Definately agree on the build quality of the 20D, however, the D50 and the D70 are much better built thant the 350. The 300 is even better built than the 350. So, the 20D is in a different league, just different from the other canons however.
Definately agree on the build quality of the 20D, however, the D50 and the D70 are much better built thant the 350. The 300 is even better built than the 350. So, the 20D is in a different league, just different from the other canons however.
Yea, on the lower-end DSLRs Canon's build quality is clearly sub-par relative to Nikon. Hold a D70/D70s and a 300D/350D and the D70 feels tight and the 3xxD ... doesn't. The Canon feels cheap.
The differences are more subtle by the time you're comparing the 20D to the D200, but again I'd give the nod to Nikon. I think the build quality is a bit better and the feel superior.
I'm a fan of Nikon's controls, too, especially the programmability of multiple buttons and the two wheel adjusters to Canon's single unit with multiple modes.
I haven't held the d200, so I can't realy comment. I can't imagine, however, that it feels much sturdier than a 20d, because the 20d seems to me to be about as sturdy as you can get unless you go all steel. My Pentacon is all steel (no wussed out mag alloy there!). It's a bitch to carry around. so I prefer the build of the 20d.
As far as treating the 20d like a "delicate instrument," well, I do and I don't. I certainly don't use it to, say, prop open doors, but I have carried it all over the place- Burma, China, Mexico, stuffed in my lowepro backpack. I've never had any problems with it.
I don't typically shoot in the rain, but I don;t think I would do that even with a "weather sealed" camera.
I have a suspicion that the "superior build quality" of the 200d is really just wish fulfillment on the part of Nikon shooters.
I haven't held the d200, so I can't realy comment. I can't imagine, however, that it feels much sturdier than a 20d, because the 20d seems to me to be about as sturdy as you can get unless you go all steel. My Pentacon is all steel (no wussed out mag alloy there!). It's a bitch to carry around. so I prefer the build of the 20d.
As far as treating the 20d like a "delicate instrument," well, I do and I don't. I certainly don't use it to, say, prop open doors, but I have carried it all over the place- Burma, China, Mexico, stuffed in my lowepro backpack. I've never had any problems with it.
I don't typically shoot in the rain, but I don;t think I would do that even with a "weather sealed" camera.
I have a suspicion that the "superior build quality" of the 200d is really just wish fulfillment on the part of Nikon shooters.
I have held a 20D and the D200 and you're wrong. The D200 is built better (or at least feels more sturdy). The D2 series leaves both the 20D and 200D in the dust in that area.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
As far as treating the 20d like a "delicate instrument," well, I do and I don't. I certainly don't use it to, say, prop open doors, but I have carried it all over the place- Burma, China, Mexico, stuffed in my lowepro backpack. I've never had any problems with it.
I think for a lot of photographers this is highly overstressed. Amongst other abuse I've dragged my silly little plastic Rebel all over the place on the mountain bike (did a couple of nice endos in Utah with it on my back!), shot tortoises in the rain in the Galapagos, got sand all over everything doing photo shoots on the beach in Gloucester, and it has the scrapes from hitting the sidewalk in Miami Beach. In the words of Eveready, "Still going." (The 75-300 IS totally hated the sand though. Rain is no big deal but sand gets EVERYWHERE.)
Back when I used film I beat the crap out of the plastic Minolta X-9. I loved that body because even if I had managed to break it (I never did) it would have been dirt cheap to replace. As a result I didn't worry much about banging it around. Still, I liked the ergonomics and precision of the Nikon FG a whole lot more and that thing is so tough my daughter will probably be using it when I'm long gone (that film stuff is totally retro you know -- and you have to work out the exposure YOURSELF!).
I think the biggest issue with the cheap bodies is really the internals, not sealing or basic body durability. I know the Rebel's shutter is not likely to pull much more than 30K shots and it's closing on that number fast. While it's relatively cheap to replace you just know it's going to break right when you need it the most. I can appreciate spending more money for more reliability, although I must say that I have long been a fan of using redundancy for that. If I can buy a couple of cheap bodies with so-so durability I'm likely to do that instead of blowing my wad on one super-durable one. Everything breaks and they tend to break when you're right in the middle of something. Nice to have a fallback.
I have a suspicion that the "superior build quality" of the 200d is really just wish fulfillment on the part of Nikon shooters.
It's not. Take a trip down to your local pro shop and play with a 20D and D200 back-to-back; the Nikon really does feel superior. It's not the night-and-day difference of the Rebel/Rebel XT versus the D70 but the Nikon really does feel better, more solid and precise. I do sometimes wonder if that's just better attention to detail in Nikon's design, but whatever there is a difference.
Still, when it comes right down to it even the Rebel can take significant abuse and that's the cheapest build quality of all of them.
You want to know the reason I would like a D200 versus anything else in its price range? I love its viewfinder. You gotta pay about twice as much to something that nice from Canon (but then again you do get that wonderful full-frame sensor).
In some cases, though, I'd take that cheesy Minolta X-9 over any of these. That has a split prism viewfinder. Boy would that have been useful trying to shoot tortoises through the bushes in the Galapagos. No matter that the Rebel's kit lens cost more....
I have held a 20D and the D200 and you're wrong. The D200 is built better (or at least feels more sturdy). The D2 series leaves both the 20D and 200D in the dust in that area.
How, is it heavier? Does it "not rattle" or something?
The 20d is made of metal, and all its moving parts are smooth. So how could it be "sturdier?"
As I mentioned before, my Pentacon is 100% Soviet Iron- it sure "feels" heavier than the 20d. But in fact it is more delicate.
I'll hold off definitive comment until I heft a d200, but the 20d does jsut fine for me, and I get my moneys worth of use and abuse out of it.
quote=Justiceiro]How, is it heavier? Does it "not rattle" or something?
Yes the D200 is heavier than the 20D. I was going to shake the 20D for rattling sounds but it's owner would have objected. :lol4
The 20d is made of metal, and all its moving parts are smooth. So how could it be "sturdier?"
By being more like the D200 :lol
I'll hold off definitive comment until I heft a d200, but the 20d does jsut fine for me, and I get my moneys worth of use and abuse out of it.
It's good that you are happy with your 20D, that's all that counts. I have been using my non-weather resistant D100 for years w/o a hitch. As long as you care for and use your camera properly it will serve you well.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Ahh, I didn't say anything about "pro tool." You previously said said "high end." And the D200, like Canon's 20D and 30D, is at best towards the middle of Nikon's DSLR line in terms of both price and features. Prices are dropping and features on lower-end cameras are converging on the high end fast (thanks Moore!) but hey, Nikon doesn't get upwards of three times the price of the D200 for their high-end equipment just for the extra weight.
Now when it comes to "pro" equipment, I'm of the opinion that the tool is what you make of it -- no matter who the manufacturer targets in their marketing or what everyone else thinks. If it takes great pictures and serves the purpose well then why spend more?
My personal goal is to spend the least possible on the body and buy the best glass I can get. This seems particularly advantageous in the brave new world of digital where the inexpensive cameras two years from now will likely eclipse the top of the line today, at least in terms of image quality.
Well if you don't have much to say than word twisting is the game to play now isn't it? Anything can be a pro tool. High end the D200 is though. The fact that you would disagree only shows me you have an agenda or just simply haven't actually held one.
To lump these three models together isn't exactly fair though is it? (But it is typical of these discussions).
If you compare the body construction of the 20D to the 300D, 350D, D50, or D70, you'll see that the 20D is in a different league. Same goes for features.
Now, if you want to call the D200's "weather sealing" the trump card as to why it's superior to the 20D as a PRO CAMERA, don't forget to mention that there is NO weather seal on the lens mount AND that Canon does use a seal or o-ring on the buttons and dials on the 20D and the 5D. But as they lack a true sealed lens mount, Canon does not call them weather-sealed.
As I've said before, let's keep this a fair figh..erm...discussion
The D70 beats it for features. As far as build, none of the ones you've listed impress me at all.
The weather sealing is only part of it and thinking you need a rubber lensmount is silly and speaks of how well Canon marketing is working on you. I have disassembled bodies and lensmounts available. I also know what the two flat pieces of steel can withstand together. They are waterproof and dustproof at that specific joint without any seal. Plain and simple.
Yes let's keep it a fair fight but lets not throw in outright lies at the same time.
Yes the D200 is heavier than the 20D. I was going to shake the 20D for rattling sounds but it's owner would have objected. :lol4
By being more like the D200 :lol
It's good that you are happy with your 20D, that's all that counts. I have been using my non-weather resistant D100 for years w/o a hitch. As long as you care for and use your camera properly it will serve you well.
I think the D100 is an unusual one as far as durability is concerned. I've got one used body at over 100,000 but not being the original owner I can't speak to any service it may have seen in the past. The one and only issue with it is a command dial that has some sort of intermittent short (?) in one position that I rarely use. I have another D100 that is over 50,000 now and I have not one issue with it. I took a D70 and IR converted it at only 46,000 because of problems I started experiencing with deteriorating seals internally. Finding D100 user with 50,000 plus releases isn't that uncommon. I've only hear of a few making it that far with the D70 without some sort of service being necessary.
Well if you don't have much to say than word twisting is the game to play now isn't it? Anything can be a pro tool. High end the D200 is though. The fact that you would disagree only shows me you have an agenda or just simply haven't actually held one.
'twas your words, not mine, I twisted nothing. But I guess we'll just have to disagree about what constitutes "high end". As for the D200, I most certainly have held one, and shot with it. It made me wish I didn't have so much invested in Canon glass. That thing has wonderful color and I love the ergonomics and controls.
Alas, that's the way of things as the manufacturers leapfrog each other with successive generations. A year ago it was the 20D, after all. It's a fun time to be a photographer.
better resolution
more megapixels
faster frame rate
larger jpg burst rate
100 and 3200 ISO options
kelvin presets for WB
mirror lock up
more powerful built-in flash
cleaner high ISO
USB 2.0 ('true' usb 2.0)
magnesium body
Let's see the D70 has....
larger lcd (1.8 vs 2.0)
-5/+5 EV steps
spot metering
Yep, sure looks like the D70 is the sure winner there alright
(BTW-I don't give a rat's arse about impressing you at all...)
The weather sealing is only part of it and thinking you need a rubber lensmount is silly and speaks of how well Canon marketing is working on you. I have disassembled bodies and lensmounts available. I also know what the two flat pieces of steel can withstand together. They are waterproof and dustproof at that specific joint without any seal. Plain and simple.
Ahh...the magical 'Canon Marketing' brain washing at work again. I guess the engineers at Canon AND Nikon who design their true *pro* level cameras and put seals on the lens mounts AND their lenses are just victims of their marketing departments? Maybe you should call them and explain how they are wasting their time (since you have all these disassembled bodies laying around and all that...). They may even want to hire you.
better resolution
more megapixels
faster frame rate
larger jpg burst rate
100 and 3200 ISO options
kelvin presets for WB
mirror lock up
more powerful built-in flash
cleaner high ISO
USB 2.0 ('true' usb 2.0)
magnesium body
Let's look at each one of these...
better resolution - not a huge difference actually.
more megapixels - once again a small difference.
faster frame rate - agree. I doubt either would be the first choice of a real action shooter though.
larger jpg burst rate - in that same link? I didn't see that.
100 and 3200 ISO options - ISO 3200 is a joke on the 20D. I liked the D70 at 1600ISO and EC -1 better actually. Of course we could say the ancient D100 beats them both since it has 6400ISO but that's pretty much useless on it also.
kelvin presets for WB - I'd find this a non-concern. I shoot RAW and even when I was a jpg shooter just used an Expodisc.
mirror lock up - agree.
more powerful built-in flash - I never found the built in flash of the D70 (although I preferred shoe mount or remote flash regardless) lacking in power.
cleaner high ISO - that is a falsehood that most people take on faith.
USB 2.0 ('true' usb 2.0) - I won't even tell you my opinion of those that don't have enough sense to use a card reader.
magnesium body - I fail to see the point of that on a low end camera.
Let's not forget that the D70 does wireless flash from the body. The 20D requires an expensive "add-on" does it not?
larger lcd (1.8 vs 2.0)
-5/+5 EV steps
spot metering
Let's take these one at a time...
larger lcd (1.8 vs 2.0) - I think the only people that worry about LCD size still suffer from "point and shootitis"
-5/+5 EV steps - I've rarely used that but I guess it's an advantage.
spot metering - Agree although I think it's better to learn matrix metering and know how much to compensate than worry over multiple metering modes.
Ahh...the magical 'Canon Marketing' brain washing at work again. I guess the engineers at Canon AND Nikon who design their true *pro* level cameras and put seals on the lens mounts AND their lenses are just victims of their marketing departments? Maybe you should call them and explain how they are wasting their time (since you have all these disassembled bodies laying around and all that...). They may even want to hire you.
I help design, manafacture, and live items much more complicated than a lens. The seal on my 17-55mm is just a marketing gimmick. I don't know what you do for a living but I want you to imagine two perfectly flat rings of steel (perfect is a relative term, let's say flat within a .001 of an inch). Place them together with any type of decent fit and you have a weatherproof and dustproof seal. It's really rather simple.
If someone wants to hire me then so be it. I am fluent in multiple Cad and Cam software packages, have taught Blueprint Reading, Machine Technology, EDM, ect. I can do complicated machining and prototype work unsupervised. I'm well versed in the state of the art when it comes to machining various tool steels, copper, and other materials. I've been doing this for over a decade now. I'm willing to relocate to most countries.
By the way, what are your qualifications that you "know" that a lens isn't weather sealed without a rubber ring. Don't impress me, a simple answer will suffice.
Well, if you think what I'm saying are "outright lies", then I guess I'm a liar.
My apologies if that wasn't the case. The truth of what you said as it comes to the need for weathersealing at the lensmount though is not very truthful.
Here's something I really don't get. I have hard that Nikon generally outperforms Canon for wide angle. So why doesn't nikon have a full frame digital camera?
Here's something I really don't get. I have hard that Nikon generally outperforms Canon for wide angle. So why doesn't nikon have a full frame digital camera?
I can only guess since I don't work for Nikon but I'd say...
1. Nikon has made a commitment to the APS-C sensor size. It's a smart move because they've backed it up with stellar DX optics across the board (with only two exceptions). Once conventional wisdom held that larger sensors (full frame) would be needed to reach certain performance levels. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. The performance of the D2X and D200 certainly seem proof considering the price points they meet. The performance of the D50 even at higher ISO's vs. it's extremely low price point makes me really question the need for larger sensors in DSLR's for most consumers.
2. There are still certain performance hurdles and the price barrier that must be overcome before FF will make sense for the masses. The 5D seems the ultimate proof of this.
I'd say that it's only a matter of time before Nikon does have a FF camera. Unlike Canon I doubt they'll cripple it by limiting it to "FF" optics though. The D2X already employs a HSC mode. The same it would seem could be applied to a FF camera to give a DX mode and allow users access to the excellent Nikon DX optics that are already being produced. Many there are simply no FF equivalants for speaking feature for feature or speaking certain optical characteristics.
Canon has a storied history of abandoning loyal users by doing things such as wholesale changes of the mount. I wouldn't feel comfortable buying "DX" optics if I were shooting anything but Nikon.
Here's something I really don't get. I have hard that Nikon generally outperforms Canon for wide angle. So why doesn't nikon have a full frame digital camera?
Let me add one thing to all of that.
The announcement by Zeiss of new optics available for SLR's is in F-mount. Nothing dedicated to Canon. It really makes one wonder does it not? The conventional wisdom that Canon FF is hampered in a way by the lack of Canon wide angle optics at a certain quality level would make one think that if anything Zeiss would first release wide angle optics specifically targeted at Canon FF users first and not a "normal" range optic and a portrait lens of all things in Nikon F-mount. I think it's because the market is not what some would think it is for FF DSLR's at the moment. If anything the abysmal sales of the 5D, the specualtion of a huge rebate from Canon to help move things along, and the lack of enthusiasm by such a storied giant as Zeiss to release what are surely "niche" optics in a mount targeted at a "niche" camera makes one wonder at the wisdom of Canon's strategy.
Point, even the wide Zeiss lenses forthcoming will be in F-mount and M42. Nothing (minus the old adapter method) for Canon users specifically.
Here's two today with my "noisy", "ancient", low end D100 and Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro.
The first is at 250ISO. Clean like it should be. The second is at 1600ISO. Even downsized like it is you can still easily see the noise in the out of focus regions. It's not always about the amount of noise but the quality of it IMO. I can live with the noise in that shot.
Nikon has made a commitment to the APS-C sensor size. It's a smart move because they've backed it up with stellar DX optics across the board
Ok, so my question really is "why have they made a commitment to the APS-C sensor? And its not because FF sensors don't perform as well. They may be harder to manufacture due to flaw occurences, but that is why they cost more.
I don't have a beef, honestly, with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot canon because when I got a DSLR I had $1500 to spend and the d200 didn't exist. The best around was the 20d- a camera that far outclasses the d70 in build quality. I am happy to see the d200, and would probably buy it If I was buying today. But the reason that I'm wouldn't buy a FF sensor is due to cash flow, not because I don't want it.
I would prefer an FF sensor for the same reason that, If I were Bill Gates, I wouldn't event think about Canon or Nikon, I'd go straight up for a Hassy with a digital back. I want to be able to get as wide as possible.
Since Nikon is the "king of wide angle", why do they blow that advantage by forcing their users to get a 1.6x crop. Even on their pro cameras. That's simply stupid.
The problems with waiting for a FF sensor are manifold;
1- they are already years behind.
2- every gap they leave in the market creates life-long canon users.
Why? For the same reason that I am a life long canon user. Frankly, I coudl give a crap about the label on the camera. The quality of a good canon is more or less identical to that of a good Nikon. It's like maserati vs. lotus; if you don't know how to drive, or don't put gas in the car, who cares?
I bought based on how high I could get in the market towards the pro-end with the cash that I had available. I suspect others make that decision, and then justify it with brand loyalty later.
Not having huge volumes of cahs available, I upgrade incrementally. Started with the kit lens, then got the 50 prime, then the 35-135. Got an adaptor to use my Orestegor 300 prime. Now that I have all the bases covered, I can look at some nice lenses like the 17-40 L. So the d200 has come out, and is likely better than the 20d. Am I going to replace all of that glass, or wait until I can just stick it all on a 5D or the next best thing?
People often say marketing doesn't matter. But I wish that I had had an alternative to the 20d when I was buying. Not because its bad, I love my 20d and have even knicknamed it. But competition is always good for me, the consumer. I wish Nikon were a little sharper in this dept. Not that marketing is all important, a la KODAK, (as much as it pains me to say, as Kodak paid for my college education) but you can't ignore it.
Also Nikon just blows, lets be honest. Back to the totally vituperative, scurrilious tone of the thread.
Nikon is a bastion of Godless Communism and should be avoided for the following reasons:
1- Nikon made artillery rangefinders that blew up my grandpappy JimBob on Tarawa.
2-Good Americans should buy American.
3-Dr. It must be stopped!
4-Nikon users are like Leica Fanatics, but have less cash. Therefore their snobishness can always be trumped with "and why didn't you buy a digilux?"
I think the 5D sales are dissapointing because of the price tag. I have a feeling that the d200's $1600 is about the top if the line for non-professionals like me, that is to say, folks who have jobs other than photography, have a bit of cash. but have to justify purchases to their spouse. If the 5d was at $1600 I think it would sell like crazy, maybe even $2000. But for $3000 I can get a 20d with a 17-40L and a 70-300 DO. That's a hell of a powerful combo, that makes the 1.6x magnification factor easier to swallow.
Or, for a bit more money, I could get a similar setup with the Nikon d200, also a phat camera.
If you are more professionally oriented, then you will probably go for the real "pro" canon cameras. I think the 5d is too much money to take market fom the d200, and not enough to take it from the D2x. I hope that, in 4 years when I am ready to buy a new body, they have a $1500 full frame. I would jump on it immediately. I think the demand is there, its just priced out of the tolerances of the potential market.
Ok, so my question really is "why have they made a commitment to the APS-C sensor? And its not because FF sensors don't perform as well. They may be harder to manufacture due to flaw occurences, but that is why they cost more.
...
Zoophilia
Amen to zoophilia!
It's not that FF sensors are more expensive, but that there is a problem with light fall-off at the edges of FF digital sensors (but not FF film).
Some Canonite ridiculed my previous iteration of that by the posting of some wonderful wide angle shots of andy's. Nevermind the strong light fall-off effect seen in at least one of those shots meant to contradict what I said.
Anyway my point wasn't that you couldn't take great WA shots with Canon, but that there may be a technical (not financial) reason why Nikon would shy away from FF sensors, and instead push forward with DX sensors with superwide DX glass.
Ok, so my question really is "why have they made a commitment to the APS-C sensor? And its not because FF sensors don't perform as well. They may be harder to manufacture due to flaw occurences, but that is why they cost more.
Funny how many Canon users of the 5D (see DPReview) don't seem to share your opinion.
I don't have a beef, honestly, with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot canon because when I got a DSLR I had $1500 to spend and the d200 didn't exist. The best around was the 20d- a camera that far outclasses the d70 in build quality. I am happy to see the d200, and would probably buy it If I was buying today. But the reason that I'm wouldn't buy a FF sensor is due to cash flow, not because I don't want it.
Having held both, shot with both, and tested both (20D and D70) I find it amazing that folks regularly tout this percieved difference in build quality between the two that really isn't there.
Just for the record I'm not impressed with the build quality of either.
I would prefer an FF sensor for the same reason that, If I were Bill Gates, I wouldn't event think about Canon or Nikon, I'd go straight up for a Hassy with a digital back. I want to be able to get as wide as possible.
Since Nikon is the "king of wide angle", why do they blow that advantage by forcing their users to get a 1.6x crop. Even on their pro cameras. That's simply stupid.
Where is the Nikon 1.6 crop camera? I have failed in my research to find such a beast.
The problems with waiting for a FF sensor are manifold;
1- they are already years behind.
2- every gap they leave in the market creates life-long canon users.
How many would there really be considering how abysmal sales of FF bodies are?
As far as your years behind statement, that is only if you assume (in error) that there is some level of performance that people want/need that can't be reached with a smaller sensor. By your logic we should just go ahead and flush everything down the tubes that isn't a digital back attached to our Hasselblad's.
Why? For the same reason that I am a life long canon user. Frankly, I coudl give a crap about the label on the camera. The quality of a good canon is more or less identical to that of a good Nikon. It's like maserati vs. lotus; if you don't know how to drive, or don't put gas in the car, who cares?
Yet the quality of both is inferior to a digital back so why even bother if I follow your logic.
By the way, being a life long Canon user makes me want to ask...
I bought based on how high I could get in the market towards the pro-end with the cash that I had available. I suspect others make that decision, and then justify it with brand loyalty later.
Not having huge volumes of cahs available, I upgrade incrementally. Started with the kit lens, then got the 50 prime, then the 35-135. Got an adaptor to use my Orestegor 300 prime. Now that I have all the bases covered, I can look at some nice lenses like the 17-40 L. So the d200 has come out, and is likely better than the 20d. Am I going to replace all of that glass, or wait until I can just stick it all on a 5D or the next best thing?
I'd say you really haven't made much of an investment yet. Used Canon gear holds value reasonably well so you could easily sell out now with only a small loss and come back to the good side of the force. Don't let the empty promises of the dark side (FF at a reasonable price, solutions for light fall-off, build quality equal to the price) ensnare you in a field of dreams that are nothing more than illusions. That is the way of the Dark Side (Canon marketing lies) and the way of the Dark Side only leads to despair and doom!:uhoh
People often say marketing doesn't matter. But I wish that I had had an alternative to the 20d when I was buying. Not because its bad, I love my 20d and have even knicknamed it. But competition is always good for me, the consumer. I wish Nikon were a little sharper in this dept. Not that marketing is all important, a la KODAK, (as much as it pains me to say, as Kodak paid for my college education) but you can't ignore it.
Nikon can maintain sales and position without lies, deciept, and flashy gimmicks. Don't let the bright lights blind you to the truth. That is the way of the liar and the thief. Resist the Dark Side Luke!
Also Nikon just blows, lets be honest. Back to the totally vituperative, scurrilious tone of the thread.
Nikon is a bastion of Godless Communism and should be avoided for the following reasons:
1- Nikon made artillery rangefinders that blew up my grandpappy JimBob on Tarawa.
2-Good Americans should buy American.
3-Dr. It must be stopped!
4-Nikon users are like Leica Fanatics, but have less cash. Therefore their snobishness can always be trumped with "and why didn't you buy a digilux?"
5- Zoophilia
Point by point...
1. Nikon's invaluable assistance to the US Atomic Energy Commision during the cold war make the peace and prosperity you now enjoy possible. Nikon made something at the behest of a national authority. They weren't out to get your Uncle JimBob personally. (See the lies of the Dark Side. Even in our history it poisons those unaware.)
2. Good Americans should have thought about that before the core of manafacturing in the country was given away over a decade ago. Nikon didn't actively lobby for that act unlike Canon.
3. Dr. It is your friend. Dr. It is pretty ponies, rainbows, a kid with an ice cream cone, a warm summer breeze! If loving Dr. It is wrong then I don't wanna be right. (The Dark Side is hate. See how it is poisoning your very heart against those around you?)
4. Nikon users are like Leica fanatics in a way but unlike Canon fanatics they have an actual history of stunning optics that can easily be used on their most modern camera bodies.
5. Zoophilia? An odd word. Immersed in your fantasy world I'm sure it makes some sense to you. You poor Canon zombie.:cry
I think the 5D sales are dissapointing because of the price tag. I have a feeling that the d200's $1600 is about the top if the line for non-professionals like me, that is to say, folks who have jobs other than photography, have a bit of cash. but have to justify purchases to their spouse. If the 5d was at $1600 I think it would sell like crazy, maybe even $2000. But for $3000 I can get a 20d with a 17-40L and a 70-300 DO. That's a hell of a powerful combo, that makes the 1.6x magnification factor easier to swallow.
Or, for a bit more money, I could get a similar setup with the Nikon d200, also a phat camera.
If you are more professionally oriented, then you will probably go for the real "pro" canon cameras. I think the 5d is too much money to take market fom the d200, and not enough to take it from the D2x. I hope that, in 4 years when I am ready to buy a new body, they have a $1500 full frame. I would jump on it immediately. I think the demand is there, its just priced out of the tolerances of the potential market.
Funny how I quote and answer directly most Canon users in this thread and then they ignore my actual reply and go off on some odd tangent without directly addressing anything I write.
By the way if you have 2 grand then you CAN get a professional camera body. It's called the D200. The truth is killing you Canon users in this thread.
Your semantic Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. I have the power of the shiny red band!
Red is the color of an evil entity that I will not name in this thread. Here he is at a Canon press conference though...
Camera body a D100 but just so you won't think I smeared the truth somehow with Nikon optics, the lens was a Kowa 55mm f/1.0. Speed is necessary to capture the enemy. He hides in shadows knowing that the non film like noise of Canon DSLR's will hide him.
Your semantic Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. I have the power of the shiny red band!
Before I go to bed let me add one thing. Dogs are usually good judges of character. They are attuned to a sense that we lose with age as the world encompasses our "sense" and blinds us with it's "bright lights" (Canon marketing) and meaningless trappings (the shiny red band).
Once I told my dog of my quest to find a second system to use so I could explore the adaptability of some of the high speed macro lenses I was building. Upon learning that Canon was indeed in the running his reaction was most telling...
Sad it is the delusions under which certain Nikon users labor.
One can insist that the d70 has a "better build" than the 20d all day long. The facts remain; the d7- is plastic, the 20d is magnesium alloy. What would you rather have a car crash while riding, a volvo or a fiero? "nuff said. Actually, I haven't seen a fireo on the road in a while. I wonder why that is.
the d200 is not a pro camera. It is a good camera, but not a pro camera.
Pro cameras are the d2x and the 1ds Mark II. these are "pro" cameras. If you pay for the roof over your head with your camera (which is what "pro" means) then you best have one of these. Or the H2. Or a Fuji gx680 and your own lab.
Often people fail to respond to assertions that "the d200 is a pro camera" because arguing with someone who says that is like arguing with someone who believes that the earth is flat. It is impossible to change the finest minds of the 14th century.
It becomes clearer and clear, my dear naked soda, that you are a communist. Admit it. You love Nikon because you hate America, and apple pie. A tattooed communist at that.
May the ghost of uncle Jimbob haunt you from his jungly grave!
Comments
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
300D-polycarbonate.....
350D-polycarbonate.....
D50-polycarbonate.....
D70/D70s-polycarbonate......
20D-magnesium.....
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
Yea, on the lower-end DSLRs Canon's build quality is clearly sub-par relative to Nikon. Hold a D70/D70s and a 300D/350D and the D70 feels tight and the 3xxD ... doesn't. The Canon feels cheap.
The differences are more subtle by the time you're comparing the 20D to the D200, but again I'd give the nod to Nikon. I think the build quality is a bit better and the feel superior.
I'm a fan of Nikon's controls, too, especially the programmability of multiple buttons and the two wheel adjusters to Canon's single unit with multiple modes.
jimf@frostbytes.com
As far as treating the 20d like a "delicate instrument," well, I do and I don't. I certainly don't use it to, say, prop open doors, but I have carried it all over the place- Burma, China, Mexico, stuffed in my lowepro backpack. I've never had any problems with it.
I don't typically shoot in the rain, but I don;t think I would do that even with a "weather sealed" camera.
I have a suspicion that the "superior build quality" of the 200d is really just wish fulfillment on the part of Nikon shooters.
I have held a 20D and the D200 and you're wrong. The D200 is built better (or at least feels more sturdy). The D2 series leaves both the 20D and 200D in the dust in that area.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I think for a lot of photographers this is highly overstressed. Amongst other abuse I've dragged my silly little plastic Rebel all over the place on the mountain bike (did a couple of nice endos in Utah with it on my back!), shot tortoises in the rain in the Galapagos, got sand all over everything doing photo shoots on the beach in Gloucester, and it has the scrapes from hitting the sidewalk in Miami Beach. In the words of Eveready, "Still going." (The 75-300 IS totally hated the sand though. Rain is no big deal but sand gets EVERYWHERE.)
Back when I used film I beat the crap out of the plastic Minolta X-9. I loved that body because even if I had managed to break it (I never did) it would have been dirt cheap to replace. As a result I didn't worry much about banging it around. Still, I liked the ergonomics and precision of the Nikon FG a whole lot more and that thing is so tough my daughter will probably be using it when I'm long gone (that film stuff is totally retro you know -- and you have to work out the exposure YOURSELF!).
I think the biggest issue with the cheap bodies is really the internals, not sealing or basic body durability. I know the Rebel's shutter is not likely to pull much more than 30K shots and it's closing on that number fast. While it's relatively cheap to replace you just know it's going to break right when you need it the most. I can appreciate spending more money for more reliability, although I must say that I have long been a fan of using redundancy for that. If I can buy a couple of cheap bodies with so-so durability I'm likely to do that instead of blowing my wad on one super-durable one. Everything breaks and they tend to break when you're right in the middle of something. Nice to have a fallback.
It's not. Take a trip down to your local pro shop and play with a 20D and D200 back-to-back; the Nikon really does feel superior. It's not the night-and-day difference of the Rebel/Rebel XT versus the D70 but the Nikon really does feel better, more solid and precise. I do sometimes wonder if that's just better attention to detail in Nikon's design, but whatever there is a difference.
Still, when it comes right down to it even the Rebel can take significant abuse and that's the cheapest build quality of all of them.
You want to know the reason I would like a D200 versus anything else in its price range? I love its viewfinder. You gotta pay about twice as much to something that nice from Canon (but then again you do get that wonderful full-frame sensor).
In some cases, though, I'd take that cheesy Minolta X-9 over any of these. That has a split prism viewfinder. Boy would that have been useful trying to shoot tortoises through the bushes in the Galapagos. No matter that the Rebel's kit lens cost more....
jimf@frostbytes.com
How, is it heavier? Does it "not rattle" or something?
The 20d is made of metal, and all its moving parts are smooth. So how could it be "sturdier?"
As I mentioned before, my Pentacon is 100% Soviet Iron- it sure "feels" heavier than the 20d. But in fact it is more delicate.
I'll hold off definitive comment until I heft a d200, but the 20d does jsut fine for me, and I get my moneys worth of use and abuse out of it.
Yes the D200 is heavier than the 20D. I was going to shake the 20D for rattling sounds but it's owner would have objected. :lol4
By being more like the D200 :lol
It's good that you are happy with your 20D, that's all that counts. I have been using my non-weather resistant D100 for years w/o a hitch. As long as you care for and use your camera properly it will serve you well.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The weather sealing is only part of it and thinking you need a rubber lensmount is silly and speaks of how well Canon marketing is working on you. I have disassembled bodies and lensmounts available. I also know what the two flat pieces of steel can withstand together. They are waterproof and dustproof at that specific joint without any seal. Plain and simple.
Yes let's keep it a fair fight but lets not throw in outright lies at the same time.
'twas your words, not mine, I twisted nothing. But I guess we'll just have to disagree about what constitutes "high end". As for the D200, I most certainly have held one, and shot with it. It made me wish I didn't have so much invested in Canon glass. That thing has wonderful color and I love the ergonomics and controls.
Alas, that's the way of things as the manufacturers leapfrog each other with successive generations. A year ago it was the 20D, after all. It's a fun time to be a photographer.
jimf@frostbytes.com
i haven't seen a retaliation against harry on Dgrin.smugmug.com yet.
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
Whats with Nikons contrast?:uhoh
Heres a few more for you:
Sorry, but if you take a look here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos20d%2Cnikon_d70s&show=all
You may notice that the 20D has-
better resolution
more megapixels
faster frame rate
larger jpg burst rate
100 and 3200 ISO options
kelvin presets for WB
mirror lock up
more powerful built-in flash
cleaner high ISO
USB 2.0 ('true' usb 2.0)
magnesium body
Let's see the D70 has....
larger lcd (1.8 vs 2.0)
-5/+5 EV steps
spot metering
Yep, sure looks like the D70 is the sure winner there alright
(BTW-I don't give a rat's arse about impressing you at all...)
Ahh...the magical 'Canon Marketing' brain washing at work again. I guess the engineers at Canon AND Nikon who design their true *pro* level cameras and put seals on the lens mounts AND their lenses are just victims of their marketing departments? Maybe you should call them and explain how they are wasting their time (since you have all these disassembled bodies laying around and all that...). They may even want to hire you.
Well, if you think what I'm saying are "outright lies", then I guess I'm a liar.
better resolution - not a huge difference actually.
more megapixels - once again a small difference.
faster frame rate - agree. I doubt either would be the first choice of a real action shooter though.
larger jpg burst rate - in that same link? I didn't see that.
100 and 3200 ISO options - ISO 3200 is a joke on the 20D. I liked the D70 at 1600ISO and EC -1 better actually. Of course we could say the ancient D100 beats them both since it has 6400ISO but that's pretty much useless on it also.
kelvin presets for WB - I'd find this a non-concern. I shoot RAW and even when I was a jpg shooter just used an Expodisc.
mirror lock up - agree.
more powerful built-in flash - I never found the built in flash of the D70 (although I preferred shoe mount or remote flash regardless) lacking in power.
cleaner high ISO - that is a falsehood that most people take on faith.
USB 2.0 ('true' usb 2.0) - I won't even tell you my opinion of those that don't have enough sense to use a card reader.
magnesium body - I fail to see the point of that on a low end camera.
Let's not forget that the D70 does wireless flash from the body. The 20D requires an expensive "add-on" does it not?
Let's take these one at a time...
larger lcd (1.8 vs 2.0) - I think the only people that worry about LCD size still suffer from "point and shootitis"
-5/+5 EV steps - I've rarely used that but I guess it's an advantage.
spot metering - Agree although I think it's better to learn matrix metering and know how much to compensate than worry over multiple metering modes.
Yes it does. For me the deciding factor was the superior flash system (even though I hate flash) and better high ISO performance.
OK.
I help design, manafacture, and live items much more complicated than a lens. The seal on my 17-55mm is just a marketing gimmick. I don't know what you do for a living but I want you to imagine two perfectly flat rings of steel (perfect is a relative term, let's say flat within a .001 of an inch). Place them together with any type of decent fit and you have a weatherproof and dustproof seal. It's really rather simple.
If someone wants to hire me then so be it. I am fluent in multiple Cad and Cam software packages, have taught Blueprint Reading, Machine Technology, EDM, ect. I can do complicated machining and prototype work unsupervised. I'm well versed in the state of the art when it comes to machining various tool steels, copper, and other materials. I've been doing this for over a decade now. I'm willing to relocate to most countries.
By the way, what are your qualifications that you "know" that a lens isn't weather sealed without a rubber ring. Don't impress me, a simple answer will suffice.
My apologies if that wasn't the case. The truth of what you said as it comes to the need for weathersealing at the lensmount though is not very truthful.
1. Nikon has made a commitment to the APS-C sensor size. It's a smart move because they've backed it up with stellar DX optics across the board (with only two exceptions). Once conventional wisdom held that larger sensors (full frame) would be needed to reach certain performance levels. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. The performance of the D2X and D200 certainly seem proof considering the price points they meet. The performance of the D50 even at higher ISO's vs. it's extremely low price point makes me really question the need for larger sensors in DSLR's for most consumers.
2. There are still certain performance hurdles and the price barrier that must be overcome before FF will make sense for the masses. The 5D seems the ultimate proof of this.
I'd say that it's only a matter of time before Nikon does have a FF camera. Unlike Canon I doubt they'll cripple it by limiting it to "FF" optics though. The D2X already employs a HSC mode. The same it would seem could be applied to a FF camera to give a DX mode and allow users access to the excellent Nikon DX optics that are already being produced. Many there are simply no FF equivalants for speaking feature for feature or speaking certain optical characteristics.
Canon has a storied history of abandoning loyal users by doing things such as wholesale changes of the mount. I wouldn't feel comfortable buying "DX" optics if I were shooting anything but Nikon.
The announcement by Zeiss of new optics available for SLR's is in F-mount. Nothing dedicated to Canon. It really makes one wonder does it not? The conventional wisdom that Canon FF is hampered in a way by the lack of Canon wide angle optics at a certain quality level would make one think that if anything Zeiss would first release wide angle optics specifically targeted at Canon FF users first and not a "normal" range optic and a portrait lens of all things in Nikon F-mount. I think it's because the market is not what some would think it is for FF DSLR's at the moment. If anything the abysmal sales of the 5D, the specualtion of a huge rebate from Canon to help move things along, and the lack of enthusiasm by such a storied giant as Zeiss to release what are surely "niche" optics in a mount targeted at a "niche" camera makes one wonder at the wisdom of Canon's strategy.
Point, even the wide Zeiss lenses forthcoming will be in F-mount and M42. Nothing (minus the old adapter method) for Canon users specifically.
It's getting kind of lonely in this thread.
Here's two today with my "noisy", "ancient", low end D100 and Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro.
The first is at 250ISO. Clean like it should be. The second is at 1600ISO. Even downsized like it is you can still easily see the noise in the out of focus regions. It's not always about the amount of noise but the quality of it IMO. I can live with the noise in that shot.
Ok, so my question really is "why have they made a commitment to the APS-C sensor? And its not because FF sensors don't perform as well. They may be harder to manufacture due to flaw occurences, but that is why they cost more.
I don't have a beef, honestly, with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot canon because when I got a DSLR I had $1500 to spend and the d200 didn't exist. The best around was the 20d- a camera that far outclasses the d70 in build quality. I am happy to see the d200, and would probably buy it If I was buying today. But the reason that I'm wouldn't buy a FF sensor is due to cash flow, not because I don't want it.
I would prefer an FF sensor for the same reason that, If I were Bill Gates, I wouldn't event think about Canon or Nikon, I'd go straight up for a Hassy with a digital back. I want to be able to get as wide as possible.
Since Nikon is the "king of wide angle", why do they blow that advantage by forcing their users to get a 1.6x crop. Even on their pro cameras. That's simply stupid.
The problems with waiting for a FF sensor are manifold;
1- they are already years behind.
2- every gap they leave in the market creates life-long canon users.
Why? For the same reason that I am a life long canon user. Frankly, I coudl give a crap about the label on the camera. The quality of a good canon is more or less identical to that of a good Nikon. It's like maserati vs. lotus; if you don't know how to drive, or don't put gas in the car, who cares?
I bought based on how high I could get in the market towards the pro-end with the cash that I had available. I suspect others make that decision, and then justify it with brand loyalty later.
Not having huge volumes of cahs available, I upgrade incrementally. Started with the kit lens, then got the 50 prime, then the 35-135. Got an adaptor to use my Orestegor 300 prime. Now that I have all the bases covered, I can look at some nice lenses like the 17-40 L. So the d200 has come out, and is likely better than the 20d. Am I going to replace all of that glass, or wait until I can just stick it all on a 5D or the next best thing?
People often say marketing doesn't matter. But I wish that I had had an alternative to the 20d when I was buying. Not because its bad, I love my 20d and have even knicknamed it. But competition is always good for me, the consumer. I wish Nikon were a little sharper in this dept. Not that marketing is all important, a la KODAK, (as much as it pains me to say, as Kodak paid for my college education) but you can't ignore it.
Also Nikon just blows, lets be honest. Back to the totally vituperative, scurrilious tone of the thread.
Nikon is a bastion of Godless Communism and should be avoided for the following reasons:
1- Nikon made artillery rangefinders that blew up my grandpappy JimBob on Tarawa.
2-Good Americans should buy American.
3-Dr. It must be stopped!
4-Nikon users are like Leica Fanatics, but have less cash. Therefore their snobishness can always be trumped with "and why didn't you buy a digilux?"
5- Zoophilia
Or, for a bit more money, I could get a similar setup with the Nikon d200, also a phat camera.
If you are more professionally oriented, then you will probably go for the real "pro" canon cameras. I think the 5d is too much money to take market fom the d200, and not enough to take it from the D2x. I hope that, in 4 years when I am ready to buy a new body, they have a $1500 full frame. I would jump on it immediately. I think the demand is there, its just priced out of the tolerances of the potential market.
Amen to zoophilia!
It's not that FF sensors are more expensive, but that there is a problem with light fall-off at the edges of FF digital sensors (but not FF film).
Some Canonite ridiculed my previous iteration of that by the posting of some wonderful wide angle shots of andy's. Nevermind the strong light fall-off effect seen in at least one of those shots meant to contradict what I said.
Anyway my point wasn't that you couldn't take great WA shots with Canon, but that there may be a technical (not financial) reason why Nikon would shy away from FF sensors, and instead push forward with DX sensors with superwide DX glass.
http://cusac.smugmug.com
Just for the record I'm not impressed with the build quality of either. Where is the Nikon 1.6 crop camera? I have failed in my research to find such a beast.
How many would there really be considering how abysmal sales of FF bodies are?
As far as your years behind statement, that is only if you assume (in error) that there is some level of performance that people want/need that can't be reached with a smaller sensor. By your logic we should just go ahead and flush everything down the tubes that isn't a digital back attached to our Hasselblad's.
Yet the quality of both is inferior to a digital back so why even bother if I follow your logic.
By the way, being a life long Canon user makes me want to ask...
How are your FD mount lenses working out for you.
I'd say you really haven't made much of an investment yet. Used Canon gear holds value reasonably well so you could easily sell out now with only a small loss and come back to the good side of the force. Don't let the empty promises of the dark side (FF at a reasonable price, solutions for light fall-off, build quality equal to the price) ensnare you in a field of dreams that are nothing more than illusions. That is the way of the Dark Side (Canon marketing lies) and the way of the Dark Side only leads to despair and doom!:uhoh Nikon can maintain sales and position without lies, deciept, and flashy gimmicks. Don't let the bright lights blind you to the truth. That is the way of the liar and the thief. Resist the Dark Side Luke!
Point by point...
1. Nikon's invaluable assistance to the US Atomic Energy Commision during the cold war make the peace and prosperity you now enjoy possible. Nikon made something at the behest of a national authority. They weren't out to get your Uncle JimBob personally. (See the lies of the Dark Side. Even in our history it poisons those unaware.)
2. Good Americans should have thought about that before the core of manafacturing in the country was given away over a decade ago. Nikon didn't actively lobby for that act unlike Canon.
3. Dr. It is your friend. Dr. It is pretty ponies, rainbows, a kid with an ice cream cone, a warm summer breeze! If loving Dr. It is wrong then I don't wanna be right.
4. Nikon users are like Leica fanatics in a way but unlike Canon fanatics they have an actual history of stunning optics that can easily be used on their most modern camera bodies.
5. Zoophilia? An odd word. Immersed in your fantasy world I'm sure it makes some sense to you. You poor Canon zombie.:cry
Your semantic Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. I have the power of the shiny red band!
By the way if you have 2 grand then you CAN get a professional camera body. It's called the D200. The truth is killing you Canon users in this thread.
Camera body a D100 but just so you won't think I smeared the truth somehow with Nikon optics, the lens was a Kowa 55mm f/1.0. Speed is necessary to capture the enemy. He hides in shadows knowing that the non film like noise of Canon DSLR's will hide him.
Once I told my dog of my quest to find a second system to use so I could explore the adaptability of some of the high speed macro lenses I was building. Upon learning that Canon was indeed in the running his reaction was most telling...
One can insist that the d70 has a "better build" than the 20d all day long. The facts remain; the d7- is plastic, the 20d is magnesium alloy. What would you rather have a car crash while riding, a volvo or a fiero? "nuff said. Actually, I haven't seen a fireo on the road in a while. I wonder why that is.
the d200 is not a pro camera. It is a good camera, but not a pro camera.
Pro cameras are the d2x and the 1ds Mark II. these are "pro" cameras. If you pay for the roof over your head with your camera (which is what "pro" means) then you best have one of these. Or the H2. Or a Fuji gx680 and your own lab.
Often people fail to respond to assertions that "the d200 is a pro camera" because arguing with someone who says that is like arguing with someone who believes that the earth is flat. It is impossible to change the finest minds of the 14th century.
It becomes clearer and clear, my dear naked soda, that you are a communist. Admit it. You love Nikon because you hate America, and apple pie. A tattooed communist at that.
May the ghost of uncle Jimbob haunt you from his jungly grave!