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

[joshlitt]

I played with my new D200 for about two weeks and then used it on New Years and will use it again come saturday. My only complaint so far is the battery life, it's supposed to last for some ungodly amount of shots but so far about 250 and it's done. I am in the process of looking for another battery, if a store would actually get some in it would help. I think I will be going with the pistol grip which will hold two batteries.

 

I think I may try what Bruce is doing by turning off the preview, because i caught myself hitting the shutter button quite frequently to turn it off because I hate that bright light glaring as I have the camera up to my eye.

 

I would be interested in hearing if anyone else has battery life issues with theirs, I am comparing from the D70 which would let me shoot for days without dying. I switched to the D70 during the reception when it died, but even the few portraits I did at 1600 because of the coordinator's supposed 15 minute ceremony was actually about 2 1/2 minutes and I had to go running when I saw it was ending and was still on 1600 for some available light shots.

[jonj]

I took the Pentax ist DL back...not that it was a bad camera but the lens could not give me a shallow depth of field and Pentax did not have a good selection of lenses in my price range for this camera. I will rant in the general forum on what I think about the current DSLR/prosumer market.... If anyone cares.

[neil l]

I shoot weddings part-time and switched from Nikon to Canon after my last 2005 wedding (gives plenty of time to get familiar before my first 2006 wedding). My reasons were two-fold: <p>

<p>

- High ISO Noise. I shot with 2 d70 bodies and an S3 pro and even the S3 imo was not useable >iso800. There are a lot of dark chruches in the UK and very few allow flash during the ceremony. Canon high iso especially the 5D blows away my Nikon kit. <p>

 

- The affordable (just) 5D not only offered full-frame but also 13mp. I shoot landscapes for stock too so this was very handy. If all I did was shoot weddings the decision would have been harder, it would also have been harder is the D2x price dropped slightly! <p>

 

- Future proofing. DSLR's are not there yet technology wise and whilst the 5D is excellent I cannot see me keeping it other than as a backup for more than 2 years. My ideal camera (The one which I will happily keep until it dies) has not been built yet and IMO Canon will get there sooner than Nikon. <p>

<p>

So I bought the 5D (+20D backup) and am delighted, the image quality is fantastic (streets ahead of my previous kit) and despite my worries after using wireless SB800's the wireless ettl flash is really very good. <p>

 

Given the lenses that you have, I'd stick with Canon if I was you. If you factor in what you would lose selling the glass the price difference between a 5D and D200 would probably not be as much as you think.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

NL has a good point IMO. Buying a Canon or Nikon is far more than just buying the camera body, its buying and learning a system.

 

You may upgrade a camera in the future, digital isn't 'there' yet for wedding photographers, 16 bit, more headroom in the highlights, better noise, better AF sensors, all these things will come in the future and make our lives just that bit easier, at least enough so that I would consider modern DSLR's as along the path but not quite reached it. I doubt that there is anyone who would say that they will not upgrade their DSLR by five years time. (for all those film people who may jump on this, the camera will have been long paid for in film savings by then!)

 

Nikon upgrades slower than Canon, this is a fact. If you are locked into a nikon system when canon brings out a 16 bit noise free (at iso 800) sensor then you will be grinding your teeth for a while before you will get the nikon equivelent. Don't know about you but I grudge every second spend on post processing and would quite happily pay extra for a camera with 16 bit sensor even if it would be half the price in a years time, I know it would have paid for itself by then anyway.

[fotografz]

Ilkka, you may, or may not be correct about Nikon's ability to go full frame. If they can and

aren't for economic reasons, it is a false economy. More and more photographers are

going Canon, and more will go if Nikon doesn't get going soon. If Canon improves some

features on the ff D5, and continues their well established history of dropping the price,

the camera will go to $2,200. or less, and then what?

 

Every single pro shooter I know now shoots Canon for DSLR work. That's over 10 shooters

in just my immediate circle of photographer pals. 7 of them came from Nikon including

me.

 

It's a shame, because Nikon is a great brand, and it always served me well ... until digital

became so important, and then high ISO digital became a reality, then ff frame was made

available. Personally, if the D2X had been full frame, and the sensor able to perform at ISO

1600 really well, it could've wooded me back to Nikon. I have no love for Canon, and I still

hate the lens ergonomics. It's just a dispassionate tool. (besides, then I could stop

drooling over the F6 and just get one to replace the 1V ; -)

[twmeyer]

The Nikon bodied Kodak SL/n was full frame... and it sucked. <p>Their commitment to a line of smaller image circle lenses is an indication of their plans to stay with APS sized chips. Okay by me. I just wish they had used cross hatched sensors across the field in the D200. It would be worth another $400... t

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

The Canon guy got a hold of me at National. Love the lens. It better work damn good! I

like it so far.. just in my apartment. Wow, focus is fast even on my Rebel XT.

 

I think the 24-105 IS is exactly what I was looking for. That was the next lens I would

have bought before getting all caught up in the D200. I sure was incredibly close to

jumping ship. Canon better surprise us or they may start to loose market share. I know

I'm not the only one wooed by the D200.

 

 

At least I am no longer ignorant on the Nikon system, and will keep my eyes open to see

how things unfold.

 

Can't wait to pick up the new "30D" Full Frame or not.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

~Aaron

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Aaron, please, use the 24-105L before buying. I bought it and dumped it not long afterwards to go back to the 24-70L, IMO it's not the all rounder wedding lens it sounds like. Do yourself a favour, try before you buy. I'm not saying that it won't work for you but don't let the spec sheet decide the issue for you.

[fotografz]

Opposite experience from Ben's. One of the few zooms I use because of the long throw but

decent image. In fact, caught myself using it too often. I guess it's all in the way you shoot.

[johnny0110]

I had a D100 and sold it to buy the D200. When I went to check it out with the Nikon rep at the local camera shop, I held it, shot with it, played with it and LOVED IT!! You can NOT beat the style, weight, comfort, and features of this camera. I also shot in low light, high ISO and it was real nice. It BLOWS my D100 away, period.

 

Im getting mine in about a week I would guess. Im on the list and there are more coming in real soon.

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

Ben,

 

I understand your warning on the 24-105. Did you by any chance get the first batch of them? Canon recalled ALL of them because they were soft, major distortion, CA, etc etc. As Marc and several others now attest to, they are very sharp and great performing lens.

 

So far I am VERY impressed with it!

 

~Aaron

[kerri_garrison]

I'm brand new here (first post even) but just thought I'd throw this in:

My pro wedding photog boss uses a Fuji F3 (and I shoot the candids with the F2) all using Nikon lenses. He swears they are the best for weddings. :)

(I personally own the Nikon D70 for fun and hubby just got the D200 to shoot University theatre productions. Love them both)

[patricks]

I'm sure Canon will soon/eventually come out with a "30D" that will up the D200, at least on paper. Personally, I prefer the ergonimics and field handling (user interface) of Nikons, even if used Canon SLR and DSLRs quite a bit.

 

Canon makes great cameras, however, I never liked the 20D (or DRXT) and the FF ones are out of questions, not only because of their price but also due to size and weight). I got a D70 and a D200 these days, couldn't be happier. A D200 with a 17-55/2.8 DX plus a SB800. Find a used 85/1.4D for $800, or even a 50/1.8 until then.

 

Only con on the Nikons, even the D200, is the high ISO performance. but then again, I never go there so it is a non-issue for me.

[wb_pratomo]

One thing to consider:

 

There is Nikon to Canon Eos converter... means there are people who are willing to use Nikon Lenses for their Canon Bodies. Why?

 

But It's hard to find (I dont even know if exist) Canon to Nikon bodies converter.. Does this means no nikonians willing to use Canon lensa... why?

 

Anyway..I sold my Canon bodies.. and going home with Nikon.

I am home and very confident, now.

[conraderb]

Wahyu's post makes it sounds like you can use a Canon lens on a Nikon body. From what I know, Canon lenses require a fairly short body to lens distance to focus - 38mm or something like that. Nikon requires 42mm or something like that.

 

This means that you can put a Nikon lens on a canon body, put a 4mm shim in, and it's all good. To do the same with a Canon lens on a Nikon body would require filing down the lens mount by a few milimeters to fit the Canon. That would be BAD.

 

Conrad