D200 vs. S3

OK help me out...

 

I have a few friends who are jumping the nikon Ship and going to Cannon.

 

I love my Nikon stuff but there is the noise issue at higher ISO. blah blah

blah

 

I have heard from different people that the Fuji S3 is a great low noise

solution for this issue.

 

It bother's me that I would have to step out of the Nikon series in order to

get this better sensor/quality at higher ISO.

 

My friends just say... buy Cannon.

 

I also understand how the pixels work on the Fuji so it is and isn't 12.2

 

but, Now in the real world. what's the deal?

Both Nikon and Canon cameras, are better than ether you or I, are as photographers. 90% of a good photo is the person and not which brand of camera they are using.If you think that switching will make you a better photographer, I think you will be disappointed. I have and shoot both brands of cameras and they exceed my capabilities.

A visit to your website convinces me that you should go with Canon. No doubt about it, that

is where your weakness is.

 

But before you do, learn to spell Canon correctly. A Canon is a camera. A cannon is a

weapon.

Take a clue from BW and visit <i>his</i> work before taking his advice. It's way different from yours. I can't see where you are a Canon guy any more than I am, and I use Nikon.<p> When I look at your work, I see a need for good skin tones and you can certainly get that from either system. Consider that the Fuji, despite all the excitement about dynamic range, is still a 6MP camera. I used S2 cameras for several years and can assure you that the D200 is way more camera, and the S5 from Fuji didn't take <i>any</i> leap in resolution. And resolution has a lot to do with smooth skin tones.<p>Since I don't use Canon, all I can say is I am <i>very</i> happy with the D200 and my Capture NX conversions of the D200 RAW files give beautiful skin tones... t

D50, D80 and D200 all have great high-ISO performance, as do the S3. If you go pixel peeping or print very large formats, you'll see differences between them an a Canon may perform slightly better, but the difference isn't nearly as big as it was two years ago.

 

I have the S3, and high ISO is very good, and resolution likewise. The latter is reasonably on par with an 8-9MP camera if you shoot at 12MP and downsize slightly. The in-camera interpolation works great, probably due to the fact that the R-pixels (the small ones) are integrated in the process (but nobody really know this, except for the guys at Fuji, and I don't that they will tell you).

 

The negative aspect of the S3 is ergonomics. The camera has lots of settings and variables, but there are 3 different LCD's and very little that can be changed with your eye to the viewfinder, unless you have an extremely good memory.

 

If I could choose today, I would probably go for a D80 or D200. They both have more resolution, but not as much dynamic range as the S3. Did I mention that the S3 is slow? It's slow! And the RAW-files are 25MB.

 

As for Canon: the reason I can see for changing to Canon is the 5D. Great image quality, but the ergonomics are not that good.

 

I actually considered a Pentax K100D to use as a low-light camera. Good high-ISO performance combined with fast primes and in-body anti-shake (and a very low price for the body), makes it a tempting alternative. The body plus 3 top quality primes wouldn't cot more than a 5D body. Only 6MP, so it depends what you plan to use it for.

Shouldn't you be really be asking d200 vs soon to be released S5? I think you should wait and see what Fuji comes up with in S5 before making any decisions unless you can't wait. Also if you were to switch you can get an adapter to use your nikkors on canon, which as I understand it, you can meter with it but lose all the auto functions. If you use many manual Nikkors then there won't be too much problem switching to canon and using an adapter but if you rely heavily on auto functions then switching could be a sizable investment. 5D is very tempting though...

"I have heard from different people that the Fuji S3 is a great low noise solution for this issue."

 

That correlates with my experience. With the Fuji S2 my main high ISO limit (for birds/wildlife/evening landscape/etc) in low light was 400. Now I also have an S3 and use ISO 1600 for most low light situations. Amazing technology. Fuji is why I still reside in the Nikon camp (keep the lenses). -Greg-

<i>It bother's me that I would have to step out of the Nikon series in order to get this better sensor/quality at higher ISO.</i><br><br>

 

Unless you are talking about full frame sensors, there is no such advantage in Canon. By default Canon applies a higher noise reduction and sharpening which makes images look less noisy but with other image artifacts like sharpening halos. Their full frame sensors have inherently less noise because of larger photosites, but they are expensive and have corner problems.<br><br>

 

Btw, interesting first post for a new member (November 26, 2006); wish luck to your (multiple) friends who are jumping the off the Nikon ship for Canon.

fuji = dynamic range, nikon = ergonomics, canon = actual image quality,.... simple as that.. what's important to you.. this from an owner of a d2x, and a 5d.

That last is an over simplification, and all such distillations are less vauable than nuanced and open research.<p>The <a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/photokina2006/pdf/FienPix_S5Pro_E.pdf">specs on the Fuji S5 are out</a>, and they have ignored the real successes of larger pixel count in a quality sensor that other manufacturers exploit... it's still <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_s5.asp">a 6mp camera</a> (although they have upgraded to the F100/D200 type body)... t

It is always possible to follow one over simplification with yet another.

indeed... t