First-time buyer: new 30D vs D200
I've been holding off on purchasing my first DSLR to see what PMA brought. Now that the D30 is announced, I find myself stuck between the 30D and the D200. I've always been a Canon user - EOS 10s for 10+ years, then moved to Powershot G2 and then G6. However, since I'm just entering the DSLR realm, I'm open to other options. This decision is more difficult due to the fact that I don't own much high-quality glass from either camp.
So, if you were a first-time buyer looking to get one of these two cameras, what would you get (and why)?
I'm quite familiar with Canon's line-up of lenses, how do the Nikkor offerings compare in price/quality?
The "Nikon vs Canon Debate" thread has been helpful and entertaining through this process so far.
How about prices of flash systems? I know many feel the Nikon i-TTL system is superior to Canon's E-TTL2, never having used the Nikon side I don't know if this is a significant issue. I already own a 420ex which I use with my G6.
So, what comments/advice do you have to offer?
So, if you were a first-time buyer looking to get one of these two cameras, what would you get (and why)?
I'm quite familiar with Canon's line-up of lenses, how do the Nikkor offerings compare in price/quality?
The "Nikon vs Canon Debate" thread has been helpful and entertaining through this process so far.
How about prices of flash systems? I know many feel the Nikon i-TTL system is superior to Canon's E-TTL2, never having used the Nikon side I don't know if this is a significant issue. I already own a 420ex which I use with my G6.
So, what comments/advice do you have to offer?
0
Comments
I think both Canon and Nikon make good systems. I think it is easier to find better prices on used Canon equipment (because there is more out there), but that is my personal opinion.
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
I think you mean the Canon 30D, not the 3MP Canon D30 announced in May of '00 and long-since discontinued!
Besides snapshots of friends/family, I do a lot of macro photography. I also do a fair amount of nature, and landscape shooting but would also like to do more night photography (long exposures). I don't do much sports photography at the moment.
As for total budget, well, that's flexible. I'd like to stay under $2500 to start for everything, but I'll likely just keep buying additions as I can afford them. I was planning on starting with a solid mid-range zoom lens + a good macro to start and would expand from there. As for the flash, well, if I go with Canon I may stick with the 420ex for the time being - I'd need a new flash if I went for the Nikon.
Indeed! I was just thinking how silly that naming was.. ooops.. title fixed.
In general, don't wait for the next camera to come. As soon as the 30D is out, Nikon probably has another one in the pipeline and rumours will be flying. Are you going to wait again....? Only if you know the 30D will be out any moment, it may be good to wait.
More important is which gear you want to buy into (i.e. mostly lenses). Canon or Nikkor? I think both companies make great products. You can not really go wrong with either product-lines.
I have no experience with Canon flash system, but it seems that most people agree Nikon's iTTL is superior. But i have the feeling that the lens-selection of Canon is a little larger.
I chose the Nikon 'camp'. Why? When i got interested in DSLR, the D70 was out and the Rebel 300D (not the 350 yet) and 20D. The Rebel just felt too flimsy for me, the D70 was better to hold and the operation felt easier. The 20D was just out of my budget... I might have gone with the 20D if i could have spent a little more money at that time... but i'm not sure about that
When I hear the earth will melt into the sun,
in two billion years,
all I can think is:
"Will that be on a Monday?"
==========================
http://www.streetsofboston.com
http://blog.antonspaans.com
I have never touched either of the two you are asking about, but I would recommend my 20D to anyone. It is truly a remarkable camera.
As for flash, I am very, very happy with the Canon TTL system. Works great with my 550EX. But as you said, you already have the 420EX (which does save you a couple of bucks if you go Canon).
Keep us posted on what you decide.
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
http://www.SnortingBullPhoto.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cherskowitz
"There's no reason to hurry on this climb...as long as you keep the tempo at the right speed the riders will fall back."
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
Nicely put Daniel! Spend for the good glass! For the type of shooting you say you'll be doing any newer body should give you the features you are looking for. Go for the glass!
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
It's a little cheaper, better high ISO (something that I wish I had now) finally has spot metering and some other nice updates to the 20D.
But for me the biggest thing is that Canon has some lenses that I want that Nikon does not. I need IS/VR. I take way too many shots that are soft do to camera shake (I have an annoying tendency to jab the shutter release when in a hurry)
I like that the 17-55 has IS and I like the 24-105 (would be a tough choice between these 2)
What I don't care for is the white lenses. I would much rather have them black to match the camera and so you don't stick out so much.
But for me the deciding factor would be the IS lenses that Canon has at the shorter focal lenghts. The 70-200 range is a wash, unless Canon releases an IS version of the 70-200F4 at about $800-$900, then another reason for me to go Canon.
All the while anxiously waiting for the Panasonic/Leica OIS lenses and upgraded E camera. I'd hate to give up the dust shaker, I love it
Gene
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
He wants to spend $2500. The 17-55 will go for around $950-$1000 and the 70-200 sells for around $1650. Nice lenses but he won't have a camera to put them on.
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've appreciated the responses so far. I had the chance to play with a D200 in a local shop last week and thought it handled very nicely - build quality is excellent. I've used the 20D quite a lot (father-in-law owns it) and am comfortable with the build/design. I'll admit I think the D200 is more robust, but both seem well built.
Given that they'll both do the job (as would a used 20D for that matter I suppose), I'm leaning towards the 30D since I could save some $ - its cheaper and I wouldn't have to buy a flash. I could use the difference towards some better/more glass.
If I did go with the Canon, the next choice would be whether to go with the new 17-55 or the 24-105... Both are same weight/size but you gain an extra stop with the former and zoom with the latter (& FF compatability).
I'll have to go play with the Nikon again though I think...
Oh, and Andy, that's a fabulous thread - great shots from both of you. Keep the debate going, it's entertaining!
Nikon.
Get your feet wet with a D50 or a used D70, (both about $550) trust me on this one- they're more than enough to get used to, what with RAW capture and fully-manual control. The 6 vs 8 vs 10 megapixel and 3 vs 5 FPS etc. debates don't ammount to much, the core has to do with learning DSLR workflow and learning a system. It took me 2 years to master my D70, and now as much as I'd love to have a D200 I don't really need one as much as I need $2000 worth of lenses. So, this may be very much objected to by the others but I say start with a D50 and spend the rest of your cash on: (Assuming you already have a nice tripod etc.)
~ The Nikon or Tokina 12-24 f/4 DX,
~ The Nikon 18-200 DX VR,
~ And the new micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8 AFS VR.
That should set you back about $2500 if you go with the Tokina super-wide zoom, and it would be all the lenses you can possibly handle for at least a decade, barring any sudden passion for anything fast-action / super-telephoto. And you can upgrade to a D200 a few years down the road when its $500 cheaper or however much. I'm sure they'll have a $100 or $150 rebate for it within a year at the latest, and the price should drop about that much as well within a few years...
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I am not a pro by any stretch of imagination. From time to time my photographs do come out very good. 5 years ago, I was lucky enough to have some funds to purchase a Leica M6 TTL along with 35mm/f2.0 I am sure you know how “simple” the M6 TTL is compare to any today’s DSLR.
The types of photographs I take and “love” are those “available light photography”. My M6 amazes me because of how accurate the exposure meter is. All I adjust is aperture and focus after I set my shutter speed. All I do is turning the aperture ring until I see the little red dot in the viewfinder. Now you know how “basic” my skills (or lack there of) are.
By the way, I bought the D200 with 17-55mm/f2.8 DX lens back in last December. I traded in my Summmicron for the lens and I bought the body on eBay for $1,850.
I only shoot in RAW.
Simply put; I am NOT satisfy with the pictures I have been taken. What happened to the contrast that I always see in my Leica? My reason is the metering is off, compare to the Leica.
Then there is the on-board flash on D200 that is useless; you can see the shadow of the lens body in the pictures. Excuse my language; what the f@#* is this?
Skin tone; I am not able to adjust it using the Photoshop or the Nikon Editor.
Of course I am reading more to learn more. I believe that the post-processing of the RAW is HUGE part of photography, just like the processing film. Then again, why do I feel that D200 needs a lot more post-processing?
I believe that I am getting more than what I bargain for…
I can sell you my D200 with the lens for $2500. If it doesn’t sell, I am trading in for Elmarit 28mm and wait for Leica Digital-M.
P.S. Andy and Harry are professionals, their photographs will confuse you.
Sorry to hear about your problems getting adjusted to the D200. I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination BTW.
I have seen folks get outstanding shots with Canon and Nikon bodies. I have gotten some pretty good shots from my Nikon bodies and lots of crappy shots with them too. Invariably when I get crappy shots the reason for that was myself and not the camera.
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!"
In deciding between systems it all comes down to the lens. Canon has some fantastic lenses as does Nikon and a few are unique and are worth thinking about:
Want to shoot available light interiors? Canon makes a 24 1.4 L lens that would be a perfect indoor PJ style lens on a 1.6 body. That lens is almost enough to make me want to switch. Nikon's 28 1.4 is a PJ standard, but is nearly $600 more. A Canon 30D and 24L would run about $2500, while the D200 and 28 1.4 would run nearly $3400. Canon also gives you about 1 extra stop of usable iso range.
Want to shoot fisheye action shots? Nikon makes a 10.5 fisheye for the APC format. I would love to use this lens for some cool motorcycle shots.
Want to shoot motorsports? Canon's 300 f4 L lens has image stabilization. Nikon has a great 300 f4, but no VR.
Want to shoot news? Nikon's 17-55 2.8 has the range and rugged build necessary. Canon has a new 17-55 2.8 IS that seems like it would be perfect for wedding PJ.
Want to shoot bugs? Nikon's new 105 VR is the first 1:1 macro with VR image stabilization. You won't need a tripod as you chase those little guys.
If I were you, I'd spend a lot of time at dpreview and here looking at the samples from different lens. If you find something unique you can buy into that system and even if that unique lens isn't in your budget right now, you can add it later.
Canon - If the relationsionship with the father-in-law is good enough ya'll could pool lenses, flashes, etc.. Also have extra flash (if he has a 580/550ex) for some wireless ETTL resulting in more creative family shots.
Just think of the b'day and christmas gifts you could get the father-in-law for your use.
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Personally I'd buy a D200. That's only because I find Canon ergonomics to be abysmal. Many would say the opposite though.
My advice is to go somewhere that has both types of bodies in stock and just handle the cameras. Let that decide. I know people will say research the lens lineup but in current made lenses I find solutions for my needs in both camps. The Nikon flash system may be better but personally I detest flash so I wouldn't even factor that in the equation. In the end I would let ergonomics decide.
I don't know what the specific differences are between the D200 and the 30D. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying over them though. Bodies are disposable. Lenses (as long as Canon doesn't abandon it's loyal base again) are long term investments. The feel of the layout for you is what you'll have to live with. That changes little between bodies within specific systems.
"From a design, build, features and performance point of view this camera really creates its own niche, it would be a pity to label it as 'semi-pro' because in use you soon realize that it's a professional camera. Which brings us to the competition, from a build/features point of view it's clearly ahead of the Canon EOS 20D/30D and in my opinion a step above the EOS 5D, a baby D2X."
:cool
http://www.SnortingBullPhoto.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cherskowitz
"There's no reason to hurry on this climb...as long as you keep the tempo at the right speed the riders will fall back."
That believe is very strong in me as well.
I read (many times so far) the link where you and Andy posted the best pictures in making the points. You backed off when Andy pulled out the picture (in Broadway show) taken without the flash. Your reply was a photo taken with a flash.
I do believe that one of the Leica's strongest points is those low light photos. May be I should look at Canon....
I am going to take this opportunity to put you and your Nikon on the spot; can you please show us your finest examples of available light photograhy? But no trick shots such as those multiple exposures shots.:D
Okay... what I do with Leica is, I point the camera to a spot that, in my opinion, is the middle between the brightest point and darkest point that I want to be appear in my final photo. Then adjust the camers until the meter shows it is okay.
I tried the same thing with my D200 with spot and centerweight meterings... but
:gun2 Yes! Yes, it is a big lens and the filter size is 77mm diameter! And I wasn't using the hood that came with it.
My summation, if you are genetically inclined to use Nikon stuff, you'll go with the nikon D200 and be fine.
If you are genetically inclined towards Canon cameras, then you should be very well served by the Canon 20d/30d.
A lot of the stuff is just too theoretical for my consumption. :uhoh
Hey Mark,
Right now I'm tied up with the 500mm shoot-off. Almost all of my shots are with available light as I rarely shoot with a flash.
The issue Andy raised was high ISO shooting. I don't do high ISO shooting because I had never had the need for it. I always shoot in the lowest ISO possible. Right now I shoot almost exclusively wildlife shots. When I shoot low light shots I use a tripod and the lowest possible ISO.
You can go to my smugmug site and see all my Nikon pics. They speak for themselves.
You can go to the Nikon Cafe site and see images from Nikon shooters in all kinds of light including high ISO shoots. You can also see some fine results gotten with the D200. You can also go to other sites and see similiarly fine results from Canon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Fuji, and Olympus shooters.
If someone can not get good results with any of these cameras I would have to say its not a failure of the equipment to perform but a failure of the user to use the equipment properly.
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 should have made myself more clear when I ask for the "available light photography". The following are the pictures I found on PBase under Canon 5D; the kind of photographs that I love. Happens to be that both are ISO 1600 shot...
I do not like the DPReview’s "discussions". It reminds me of the fist fighting “politicians” that we often see on the news.
I looked through the Nikon D200 page on the PBase as well and did not find a good example. I have nothing against Nikon. This D200 is way over my top; it is way too much time-consuming to fine tune the RAW into the contrast that I prefer.
So far I have tried; the “Expose to the right” technique and the L,a,b adjustments of contrast; so far without that much improvement.