I want to come over to Canon from Nikon

I have a D200 17-55 70-200 setup right now.

 

Most of my work is done in Churches and halls. I find that my D200 has slower

AF that tends to do a lot of hunting in low light and I'm not all that impressed

with my D200's ISO performance at 800 and above.

 

I was looking at the Canon EOS 40D with 17-85. I don't want to go into the

store yet because they will pressure me to buy the gear so I want to ask the

Canon users first what is it that I can expect with this upgrade?

 

In other words what do you feel are the strong points of the 40D over the D200

in my type of shooting.

 

Thanks

Why not upgrade to a D300 instead and keep your lenses.

I've always found camera salesman quite low pressure, but of course it depends on the store. Go to a dedicated camera store, not a general electronics cut-throat commision place, and check out the cameras, you'll be ok ;)

I agree, I use both and I think Nikon and Canon are very equal as far a gear goes. Why

bother switching you already have some good lenses. If you do switch to Canon I

would not get that lens unless you want just a decent walk around lens.

I thought about a D300 but it is more expensive. I was considering the 40D because I keep hearing that Canon's AF is better than Nikon's and Canon performs better at higher ISO's.

 

The D200 looks great at 100-200 and sometimes 400 but at 800 on you can easily see the grain and my larger prints don't look as good as I would like them too.

 

That's why I thought of the 40D. I don't have much invested in accessories or anything like that and the 17-55 and 70-200 will easily sell for what I paid for them. If I was going to lose a lot of money, I wouldn't be thinking about a switch.

 

Also is the 17-85IS a "walk around lens" I heard it was pretty sharp. I always planned on getting rid of my 17-55 because I never shot it wide open and a lot of people said that Nikon's 18-70 was pretty decent.

You will see some grain at 800 with the 40D as well. If you shoot in churches how do

you not shoot wide open? I would think you want speed in those situations.

 

The 40D is a great camera, but if you want low noise I hear the D300 is better dealing

with noise. A little noise at 800 does not bother me, i guess it just depends on your

style and what you shoot.

Upgrade to D3, then you'd have the "king of high ISO, low light" performance.

 

All joking aside, don't buy a whole new brand.

Try some high-speed film sometime. Then you'll appreciate how noise-free your D200 is. Seriously, get a D300. Or invest in multiple flash heads.

Go to Calumet or another good camera store with CARDS. Have them format one in the camera of your choice and take some pics along with matching ones from your current camera.

 

My D200 rarely hunts. I did indoor basketball with my 50 1.8 AFD and never missed a shot. Last weekend I did my grandaughter in a figure skating contest, 55/200 Vr ISO 1600. Pics were almost all fine. But I was using 200mm and 5.6 and had never done it before. I am a landscape photog.

 

Anyway a D300 will outdo a 40 D noise wise.

 

To control noise I use the noise reduction in CS3 in conjunction with a suface mask that keeps the smoothing away from the edges.

 

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tip-using-surface-mask.htm

 

Also look at the other tips on how to sharpen etc and you will not need a camera upgrade.

 

If and when I upgrade it will be to a full frame sensor and I will be done with it.

 

In the mean time I am using Fast prime lenses to handle low light or a tripod and/or the edgemasking type noise reduction.

 

You will also find EDGE sharpening to be superior to overall sharpening as it does not increase noise in smooth areas like skies.

 

Look at all this before you get a new camera that is only marginally better. Any full frame camera is a decent upgrade and the new Canon Mark III is beautiful, The Nikon D3 is a worthy upgrade, but I would wait for the D3X .

Why?

 

I mean, i'm a big canon fan, but I highly doubt switching to canon is going to fix your problems. Firstly, you're unlikely to get full value for your current equipment. So you will take a loss monetarily...

 

Secondly, the 17-85 is a poor substitute for the nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. In fact, it is probably one of the least suited canon lenses for churches and low light. You would have to fork out $1500 for the 24-70L 2.8 and another $1800 for the 70-200L 2.8 IS. I doubt you can afford that from the sounds of it... and if you could, i'd call you a dummy for not spending the money on a Nikon D300 or D3

 

Honestly, if you are really having so many problems with the D200, then spend your money on a D300 instead, or even a D3. Moving to Canon is not going to solve your issues.

 

I have a 40D / 24-70L 2.8, 17-40L f4, 70-200L f4. Excellent combo, but in no significant way is it superior to my friends D200 / 17-55 / 70-200 kit. I've shot with hers and found it very comparable, and there were things I preferred with hers over mine.

Another Canon photographer here. Don't do it! Stick with Nikon, since you have the lenses. Nikon makes good equipment, and they're giving Canon a thrashing with the D3. Just breathe deeply hang with Nikon, and wait for them to improve their AF. (They will.)

If I understand correctly then you consider the switch because of something you HEARD or READ somewhere? So why not go into a store and check things out for yourself before making such drastic decisions rather than basing it on hearsay?

Get a 5D with rebate $1900 on Monday

"Just breathe deeply hang with Nikon, and wait for them to improve their AF. (They will.)"

 

They actually already have improved the AF. The D300 and D3 use the same module.

Daniel: one of the primary virtues of f/2.8 lenses is that they give the camera lots of light with which to operate their AF systems. The D300 has substantially better AF than the D200. But if you go to something like the kit 18-70, you're going to be pulling in a lot less light in the first place. You can get a pretty good price for your two very fine lenses, but you're still going to take a bath, having to then replace them with their Canon counterparts, plus another body.

 

You should be able to get $900 or so for your D200. The extra $900 you then need to spend to get a D300 will be far, far better spent than switching systems. The 40D is not going to focus more nimbly than the D300's all new AF system, and it's certainly not going to be quieter at high ISOs.

 

What you'll save by not dumping brands, but switching bodies, will not make up the difference between your D200 and a D3, but it would take a big bight out of it. What you really need to do, as mentioned above, is try a D300. Considering the financial cliff you seem ready to jump off, how about just renting a D300 for a day? Actually put it to work in the setting in which you regularly shoot? Unlike the the Canon, the D300 will be very familiar to you, and you should have no trouble diving right in. Go right to ISO 1600, and then sit back and completely re-think what you're considering. Because, you will.

Personally I would buy some fast prime lenses. 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, Sigma 30 f1.4 are all reasonably priced.

"Anyway a D300 will outdo a 40D noise wise."

 

*Only* with the D300's in-camera NR working - and the 40D has that too.

I agree with Walt � try faster lenses (primes).

WOW!

 

Thanks for those responses. I guess I should pay more attention to the new D300. I just always assumed that Canon's were better indoors because I always see wedding photographers with them.

 

I will look into the D300.

 

Thanks again.

"I don't want to go into the store yet because they will pressure me to buy the gear"

 

Then don't buy from them. Resist pressure. Regardless, it is important for you to put the camera in your hands.

 

"I thought about a D300 but it is more expensive."

 

More expensive than replacing your two lenses, and the time to learn the uer interface and peculiarities of Canon?

Pro-Nikon comments in a CANON forum!? What's this world coming to? ;)

<p>But seriously, much as I would love to say otherwise, I think you're better off staying with your current setup and upgrading the body, or in the interim, investing in some fast glass. Yes, go shoot some film then you'll see what REAL grain looks like, even at ISO 400 ;) Get the D300 if you can...

You always saw wedding photographers with Canons because they wanted the full frame 5D. The next one up in Canon's line costs $8,000, and Nikon's only full frame is $4,600+ The 40D is different, a fast crop camera. You would do fine with a D300.

i dont know what can be possibly wrong with what you have right now, thats a dream

line-up for some but...

 

if you happen to drop by the philippines, you can have my 30d with grip with 17-40

f4L, and an 85mm f1.8... for your d200 and 17-55... if you have another d200 and a

telephoto lens ill throw in my 40d and 70-200f4 as well... if you have a sb800 ill

throw in my 580ex with it... cheers!

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

 

Read the above and keep your Nikon gear. Yes, Canon will address this and come out with something that should have even greater low light and high speed performance in both the 40D range, 1DMkIIIn and the full frame version.

 

We will only benefit from the competition. Right now Nikon has two clear leaders on their hands and that is good for all of us.

come on over.

I have been going to dump my 40d and jump on a d300.

I fell into a deal on some nikon glass and a d70.

I started looking for a deal on a d300 about 2 weeks ago.

Put my 40d up for grabs on ebay.

I just found a d300 on display at local retailer. Set with it in my hands for over an hour.

Could not get it to resolve a single image. AF was all over the place and dog slow next to the 40d. I came home and punch into google. I entered d300 problems. Bam!

Sure as hekk...bad rap on this issue as well as others.

Who needs to be a test pig for a huge outfit like Nikon.....Not me.

I ran into post after post about what a great body Nikon had in the D300 and D3.

Then in some circles I ran into the cons.

Read all about how Nikon dropped the ball and was still looking for a way to resolve its issues. I am sure they will........in time! Nikon may have hit a soft point in the market on some cool features and extra frames with its new flagships. But they fail in the field of battle. Its simple. If it dont work who needs it?

My 40d and L series glass earned me 800 bucks last weekend. Over 3000 photos.

I only caned about 30 of them due to AF issues. My point is. Canon works when I need it. Its far better to have a gun that works than one that jams.

As soon as I send this my sale is over for my Canon gear. I will wait for the next flagship they launch soon. The one that blends the full frame of the 5d with the proven bells of the 40d. Well worth the wait Im sure.