30D vs D200

[BJL]

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.

[gryffyn]

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.  

[gingerbaker]

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]

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]

[jani]

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

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.

[BJL]

Uh-oh, BJL.  Prepare for ritual seppeku.  Looks like Nikon is going to produce a full-frame DSLR.  :
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

[gingerbaker]

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.  

[MrIconoclast]

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.

[MrIconoclast]

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.

[KenRexach]

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)

[macgyver]

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!

[hipmatt]

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.


 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.

[benInMA]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[spidermike]

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?