Anyone use both 5D and D200 in real world ?

[Philip Freedman]

Does anyone have both a 5D and a D200 and is able to say what the

differences are in the real world? I would be interested to know

about viewfinder, AF, AE, and general handling as well as pixel-

peeping. I have read loads of reviews, some with a Canon or Nikon

bias, and but there are not very many genuine day-to-day hands-on

comparisons posted.

 

Thanks

Philip

[John Crowe]

Many people insist on comparing these two lenses but there really is no need since they are designed for two totally different purposes.

 

 

The 5D allows for high quality superwide photography while the D200 allows for high quality supertelephoto photography. Sure they overlap somewhere in the middle but then if you are in the middle then why spend the extra bucks on the one that you don't need.

 

 

The D200 should be compared to the 1DII and 20D/30D while the 5D should be compared to the Kodak SLR-c and n and of course the 1Ds and 1DsII.

 

 

So, beyond the 28mm to 135mm range in full frame format which end do you lean to superwide or supertelephoto? Then compare the cameras in those two seperate ranges.

[John Crowe]

"lenses". dohhh! "cameras" would be more appropriate!

[peter_nelson1]

<I>The 5D allows for high quality superwide photography while the D200 allows for high quality supertelephoto photography. Sure they overlap somewhere in the middle but then if you are in the middle then why spend the extra bucks on the one that you don't need.

</I><P>

<B>That's ridiculous</B><P>

Both bodies are designed as general purpose cameras fitting in the slot between their manufacturers' entry-level offerings and their high-end professional offerings. The 5D may be a slightly better choice for wide-angle photography, given the paucity of good w.a. lenses for the APS sensor market, but the D200 is not designed or optimized just for "supertelephoto" photography.<P>

 

There are a wide range of pros and cons for both cameras and the original question is a perfectly reasonable one that I'm sure the rest of us would like to hear the answer to, if anyone has done the comparison.

[Jim_Tardio]

I guess I'll be throwing my 12-24/4 lens off a cliff since I can't use it for "super wide, high quality" photography any more.

<p>

And all those nice, white, huge lenses I see at sporting events...they're gone, too. Can't do any "high quality, super telephoto" shooting either.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

You might as well ask people of opposing religions to switch churches for a month. Too many folks are afraid they'll get cooties if they touch another camera brand.

 

Phil Askey, dpreview.com, may be the most objective and thorough reviewer of all brands and models of anyone on the web. I'm not even sure what Phil actually owns and uses himself because his reviews appear to be very balanced and objective.

[tholte]

I would like to get my hands on either one to tell the truth. From what I have seen and read, both are really good cameras and would serve my purposes rather nicely.

[ilkka_nissila]

This is like asking user experiences between a Nikon F100 and a Contax 645. I fail to see the point - they're different formats and different level cameras. The 5D is an entry level 24x36mm digital camera, while the D200 is a mid-level DX format camera.

 

Jim, how does your 12-24 open up to 1.4 for shallow depth of field people shots? Where are those fast and compact normal lenses? What about PC wide angle lenses? None of these options are available for DX format but are readily available for 5D. Also, I've got 3 AF Nikkor prime wide angles which work great on film (actually two more but they're normal on DX) but none of them gives to me acceptable results on the D200 except when I stop down to the optimum aperture, and the results still fall short of the quality I would get using even the modest 35 mm slide film. So I use film for my wide angle shots almost exclusively for now.

 

While it is technically possible to do bird photography with the 5D, and some wide angle work with the D200, I don't see the point - why would one want to do it? It doesn't work that great.

[ilkka_nissila]

And to add a point of comparison, all my long lenses (50-420mm) give consistently superb results on the D200. But none of my wides do. There's some food for thought, I think.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>Jim, how does your 12-24 open up to 1.4 for shallow depth of field people shots?</i>

<p>

That's a somewhat valid point, Illka, but it's difficult to get that shallow of a DOF on any super-wide angle lens. The 17-35/2.8 comes to mind, but, no, it's not a 1.4. But the lack of a super fast, super wide doesn't make the D200 deficient at the wide end.

<p>

I agree that there are a few missing lenses from both Canon & Nikon...but there always has been and there always will be.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>While it is technically possible to do bird photography with the 5D, and some wide angle work with the D200, I don't see the point - why would one want to do it? It doesn't work that great.</I><P>

 

Why would the 5D be any less adept at bird photography than the D200?

[bobatkins]

The D200 has a higher pixel density and so yields higher resolution images if you have to crop because your lens isn't long enough - and I'd say that much of the time that's the case for most bird photographers. They're often tiny critters and they usually don't like you getting close! Sometimes even a 600mm lens with TCs isn't enough.

[peter_white2]

Depends on the bird, and the patience of the photographer. I've had black capped chickadees feeding out of my hand.

[Jim_Tardio]

Permit me to ammend my last post a bit...I should say: it's difficult to get that shallow of a DOF on any super-wide angle lens..unless you are very close to your subject.

[digitmstr]

>>The D200 should be compared to the 1DII <<

 

You're joking, right?

[mark_chappell]

<I>The D200 has a higher pixel density and so yields higher resolution images if you have to

crop because your lens isn't long enough - and I'd say that much of the time that's the case

for most bird photographers. They're often tiny critters and they usually don't like you

getting close! Sometimes even a 600mm lens with TCs isn't enough.</i><P>

 

Absolutely correct, in my experience. Wanting more focal length is a <B>FAR</b> more

frequent event in bird photography than thinking you have too much (or even enough).

[jeremy freeland]

The images in this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=440530"> folder</a> are made with a 5D and 24mm - not too many DOF issues. I haven't used the D200, but I've shot plenty of Nikon film bodies, and I'm sure both the 5D and D200 are great cameras. Just pick a body for your price range and lens preference. It ain't rocket science, it's just pricey.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jim, if you go for a close portrait of a child with some environment, with 28/1.4 on film you can get quite a nice shallow DOF effect. Also, 3 stops (1.4 vs. 4) is not a small amount of light.

 

The problem would be of if this were 1999 and Nikon's first DX camera (D1) would be out with the current DX lenses. We would immediately see that Nikon intends to take DX seriously and introduce a new lens line for it. Now it's 2006 and we see full-frame 35 mm Canon DSLR bodies selling for $3000 and Nikon charges $900 for an f/4 wide zoom that some say needs to be stopped down for good images. With no promise of fast or even f/2.8 wide or normal DX primes that I could take pics with.

 

Basically 17-55 and 70-200 do what DX can do well, and the rest of the current lens line is largely waiting to be replaced. What to buy if you need to do something now instead of in 2015? I buy film. Some others buy Canon.

[ilkka_nissila]

Meant: The situation would be ok if this were 1999 ...

[Jim_Tardio]

I agree, Illka. Nikon needs a fast DX prime lens yesterday. If they are committed to the DX format, they need to step up & deliver. Certainly a 13/2.8 DX, or faster, isn't a big stretch since they already have the 10.5/2.8 fisheye.

[bob_katz1]

"<i>The 5D allows for high quality superwide photography</i>"<p>

While this may be true in theory, the only "high quality" wide angle lenses available for Canon's full-frame DSLR's require the use of adapters, manual focusing, and stop-down metering.