you more and more, often for less and less measurable reward. Does anyone really need to go there?
Ciao - Rob C
-
Regarding full frame VS APS-C its and endless debate, basically if you do a lot of telephoto work in sports/events/wildlife the smaller sensor is an advantage, more reach with less glass.
HiKen
Can you explain 'more reach with less glass'? Are you referring to the 1.6x factor?