NIKON D200 OR FUJIFILM S5 PRO

<p>HI GUYS</p>

<p>is good to be back in the forum , I just iinherit a fujifilm s5 pro<br>

and really looks like the nikon D2OO what is the diferents ? some say is only to shoot weddings or do police work <br>

you know like the CSI stuff.</p>

<p>I don't know if I sell it or keep it a second body . it looks like nikon D200<br>

THANKS GUYS</p>

The S5 shares most of the D200 body but with Fuji guts. Good for skin tones and some other applications - if you have lenses for it, try it out, you might like it. As for the CSI stuff, are you thinking of the UV/IR model for shooting crime scenes? It's a different model from what you appear to have.

<p>thank you Andrew</p>

<p>The fuji has one of the highest dynamic ranges ever. Great for weddings as the white dress and black suit do not phase it. The camera was very popular for weddings. Also known for nice skin tones. Nice camera and you should just shoot if for a while and see what you think.</p>

 

<p>Yes, I remember reading how it was the cats meow when it came to weddings. I would keep it. </p>

<p>I own both cameras. The S3 was a better camera than the S5 except for creative lighting system absent on the S3. I used to own an S3. The D300 is better than either one of them 99% of the time. Shooting formal wedding photographs, the S5 has a slight edge in the hands of a good photographer. The zoom on the display is not as good on the S5 when compared to the D200, for checking critical focus. The S5 has the older S3 sensor, pretty old technology in 2011. Really think about investing todays cash in a 5 year old camera sensor. My S5 still has the factory sheen on it from the factory, do not care for it. Liked the D200, love the D300 (and D3).</p>

<p>If I only had a D200 - and was given an S5 - I'd keep it as both a wedding / high contrast body and portrait camera. Since I have D300 and D700 - It is not essential - both D300 and D700 do as good as if not better than the S5 pro at weddings. </p>

<p>Key differences between the D200 / S5 - <br>

1) Internals are all Fuji vs Nikon / Sony. The Fuji has a sensor that has separate R, B, G - which some claim is in effect a tripling of the MegaPixels. Either way - it's a nice sensor for high contrast scenes - such as a wedding. </p>

<p>2) Battery looks the same as a Nikon but it is different - The Fuji has an extra notch on it - which means it won't work in a Nikon camera, but will charge on a nikon charger. Nikon batteries work just fine in the Fuji - in fact they used to bundle the MB-200 with it. </p>

<p>3) The menu system in the Fuji is not the same as Nikon's. In fact - it's probably closer to the old D1 series than the D200 menus. It drove me nuts every time I had to find something. Not clear nor intuitive at all. </p>

<p>Again - good backup for a D200 or vice versa. Not as good as a D300 / D700 but was out 3 years before either of them. <br>

Dave</p>

 

<p>If you don't have a prosumer/profesional body this is a very nice camera for an amateur. For what I read it offers a higher dynamic range than the D200 but it is slower (slow buffer, slow autofocus, slow FPS... etc).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What type of photography will you be doing with it? What body or bodies do you own now?</p>

<p>David H., on point 1, you are confusing the Sigma/Foveon sensors with Fuji's SuperCCD technology. Fuji sensors have 6 million large pixels with 6 million smaller. The smaller ones are used to extend the dymanic range, and tests indicate it sure did work. So, yes, it was marketed as a 12 megapixel camera, which it technically is while the files do not show it....<br>

Anyway, just technical mumbo jumbo.</p>

<p>I shot many weddings using a Nikon D200 and one or two SB 800 flash and never had a problem and the quality was fine. I still recomend it if you have to elect this one or the Fuji S5. For CSI photography you need dedicated flash gear and add a good macro lens, that´s all.</p>

<p>The debate used to rage on if the S5 was a true 12MP camera or a gimmick 6MP camera. I am sure those threads are here some three years back. Any camera will offer up good results in the hands of a master photographer.</p>

<p>Well, as others have pointed out, it depends on what you shoot. Thom Hogan has compared Fuji S5 Pro with D200 quite well in his review of S5, so you might want to check it out (http://www.bythom.com/s5review.htm). In short: If you want speed and more megapixels (shoot sports/action and print big) choose D200. If you want better DR, better color (IMHO) and like to photograph people, choose Fuji S5. Also If you're more jpg-shooter than raw-shooter, Fuji S_ Pro's produces the best jpg's I've ever encountered.</p>

<p>I have Fuji S5 Pro (& S3 Pro) and use them in everything I shoot, and for my uses S5 Pro is the best DSLR I've shot with (others being everything between D40 & D90 and D7000). But then again I don't shoot sports or other action and I don't print big (and haven't spent that much time with D7000). I just absolutely love those Fuji colors, dynamic range and how S5 (& S3) handles skin tones.</p>

<p>So I would definitely give Fuji a chance, and see how it works for you.</p>

<p>I think the OP just got a S5 for free and is gathering info. If I didn't have any DSRL I think a free S5 would be like a godsend for me.</p>

 

<p>S5 is a solid camera - just slow when shooting RAW with 400% DR setting. Decent autofocus but not as good as the modern Nikons. Excellent camera for dealing with highlights. </p>