Switch to Nikon D200?? Yes, Canon v. Nikon - for WEDDINGS

I currently have a Rebel XT (blah).. and have been waiting for the new Canon "30D" or

whatever will replace the 20D. The Nikon D200 seems to be the perfect camera for

weddings? It is wooing me to no end! I am ready to plunk my credit card down, NOW!

 

It seems to be causing quite a stir. Can anyone elaborate on these pros/cons. Sorry, this

is most definitely a Nikon v. Canon thread. Don't kill me!

 

Nikon pros:

1. Flash system (accurate flash exposures)

2. metering

3. less expensive but sharp lenses

3. Cost of D200 is extremely cheap compared to it's brother D2x or Canon 5D

4. ease of access to controls (far faster focus point selection, ISO displays in viewfinder,

etc etc)

5. D200 - FINALLY a DSLR that has a semi-"smart" battery

6. D200 - high ISO noise holds more detail and looks more film like (vs. 20D)

7. better wide lenses?

color accuracy??

???

 

Nikon cons:

1. high ISO noise

2. long delay on TTL pre-flashes (causing blinks and "sleepy" shots) ? is this an actual

problem?

3. ???

 

Canon pros:

1. High ISO performance (perhaps at the cost of detail on non-FF sensors)

2. L lenses (costly)

3. fast product releases

????

Canon cons:

1. non "L" lenses tend to be poor (please, only GENERALIZATION here :) )

2. flash system exposures

???

 

I know Marc Williams recently switched from Nik to Can.. why?

 

I have my doubts that the 20D replacement will be ground breaking.. but we could be

surprised?? I bought my Canon just because that was what seemed to be the best deal,

and the D70 wasn't a rockstar.

 

oh yes, my new "mentor" is using the Nikon system as well (D70)

 

Bottom line: Which system works best for WEDDINGS? (I specifically specialize in PJ/

Candid style, but will add formal portraits too)

 

I did invest in Sigma 18-50 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses. The company I bought them from

(sigma4less.com HIGHLY recommend!) say the might be able to work out a trade with me

on those.

 

Perhaps I should go bi? :-D Keep my XT and one or both of the Sigma lenses and invest

in a full Nikon setup, too (perhaps only 1 good lens for Nikon) Budget is a concern. I

don't think I can afford to buy 2 D200s!

 

Hope not to start a war, or invite all the trolls. Please keep it civil!

 

~Aaron Lee

Seems like you already maded up your mind.

You already own some pretty good gear for your Canon that can be carried over to an upgraded body. I'd consider that a major factor in such a decsion.

 

I got a Nikon D2H for a few good reasons:

 

1. I wanted a fast, PJ type dSLR because I wanted something that would be cost effective for lots of rapid fire shots. If the Canon EOS-1D Mark IIN had been available at the time I would have strongly considered it.

 

2. I already had several excellent manual focus Nikkors which are fully compatible with the D2H.

 

3. After many years of using guide numbers and flash meters, occasionally missing fleeting expressions and costing the patience of folks who were waiting for me to quit fiddling around, I was ready for a good TTL flash system. I compared the Olympus, Canon and Nikon flash systems and Nikon seemed to have the edge. After almost a year with the D2H and SB-800 I'm still satisfied with my choice.

 

Buuttt... if you don't anticipate needing Nikon's CLS wireless flash capabilities or prefer to control everything manually, this may not be a major factor for you.

 

And there are definite differences between Nikon and Canon dSLR images. Canon photos generally seem smoother but a bit softer to me. That's probably a good characteristic for weddings. Nikon photos, at least with my D2H, are sharper but grittier. This is fine for my intended uses which includes PJ type stuff, sports and action oriented photography. I still prefer film for most people photography and don't have any real camera bias where film is concerned - I shoot Nikon, Olympus, Rollei and was perfectly happy with my old Canon FD and Minolta gear 'til it wore out.

 

Another consideration worth investigating is autofocusing capability. I've heard some folks who have used both systems claim that Nikon's top of the line dSLRs have better autofocusing capability than comparable Canons. I dunno, haven't compared apples to apples. I did compare the Olympus E1, Nikon D70 and Canon 20D and didn't notice any difference - they all autofocused fairly capably but not enough to spin my head around. The D2H is exceptional and can autofocus quickly and positively in low light on white walls having only a little texture for contrast. The D200 hasn't been around long enough for any consensus on its autofocusing - the AF module is new and reportedly falls somewhere between that of the D70 and the D2H/D2X/F6. Of course faster lenses can help any camera AF quicker. And some folks don't rely on autofocusing anyway.

" I know Marc Williams recently switched from Nik to Can.. why?"

 

1) Full Frame. Both my Canons are full frame.

 

2) At the time, Canon offered more really fast aperture AF L lenses, and more lenses with

Image Stabilization than Nikon offered. (24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 70-200L IS).

 

Except for Full Frame, I think the playing field has leveled out somewhat. Even with a 1.5X

sensor factor, 10 meg is more than enough to shoot weddings including formals, if the

glass is decent. My Leica DMR has a 10 meg CCD with a 1.37X crop factor and a top ISO of

800, and is no problem for weddings. Also, since my switch to Canon, Nikon has

responded with more new glass and more VR offerings.

 

Personally, I like the ergonomics of the Nikons better than the Canons. I especially despise

using a camera wheel to set apertures, and liked some of the Nikon lenses with aperture

rings which none of the Canon lenses have. That also makes it very easy to use Hyper

Focal Distance focusing with the Nikons.

 

I also think that Nikon D200 is a good deal (if there is such a thing with DSLRs). It will be

an even better deal in 3 months or so.

 

Canon's high ISO performance is indeed excellent ... which means little to me since I rarely

shoot weddings over ISO 600. for any shot. I have little problems with Canon flash being

inconsistent. Seems the same as Nikon to me.

 

I like the look of images from CCD sensors because they more closely resemble film to me

... which others on p.n endlessly debate is no different than CMOS images. I disagree

based on extensively using both.

 

If I were going the route of Nikon now, it would still be for certain lenses more than the

camera. For weddings: 16-35/2.8, 28/1.4, 85/1.4. 135/2DC is all you would need until

Hell froze over. I know this is too pricey, but its an investment not an expense. Think of it

as something to aspire to eventually.

 

Lastly, I suspect technology will solve Nikon's problems with a small lens mount forcing

cropped sensors. But as it is, the overarching reason for Canon is full frame, and I suspect

the next, less featured, inexpensive Canon will be full frame for under $2,000. maybe

under $1,500. We'll see soon I'll wager.

 

How's that for triggering wanton lust for an inanimate object ; -)

Come on Marc, what evidence is there that the mount size restricts application of FF sensors with Nikon lenses? AFAIK people have successfully used Nikkors on Canon FF cameras and in some cases even seen better results than Canon's own wides.

"Come on Marc, what evidence is there that the mount size restricts application of FF

sensors with Nikon lenses? "

 

Now, now, I thought I was very supportive of the Nikon D200. Don't get all worked up

about the FF issue. However, consider this ...

 

... the fact that Nikon has no full frame Cameras, while Canon eats into their market share

at the Pro level? If they could do it, I think they would've by now (But I do think it is

coming). Nor does Fuji with F mounts? And all the issues with the Kodak DSLR using a F

mount?

 

"AFAIK people have successfully used Nikkors on Canon FF cameras and in some cases

even seen better results than Canon's own wides."

 

Yes, just like Canon users can fit the smaller mount Contax C/Y and Leica R glass to an

EOS, and use the full frame Canon sensors (BTW, those wides are better corrected than

anything either Canon or Nikon make). That is because the Canon EOS mount is larger

than any of them, and allows the lenses to be adapted at the proper distance to the ff

sensor.

I was very seriously looking at this same question as I sold my 1Ds and this is the way I looked at it and the things that interested me as a working professional in the argument between these two cameras.

<p>

I went to the store and spent and hour shooting with both the 5D and D2X, the D200 wasn't released yet but the D2X was giving me an idea.

<p>

Nikon pros:<br> The price of the 5D has dropped but at the time I could have bought two for the price of the 5D. That is a very serious consideration as there is no way I can afford another 5D as backup!<br> The D2X at least is ergonomically superior to any canon I've ever held including the 1Ds, I assume the D200 is built along the same Nikon strategy.<br> I'm not sure but considering that the 5D + grip is almost as heavy as a 1Ds, the D200 + grip could well be the lighter option.<br> The battery life is streets ahead of the 5D.<br>The 17-55 AFS lens would be utterly perfect as a wedding lens taking the place of the 24/8-70 zoom that I couldn't shoot weddings without. Canon don't have anything anywhere near this lens for range and speed.<br>I don't know about the D200 but the AF speed of the D2X was much faster in low light than the 5D (both with f2.8 lenses) and faster than I remember the 1Ds ever having been.<br> I love the focus switch, I hate the canon press button, twiddle dial, press button when you are chaging back and forth during the dancing.<br>I also love the fact that there is far more controlled by dials and switches and far less by buttons. On the 5D and 1 series everything is a button press and I don't like it when changing settings with my eye to the viewfinder.<br>The flash, having both TTL and auto (and a PC socket) in one unit, why the hell are canon so pigheaded about this!<br>AF points not all bunched into the middle, canon really annoy me when they put 45 AF points in the middle 20% of the screen.

<p>

There is a lot of 'pros' up there, from my landscape shooting point of view the weather proofing and MLU are also big plusses and the ability to use MF lenses with....wait for it....hyperfocal markings...is not something to be sneezed at.

<p>

So why did I stay with canon and buy the 5D? Firstly FF and importantly a FF viewfinder though the D2X's was pretty damn good for a cropped viewfinder. For all the big plusses above I don't think the D200 would quite match up to its big brother that had impressed me so much and the D2X is still more expensive. Although the difference isn't big, I personally found that it wasn't until the 1Ds before I saw digital files with as much resolution in enlargements as the NPS enlargements I used to do and I do know how to post process. Yes they were cleaner but for pure detail (detail in faces of large groups for example) anyway I didn't want to dip the level of megapixels again eventhough I may not need more than the 5D for the vast majority of work I do. The noise difference is there at iso 400, quite noticeably, and that was with the D2X. Underexpose for highlight detail and you are in essence shooting at iso 800. I can't say I'm hugely impressed with the 5D's iso 400, it goes downhill far too fast with underexposure, but it's still better than the Nikon. The flash exposures side by side compared to ETTL II were not either more consitent or better, shocked the heck out of me but that is what I saw. Fill flash was maybe a little better, regular flash wasn't. Also I was shooting in December and have weddings this month and the D200 isn't in stock anywhere at the moment, I could have borrowed a 20D or 10D to keep me going but a pro without a camera is like a fish out of water.<p>

Mainly I stayed for the 24-105L lens which I thought to give me everything I wanted; IS for even sharper pictures at my usual shutter speeds and to do away with the tripod, more range and lighter weight. Well I just sold it today and I have another 24-70L on the way to me now, the 24-105L just didn't work for me for many reasons. That being my main reason for staying I've again been musing about switching. The 5D with grip is heavier than it should be for a consumer level camera (I can't shoot without the grip, I've big hands) and give or take the same as the 1Ds brick. If I'm not waiting for IS then the 17-55AFS would be a good lens to have, I'd just shoot it at a constant f2.8 instead of my usual f4 to compensate for the extra DOF. <p>Chances are that I'll stay with what I have. I'm thinking of a 10D with 17-40L (pretty damn cheap 2nd hand these days and the 10D will drop like a brick, again, when the 30D comes out) as both backup and to shoot the bits that don't need that level of resolution of the 5D such as the dancing and speeches, etc, basically anything that won't make it over 8X10" and doesn't need the computer and workflow draining files of the 5D. It would also give me a cheap ultra wide zoom for my 5D which I need more than I admit. I have a friend who shoots for a local newspaper with a D2X, he bought a D200 for personal camera and sold it the next week to buy a D2X, it just wasn't enough for him, I think that if I went nikon it would have to be for the D2X not the D200, I would need a backup anyway together with a 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200 plus all the bits and peices I mentioned earlier and there is no way that I can afford to make the change at this time just for the ergonomics of the Nikon.<p>

I've realised as writing this that I'm speaking to myself much more than to ayone else, you can tell this has been on my mind! Well I'm glad I got this straight.....with myself. Thanks for letting me think out loud at all of you!<p>

As far as the original poster is concerned, wait till Febuary, it really isn't that long, then make your decision, I think it would be presumtuous to buy a camera now based on a comparison to current equivelents when there is to be a new one announced soon.

From what ive read in other forums wait for the price to drop on the D2X, its still a much better camera than the D200.

Aaron,

 

Put any of the above in the hands of a good photographer and it becomes the "perfect camera" for weddings.

It's probably 80% about the photographer; 15% about the lenses, and just 5% about the camera body. In any most wedding and social event photographers I bump into, perhaps 75% are shooting Canons, and most of those are DSLRs. I've not seen one pro with my own eyes with anything other than a Canon or Nikon.

"... I suspect the next, less featured, inexpensive Canon will be full frame for under $2,000. maybe under $1,500."

 

bingo!

I know this is a little off the topic, but I got the Pentax ist DL to play with for the ten day return time frame. If I like it, it would be a back up as I can see trouble getting less DOF from their current line up of lenses and no OEM fast primes. The D200 will be my goal for a main camera and if the ist DL can hang in there a good back up, but we will see. I will post my thoughts and maybe some bad pics later today... I bet you can't wait!.......I need some film :(

My sense is that Canon has the edge on digital technology for the moment, since I was already using Canon EOS for film and still use film a percentage of the time, and still want backup for my coverage with film...the Canon was a logical and economically good choice. Discuss the same question with your mentor...it might allow for him to loan you some real nice lenses or he might have some other ideas. For now, put away the credit card and be patient............

<I>It's probably 80% about the photographer; 15% about the lenses, and just 5% about the camera body.</I>

<P>

Maybe this isn't particularly important to the conversation, but I feel like the classic equation of the importance of glass and body has changed over the past several years. With the advent of digital, the equation seemed to shift towards the body having greater importance than with film. With the more recent releases, it seems that the importance of lens quality has been reestablished, though the sensor still perhaps brings the body up a little over what it was in filmworld.

<P>

But like I say, this is more an academic tangent. Onward.

Like many have said here and there. It is not a brand or the best equipment you used. It is your technique and how you learn to use your equipment. Equipments may vary differently by brand and each has it pros & cons, but learn to over come the cons will make you a better photographer.

 

Don't buy what other recommend, but buy what is best fit for your work-flow and style. Go to a local shop and test it out.

 

Choose to stay with one brand setup to avoid confusion and maintainance nightmare. It is like you try to run Win98, Winxp, linux, and apple OS on 1 machine.

 

It doesn't matter what brand you choose, they all do fine for wedding as long as you know your wedding photography techniques.

I think you started sub-par by trying to use an XT for wedding work. To me it's very

important that the machine is fast, responsive, durable, and can handle low light

situations with ease. In my humble opinion, the 20D is perfect for this. I wouldn't use the

XT as a primary camera, but maybe as a backup.

 

Whatever you choose, don't do it half way. You're better off if you stick to one set up so

that you can interchange your lenses easily.

I've been shooting Nikon film cameras since 1999 (F100 & N80), and have shot quite a bit with the 10D and 20D. I waited for the D200 to go digital and have been using mine for over a week now. Before making any decision, keep in mind that you probably can't find a D200 right now for sale. You will have a hard time getting one before the PMA show takes place in Feb. when Canon may introduce a 30D. The real choice that you will probably be making will be between a 30D and the D200.

 

Here's what I can tell you about whats out there now. The D200 about as good of a wedding camera as Nikon makes. The real, tangible advantages that the D2X has over the D200 aren't a factor for wedding photography. If you shoot sports, where the higher frame rate, faster AF and larger size (for better balance with big glass), then the D2X is the tool of choice. The D200 is as solid and sturdy feeling as my F100 and the D200 has better weather sealing. The AF may not be as good as the D2 series cameras, but it's the equal of the F100/F5. The biggest advantage of the D200 over the 20D is that it's much easier and faster to change AF sensors. In general, I much prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon over the Canon, which is why I never considered going to Canon for digital. Looking at out of camera JPGs the 20D files look cleaner at ISO 1600 than the D200. 1600 files from the D200 look like ISO 400 Portra film. So it's not like it's bad, but people are used to the grain free look of digital.

 

In the "you saw it here first", there is one thing that I'm not too thrilled with about the D200. With Canons I have image preview turned on so that I can do a quick sanity check peek of an image. It's on for about 2 seconds and that's all I want. With the D200, when you turn this feature on, the camera goes into regular playback mode when it displays the image. Unless you tap the shutter button the image remains on for a minimum of 10 sec's. Worst of all, the joy pad control (used for changing AF sensors in shooting mode) works like it does in play back mode switching between images and the info displayed. So if you're shooting subjects that are moving around and you're changing active AF sensors, that stops happening because you're changing images on the LCD instead. Phooey. I have the display turned off now and hit the play back button if I want to check an image. Maybe Nikon will make Image Review a separate menu item in a future firmware release.

 

As far as lenses go, as Ben pointed out, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is THE wedding lens out there. Unless you get faster primes there is no need to use primes that aren't faster than 2.8. If you want 1.4, or faster lenses Canon has more than Nikon. (BTW, unlike the F100 & F5, you can not use the aperture ring to set the aperture on AF lenses with the D200. You can only use it when using MF lenses. And while we're at it, there is no reason technical reasons why Nikon lenses can't be used with FF sensors. They have been in the past with the Kodak DSLRs.)

 

What I have found out is that I have to like using a camera and that has a lot to do with how it handles and its controls at least as much as its spec sheet. If you buy cameras based on spec sheets then you're going to be changing gear every couple of years. The D200 does what I need a digital camera to do for photographing weddings and don't plan on replacing it until it wears out.

Bruce, I don't know about you but I could do with as fast an AF as I can possibly get, though it was only driven home to me recently.

 

With film I shot with an f2.8 lens and the AF was fine, the PJ style was more in its infancy then and so fast.

 

I started digital with the 10D and a 17-40L lens and although it was an f4 lens, the 10D's sensor is so large (relatively) that it could lock onto _something_ fast enough that you wouldn't notice. My 1Ds of course had far smaller and more accurate focus sensors but with cross sensor precision including f4 lenses, coupled with a f2.8 zoom it was fine though nothing wow. Then I got the 5D and 24-105L. Here was a combination of a f4 zoom with a longer range and small focus sensors that were only cross sensors on f2.8 lenses. It just wasn't fast enough in low light for split second shooting and that was one of the factors that led me to sell it and go back to the 24-70 f2.8L lens.

 

I've no doubt that the D200 has as fast AF as the 5D, I wouldn't swop though if there was no advantage. The D2X however is so damn lightening fast (I'm sure it's faster than the 1Ds) in low light that it could be described as a quintissential wedding camera. Let's face it, what other genres of photography require such fast AF in very dark rooms, often candle lit, for capturing split second moments?

 

As wedding photographers we don't need waterproofing, we don't need 8FPS or MLU, we rarely would need a 1/8000 shutter speed. What we do need are cameras that we can _use_ for 10 hours in a straight stretch, accurate flash and if we're using AF then it has to be both fast and reliable.

Ben - There are a number factors that effect AF speed and accuracy like light level, subject contrast and what lens is being used, that I was a little vague and only referenced my impression of the D200 as compared to the F100 and comments from other wedding photographers who have the D200 and 2D series cameras. Yes, we want good low light performance, but how good does it have to be? A dance floor still isn't as tough as a dim basketball court.

 

We'll find out how good the D200 is as people start shooting more weddings. One thing that really helps the D200 is the AF assist light in the SB 600 & 800 flashes. They are brighter and have a mcuh bigger and sharper pattern than the old ones. The pattern is big enough that the assist light will come on even when sensors, other than the center one, is active.

"... I suspect the next, less featured, inexpensive Canon will be full frame for under

$2,000. maybe under $1,500."

 

I'm not sure that is a possibility.. why? Previously to get full frame it $5-8k. The 5D brings

it to $3300, and that was how many months ago? And they are going to do it again at far

less than half-price? I doubt it.

 

Bob Atkins predicts a 10MP (maybe 12.. doubtful).. I'm sure it will bring the high ISO noise

down, enhance the AF, hopefully the 2.5" screen. But I think it to be nearly impossible to

have FF at under $1,500.

 

Oi.. I'm still torn. Judging from the reviews of lenses, I'm probably going to end up with

the Canon 24-105 F4 IS, and whatever the 20D replacement is.

 

I want to give a vote for Nikon though, because they really answered their customers

wants/needs with the D200. :-/

 

~Aaron

Aaron

 

If you can find a D200 somewhere - go into the store and wrap your fingers around one, play with it a little, shoot some frames...if it feels right buy one.

 

Aside from the specs (which are good) I normally place a fair bit of emphasis on how it feels in my hands. Compared to my F100 the D70/D100 always felt a bit small and plasticky. If the D200 feels right in my hands I will be buying one.

 

It sounds like you only have a couple of relatively inexpensive Canon lenses so it's not as if you are stuck with Canon.

Am I allowed to pout and cry yet?

 

*Stomps foot*

~Aaron

Aaron, the D5 is now $2,800. and will be even less in 6 months ($2,500?). An under

$2,000. full frame is a real possibility, just like a $800. 8 meg digital Rebel followed the

20D which was almost twice the price. It'll happen. The Canon Juggernaught never sleeps ;

-)

 

In fact, I think there will be no cropped frame Canons with-in 2 years or so, or if there are,

they will be consumer cameras retailing for under $500.

 

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the ability to lift images shot at lower ISOs.

My experience is that if a camera works well at higher ISOs like the Canons do, it is easier

to lift underexposed images while avoiding noise.

Marc, my point was that if lenses designed for the F mount give good images on a FF Canon DSLR, there is no reason why Nikon couldn't do a FF DSLR for the F mount and it would give equally good images. The larger mount size only helps if light is physically obstructed by the F mount in a lens design. This is not the case (obviously) since the lenses are designed for the smaller mount. The problems of FF are shared by Nikon and Canon lenses and this has little to do with mount size. This is evidenced by the fact that Nikkors work fine on 1Ds series cameras.

 

Nikon's reasons for not competing in the FF sector have to do with economics (they thought about doing the D2X in FF and had a lot of internal discussion about it but ended up doing it in DX size) and the fact that they don't make their own sensors, so Sony has to agree that it's economical to make them. Canon has their own sensor making facility and they've been working on 24x36 sensors for probably 10 years.

Only those Canon EF lenses which have rear elements larger than the inner diameter of the F mount would be such that they couldn't be implemented for the F mount.