comparing 30D vs D200 "from lenses point of view"

[yann_r.]

<p align="justify">Hi there,<br>

I know that looks like an endless debate about Canon vs Nikon, but

please read : )<p align="justify">

 

I'm neither pro-Canon nor pro-Nikon since I'm a basic compact Sony

user. I'm just planning to buy a complete DSLR system in october and

I'd like to read objective opinions and experiences. I'm an (addict)

amateur and I have absolutly NO experience then NO prejudice about

these two great brands.<br>

I know as well that some new cameras could be available before october

(new Sony Alpha for example, maybe a canon 400D, etc.) but let's

compare the 30D and the D200 cause there are the two cameras which

interest me the most.<p align="justify">

 

My budget is quite nice but not big enough to buy "only" professional

equipment, so I could buy a camera, two nice lenses and a basic kit

one to make the focale range complete (wishing to replace it as soon

as possible of course). I'm neither interested by entry level bodies

nor by used equipment.<br>

In fact, for the moment, my choice is more for the 30D just cause of

the Canon's lenses range. I could buy the 30D with in a first time

either EF-S 18-55 kit or, if my banker is in a very nice day, the EF-S

17-85 IS and I'm very interested by the 85mm f/1.8 and the very good

70-200 f/4 L.<p align="justify">

 

Now that's said, the D200 body is a dreamy one and I'm wondering what

could be the equivalent lenses from Nikon, especially comparing with

"L" Canon's series. Besides, is there a "technical" reason to the

price difference between the two brands? (Canon looks 20% cheaper)<p

align="justify">

 

Thanks in advance for your feedback.<br>

<i>don't be too hard with the newbie</i></p>

[yann_r.]

Of course, I know that the 30D is very cheaper than the D200, then I know that I couldn't get the "same" equipment with the same budget.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

One advantage of the D200 is that you can use older Nikon AI lenses and still have matrix metering. Some of the older lenses are excellent. And they are inexpensive, but you don't get AF. There's a ton of info on Nikon lenses here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I forgot to add that you don't get matrix metering with the old AI lenses on the D70. That's one reason that I went with the D200.

[henricus]

<i>". . . is there a "technical" reason to the price difference between the two brands?"</i><p>Check out the construction of the two cameras and lenses you mentioned. Last I checked Nikon does not use plastic lens material, only glass. IIRC, Canon uses plastic lenses on some of the kit lenses. Not that plastic is bad. I'm just saying that the materials used on Canon cameras may be less expensive, hence the savings. Another reason could be supply and demand. All that said, in the end they are both good cameras, pick the one you like best and don't look back.

[ifeito]

Hi Yann,

 

In my opinion the D200 is more expensive because it offers some functionalities that are not in the 30D, partial sealing and higher resolution seems to be the most noticeable.

 

However none of the users seems to be answering your question; the issue of the lenses. I have been using Canon for about 14 years, and never thought of changing brands, however if my large camera bag with everything photographic I own were stolen I would replace it all with Canon gear again. Nikon stuff is nice, but Canon is in a better position as a complete system offering in my humble opinion.

 

Your lens selection seems very nice, but looking at the quality of your photographs I would suggest that you look at the 17-40 in lieu of the 17-85. The 70-200 f/4 is a very nice lens, I own one and I can't speak highly enough of it's quality.

 

Finally, you have to get the 100 f/2.8 Macro, don't leave it out of your list, you'll do wonders with it!

 

Ignacio

[basscheffers]

Slow, soft and contrast-lacking lenses like the 17-85 are in insult to any sensor or piece

of film in my opinion, I'd stay away from them.

 

For a body I would prefer the D200, but budget wise a system based on the 30D may be

better value. You state you would like a standard zoom, and seem to prefer good lenses.

Canon's new 17-55/2.8 IS may just be the lens for you, if it turns out to be any good. (I

would hope so at that price!) Nikon also has a 17-55 that should be better, but it is also

more expensive and weighs almost twice as much.

 

I'd be tempted to forget the 70-200 for now (unless you have a real immediate

requirement for it) and get a 30D + 17-55 + 85/1.8. That combo would definitely keep

me entertained for a long time.

[akira]

Hi, Yann,

 

First of all, 30D is about 20% chaper than D200, which should be VERY important factor for your banker:-)

 

However, there are some other points to consider:

 

If you like to use flashes in dim light, the combination of D200 and Nikon's highly sophisticated flash system is superior to that of D30 and Canon's system. On the other hand, If you are more interested in available-light work in similar conditions, then Canon 30D should excel because of its fantastic low-noise performance.

 

Now, if you wear glasses like me, it should be harder to see the entire image and information in the viewfinder on 30D because the finder image gets quite a bit of vignetting (at least for me). The finder of D200 is superior in this regard and manual focusing is much more comfortable on D200, too.

 

In terms of the optical quality of lenses, there should be no significant difference between these brands if you compare lenses in the same class. For amateur hobby photographer like us, the difference between 10MP and 8MP should be nothing to worry about either.

 

Hope this would be of any help.

[nolefan32]

When I was shooting film back in the day of nearly all-manual cameras, I'd quickly tell you that Nikon was far superior to Canon in both the quality of their bodies and their lenses. But things have changed. In the era of auto-everything and digital photography, Nikon let Canon slip past them and now they're continually playing catch up. Every time there's an advance in the technology, it seems to be Canon that comes out with it. And their selection of equipment gives you much more to choose from.

 

I don't mean to slam Nikon -- I still have a soft place in my heart for them, and my experience is that when you invest about the same amount of money in a Nikon system and a Canon system, you'll get two systems that are pretty evenly matched across the board. But if you're starting off clean, I recommend Canon (and that's really tough for me to say, you have no idea what a huge Nikon snob I was once) -- they've got a larger selection of budget equipment to get you going, and as you're willing to invest in more expensive pieces down the road, like I said, they seem to be the ones make the strides forward first, more often than not.

[andrew robertson]

"IIRC, Canon uses plastic lenses on some of the kit lenses."

 

Canon uses some replica aspherical lenses, which use a kind of resin that is applied to the

glass in a thin layer, but I think Nikon uses the same technology as does pretty much

everyone else these days. The elements themselves are made of glass.

[calebcondit]

30D is a great camera and the L series lenses are top notch. I would recomend looking into buying the 30D with a 24-70mm f/2.8. This would give you flexibility. I think suggesting you need a zoom that goes beyond this is silly. You should first learn to shoot with 1 lens and a body first. Also, you can normally rent lenses for pretty cheap if you want to try something out for a weekend for around 50 dollars per lens. Always try something before you buy it. The Canon lens system is great at this point and has way more options.

[yann_r.]

Robert, thank you for your response and the link you gave me. The compatibility of the D200 looks really great.<p>

Henry, sure that some Canon lenses are "cheap" and so made with plastic, looks normal for entry level lenses.<br>

<i>pick the one you like best and don't look back</i>, you're right, since I haven't used neither Canon nor Nikon, looks the simplest to do.<p>

Ignacio, thank you so much for your look on mine : ) so you think that a 17-40 could be better... In fact, even if I like a lot to shoot landscapes, I'd like a "nice travel lens" and the 17-85 offers a larger range (with poorest qualities, that's right). I just dream about a 17-105 f/4 L ! : ))<br>

My problem is that 30D + 17-40 + 70-200 + accessories and the budget is out : )) for that, I'm wondering if Bas isn't right, do I need the 70-200?<p>

Bas, as I just wrote, do I need the 70-200? The tele of my basic P8 is a 120mm (eq. 35mm) so I've never used long focals, that could be a step more in my photography for later? I don't forget that as soon I'd get my DSLR, I'd have to learn ALL again!<br>

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a very good lens, for sure! your suggestion is a very interesting one.<p>

Akira, I don't like at all using flash, I don't wear (yet) glasses, then even I find the D200 absolutly wonderful (what a body!), cause of my budget, I think my gear will be Canon.<p>

David, thank you for sharing your interesting point of view.

[mlfly1]

This may be opening an old thread that should die but excuse me if it's no longer of interest.

 

I had plenty of Nikon film cameras and now have a Canon 30D. In between there were MF and LF cameras. I'd be totally shocked if the camera made a difference, presuming the mp were sufficient and the features were what you needed depending on landscapes, portraits, birds, etc.

 

I went to Canon because of IS on the long telephotos and don't regret it. But, now that other mfg's have IS, VR, etc., buy for your primary 3 lenses (Whatever they may be) and don't worry about the rest.

 

Since I like landscapes, birds and macros, choosing 3 lenses is hard but it can be done (assuming I can add a 4th or 5th for "emergencies". Note to my wife - yes, it is an emergency.

 

Mike