Canon 40D vs Nikon D200

bsclark_1 · January 10, 2011

Ok, So I'm getting ready to take the plunge into the DSLR world.

I was looking in the $500 range, but can stretch up to around $700 if needed.

I was planning on purchasing a Canon 40D, based on the good things I've heard about it, but I have a friend who has a Nikon D200 for sale. I know he takes great care of his equipment, so this is a bonus....

He is asking $1,000 for the D200 and a 70 - 200 lens, but I think I can get both for $700 - $800.

So, at the risk of starting a Canon vs Nikon war... Which of these cameras would be best for first DSLR camera?

wtFstop · January 10, 2011

depends on what 70-200mm for the Nikon, cuz if it's the Nikon version, then I would take up that offer!

Qarik · January 10, 2011

+1 above..the 70-200mm if nikkor is worth it by itself

catspaw · January 10, 2011

agree with everything re: the 70-200. even if the VRI version (which is excellent on the D200!), I'd buy that set up in a heartbeat. EXCELLENT.

ziggy53 · January 10, 2011

It would be nice to know more about the cameras and the 70-200mm lens before rendering a decision. As much information as you can muster.

How they have been used?
Approximately, the number of actuations?
Can you test the cameras beforehand?

Are you certain that it is a 70-200mm lens? Could it have been a 70-300mm something or other? The exact make and model is pretty important.

Also:

How do you intend to use the camera?
What budget for additional lenses, batteries, flash(es), etc.?

bsclark_1 · January 10, 2011

Thanks for the feedback, guys...

I have no info on the 40D, as it is hypothetical, and just what I planned on looking for.

The D200 is a friends, and hasn't been used much - He didn't know the actuations off the top of his head. He said the lens is a 70 - 200 Nikkor. He said it retails for $799 by itself. I will definitely be able to handle it, and have the exact model # prior to purchasing.

edit -- I just found out that he was planning on selling the pair for $1,300, but came down to $1,000 for me... Said if I need to stay at $700 he will do the D200 with a 50mm 1.8.... -- edit

I would like to do landscape photography, senior/family portraits, and perhaps some local sports photography (Jr. High and Sr. High).

I think my question is really more about the 40D itself vs the D200 for a beginner. Which is better quality, easier to use, easier to learn, better investment for long term, etc...

Thanks!!!

Qarik · January 10, 2011

by the way he could sell 70-200 for $1200-1400 easy by itself so $1k for the pair = very good friend.

ziggy53 · January 10, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback, guys...

I have no info on the 40D, as it is hypothetical, and just what I planned on looking for.

The D200 is a friends, and hasn't been used much - He didn't know the actuations off the top of his head. He said the lens is a 70 - 200 Nikkor. He said it retails for $799 by itself. I will definitely be able to handle it, and have the exact model # prior to purchasing.

edit -- I just found out that he was planning on selling the pair for $1,300, but came down to $1,000 for me... Said if I need to stay at $700 he will do the D200 with a 50mm 1.8.... -- edit

I would like to do landscape photography, senior/family portraits, and perhaps some local sports photography (Jr. High and Sr. High).

I think my question is really more about the 40D itself vs the D200 for a beginner. Which is better quality, easier to use, easier to learn, better investment for long term, etc...

Thanks!!!

The Nikon D200 was the last in that series to use a CCD imager. If you need to use ISO 800 or above I think you might prefer the Canon 40D with somewhat lower random High-ISO noise.

Neither camera is stellar for indoor or night sports because the AF section is not really up to the task. It's not that you "can't" use these cameras, it's just that their "Keeper rate" tends not to be as good as some other cameras. You can compensate somewhat by just increasing the number of shots.

The Nikkor 70-200mm zoom, almost any version, is what would throw the deal towards the Nikon body. If it is any of the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm lenses that makes it a viable lens for many sports activities. You would indeed need to spend as much, potentially more, just for a Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L equivalent without the body.

Icebear · January 10, 2011

To add to the "fanboy" feeling that is rampant on this thread

I'll add my recommendation for the 70-200 Nikkor (whichever version.) In addition to everything that's been said, I think it's a nice portrait lens too. Smooth bokeh, and 2.8 speed if you want it. A bit of a heavy beast, but that's about its only (and unavoidable) shortcoming. On a tripod, it balances nicely with the D200.

angevin1 · January 10, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

by the way he could sell 70-200 for $1200-1400 easy by itself so $1k for the pair = very good friend.

Yeah. and the odd thing is the 'friend' is saying it retails for $799, which is about half of what it presently sells for at KEH.

bsclark_1 wrote: »

I would like to do landscape photography, senior/family portraits, and perhaps some local sports photography (Jr. High and Sr. High).
Which is better quality, easier to use, easier to learn, better investment for long term, etc...
Thanks!!!

Neither is a really good investment. in fact if the lens you speak of is in fact the Nikkor 70-200mm VRI then buy the Nikon D200 deal and consider the camera a gift. Not that it is bad, in-fact I liked the heck outta mine. But it is older tech and is not what I'd consider an investment.

The D200 Af function I found quite satisfactory, but in School sports sometimes you need to jack the ISO up to keep Shutter speed up and that is where the D200 may not prove to be all that you need it to be.

Either way, with THAT lens, it is a deal! And a good Friend too!

catspaw · January 10, 2011

the D200 with the 50 1.8 isn't worth $700, btw. that lens is barely above $100 when NEW, the camera can be found for $400-500 used, so together ... yeah. if you can swing it with the 70-200, still worth it, but otherwise not.

ThatCanonGuy · January 10, 2011

If you go Canon maybe a 30D and better lenses? I don't know about the D200's AF performance but the 40D's is pretty good, useful for sports. The 30D's I would think is not quite as good but still most likely good enuf. The important thing is lenses, I say if you can afford the 1K then go for the Nikon deal.

bsclark_1 · January 12, 2011

Thanks again for all the good feedback (at least from the Nikon fans)....

I hope to see the actual lenses sometime this week to get a better idea what, excatly, they are... I actually got my friend to agree to the body, the 70-200mm, and the 50mm for $1,000.

I have tried to find some good comparisons of the D200 to the 40D, but mostly I just find Canon fanboys arguing with Nikon fanboys... The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the D200 isn't as good at high iso settings.

I'm almost ready to take the plunge and buy the D200, but I started thinking. If $1,000 is apparently my new budget, am I excluding options from Canon that might be better than the Nikon route????

Qarik · January 12, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

Thanks again for all the good feedback (at least from the Nikon fans)....

I hope to see the actual lenses sometime this week to get a better idea what, excatly, they are... I actually got my friend to agree to the body, the 70-200mm, and the 50mm for $1,000.

I have tried to find some good comparisons of the D200 to the 40D, but mostly I just find Canon fanboys arguing with Nikon fanboys... The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the D200 isn't as good at high iso settings.

I'm almost ready to take the plunge and buy the D200, but I started thinking. If $1,000 is apparently my new budget, am I excluding options from Canon that might be better than the Nikon route????

dude..the 70-200mm is one leg of the nikon holy trinity of lens. It's endgame true professional glass. Think of the d200 as a bonus. Unless you can find somone selling 40D with 85mm 1.2 for $1k..just take the nikon deal without hesitation.

ThatCanonGuy · January 12, 2011

I'm almost ready to take the plunge and buy the D200, but I started thinking. If $1,000 is apparently my new budget, am I excluding options from Canon that might be better than the Nikon route????

No, not if you can get all that for $1000. That is a DEAL. Go with Nikon. The whole reason you buy a camera is for the system. Nikon has a good complete well-rounded system.

ziggy53 · January 12, 2011

My recommendation is to purchase the Nikon D200 and the 2 lenses, and do it quickly because that is an excellent deal but your friend may come to his senses.

Try the combination for a bit and, if the camera proves to have too much high-ISO noise for your application, consider selling the D200 and get a D90 instead. The D90 is not a perfect sports body but in other regards it is mostly an upgrade from the D200.

For important sporting events you might consider renting a D300, which many folks use for a sports camera.

angevin1 · January 12, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

I have tried to find some good comparisons of the D200 to the 40D, but mostly I just find Canon fanboys arguing with Nikon fanboys... The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the D200 isn't as good at high iso settings.

I'm almost ready to take the plunge and buy the D200, but I started thinking. If $1,000 is apparently my new budget, am I excluding options from Canon that might be better than the Nikon route????

It is not the Nikon route nor the Canon route to be concerned about here. It is the lenses that you are getting with this Nikon. Perhaps we've somehow failed to clarify what we think is a good deal. It is about the Lenses! a grand for the 70-200mm VR1 Nikkor by ITSELF is a Hell of a deal! The D200 is no slouch either. And as others have said. You can upgrade it easy if you choose. A refurb D90 Nikon is <$700 from the reputable B&H or Adorama folks.

I use Nikon and Canon. I hang Nikon Glass on my Canon. Many others in this thread and on Dgrin in general are not beholden to one brand or the other, in fact many of us just consider the job and what gear it takes to do a given job. Snobbery over brand names is about ego and money! So no. This deal, if it is what it appears to be is a DEAL! Buy the Deal, turn around and sell the components parts for much more than paid and then buy your Canon and have a budget of a grand and a Half at least.

Cheers,

bsclark_1 · January 13, 2011

Thanks again everyone.... I wasn't meaning to re-question you all on the same thing -- Just a lot of money (for me), and wanting to make the right decision....

Well, my fears came true, and it's not the lens that you were all talking about... I must have had my wires crossed.....

So, what is included for the $1,000 is:

D200
50mm 1.8 Nikon lens
18-200mm VR II 3.5-5.6 lens
Battery Grip
Carrying bag.......

So, do I still go with the Nikon or look for another setup for $700 - $1,000?????

catspaw · January 13, 2011

well, that's about a $500-600 camera, a $100 lens (50mm) and a $300 or so (anyone can correct me on that) lens. Together, still a good deal but not the GREAT deal. Enough that you might want to consider the Canon choices you have.

ThatCanonGuy · January 13, 2011

I wouldn't get the deal with the 18-200. TBH, I don't think the 18-200 is worth owning (just IMHO, there are many people who like it). I think the IQ is not as good as primes/better quality zooms. And it is slow. I think if you want to spend $1000 then go with a 30D or D90 (or something similar) and spend the rest on glass. Get a 70-200 (Canon has the advantage with the inexpensive f4 version) and something like 28-135 (or a 50, a 35, or whatever you think you'll use most) and you're good to go. You can add a wide zoom later (Nikon has the advantage with the 14-24, Canon has an inexpensive 17-40). I can say if you go Canon and can't afford a 70-200 then an excellent alternative is the 100-300 USM, which is discontinued, very inexpensive for what it is, and hardly known. But it's a really nice lens with fast ring USM AF and good IQ. The 28-135 makes a good companion to this (or the cheaper 28-105). Add a 50 1.8 for $100. And that's a nice cheap setup that is good for most things.

30D ~$400
100-300 ~$150
28-135 ~$350
50 1.8 ~$100

Icebear · January 13, 2011

Dang.

bsclark_1 · January 13, 2011

Icebear wrote: »

Dang.

So, does "Dang" mean that you, too, would pass on the D200, 50mm, 18-200 VR II, Battery Grip, and bag for $1k???

angevin1 · January 14, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

So, does "Dang" mean that you, too, would pass on the D200, 50mm, 18-200 VR II, Battery Grip, and bag for $1k???

I'll bet it translates to more than one person being excited about that deal~

Icebear · January 14, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

So, does "Dang" mean that you, too, would pass on the D200, 50mm, 18-200 VR II, Battery Grip, and bag for $1k???

It means that the other deal was a no brainer, and now there's research to do. Me, I like Nikon, if for no other reason than their Creative Lighting System, which beats hell out of anything anyone else has.

I'd look for a used D90. Unless you do a lot of portrait mode shooting, the battery grip is an unnecessary item. I use a grip occasionally on my D300 and D700, but could certainly do without it. Why pay for it if you don't need it. I don't think it sweetens your deal enough for you to spend $1000. I've had a D200, and the D90 is a better camera IMO for most purposes. I bought one for my daughter so have experience with both.

The Dang was sympathy for you

ThatCanonGuy · January 14, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

So, does "Dang" mean that you, too, would pass on the D200, 50mm, 18-200 VR II, Battery Grip, and bag for $1k???

I would, if I was a Nikonian.

Qarik · January 14, 2011

hmm the 18-200mm vr2 is still a $700 lens. All in all still a great deal but no longer super deal.

ThatCanonGuy · January 14, 2011

So if the D200 is worth more than $300 then get the deal and sell the 18-200? Doesn't sound too bad.

philtherower · January 14, 2011

bsclark_1 wrote: »

So, what is included for the $1,000 is:

D200
50mm 1.8 Nikon lens
18-200mm VR II 3.5-5.6 lens
Battery Grip
Carrying bag.......

So, do I still go with the Nikon or look for another setup for $700 - $1,000?????

Go for this offer! Unless you want to spend more on a newere body with a worse lens, I'd go for it. The 18-200 is a good lens that will cover most of what you need, and if you're in low light, worse comes to worst, I'd use the 50mm and crop if you're shooting raw.

ThatCanonGuy · January 15, 2011

I don't like the 18-200. It has a good zoom range and the advantages stop right there. You'll get better IQ with primes or a zoom with less range. You'll get faster aperture.

philtherower · January 15, 2011

Yep, that's why the first lens I went for on my D7K after switching from Canon was a 50 1.8 (original AF)

ThatCanonGuy · January 15, 2011

50 1.8... good choice

That reminds me, I read an interesting articule about 50mm... I'll post a new thread about it.

Canon 40D vs Nikon D200

Comments