Canon 20D vs Nikon D200

[hjoseph7]

I was thinking about getting into digital by purchasing a D camera.

Lately I've been looking at the Canon 20D and also the Nikon D200. I

already have a full assortment of consumer type Canon lenses because

I own a EOS3 and a Elan II. I also own an old Nikon FM2 which seems

to take better pictures than both of my Canons AF cameras by the

way. I want to stick to Canon but I'm a little turned off by

the "hello I'm worth about 2 Grand" White lenses that Canon offers.

However, I've been told that Nikon AF lenses are kind of noisy or

not as quiet as Canon lenses. One thing I like about the Nikon

camera is that if I'm going to go digital I might as well get

something in the 10 Megapixel range which the D200 offers. Does

anybody have any good advice ?

[daniel_taylor]

* 10 vs. 8 MP isn't going to mean much on an APS sized sensor. In dpreview's comparisons the D200 images were a bit larger (naturally) while the Canon images seemed to have a bit better per-pixel sharpness. Translation: scaled to matching output size, they will look identical. (BTW, the current Canon is the 30D, not that this changes the comparison much.)

 

While I'm on this point: any one who claims a major difference in image quality between Canon/Nikon low-to-mid-range DSLR's (whether resolution, color, or noise) is blowing smoke. There's just not that much difference. Your glass and workflow will have a FAR larger impact on your results.

 

* Both systems have poor, good, and really good glass. If your FM2 "takes better pictures", it's probably because you have a better lens in front of it. With minor exceptions you're probably not going to be concerned about (i.e. high end super teles; macro), you can get the lenses you want/need in either system.

 

* Nikon lenses comparable to Canon L lenses are no cheaper on average (you'll see some price differences lens vs. lens, but they are as likely to break one way as the other). Also, there are several really good Canon L lenses for well under a grand.

 

* You don't have to buy L glass. There are plenty of really good primes and some good consumer zooms in both systems. For example: the Canon 50 f/1.8 is one of their sharpest lenses for $80. That's a good place to start if you want your Canon bodies, film or digital, to perform their best optically speaking.

 

* Canon has more USM lenses (quiet, fast focusing with full time manual override) and more IS (image stabilization) lenses. This made the choice for me.

 

* Nikon's flash system seems to be less quirky than Canon's with more consistent results. That said, I haven't had a problem with E-TTL. You just have to learn how to work it.

 

So how do you decide? First decide if your existing Canon lenses are junk or not (i.e. their cheapest, consumer zooms). If not, stick with Canon. No point in changing course if you've got good glass (that's how close the bodies and systems are). If they are, you might still choose Canon, but dump the lenses and buy better ones.

[anupam]

If you are looking for cheap but high quality lenses, Nikon manual focus lenses can be had for a song and tey will work fine with the D200. If you want autofocus though both Nikon and Canon lenses will cost you for good quality.

[ben_kriete]

Nikon manual focus lenses with an adapter will also work, as manual focus lenses, on Canon bodies. Canon lenses won't work on a Nikon.

[hjoseph7]

"You don't have to buy L glass. There are plenty of really good primes and some good consumer zooms in both systems. For example: the Canon 50 f/1.8 is one of their sharpest lenses for $80."

 

I love that lens by the way, because of the contrast and saturation that show up in the pictures, but it fails as far as manual focusing is concerned. Growing up I was allways a Nikon guy, until I bought the Elan II, not just because the way it looked but, because it was on sale at the time. Ever since then, I've been hooked on Canon. Anyway, if you can't tell the difference between 8 and 10 megapixels then how are you going to tell the difference between 10 and 12 megapixels. 12 megapixels is what the high end cameras offer. There has to be some difference that corresponds to the price of the camera. That's why I say, why not get the Nikon because in a couple of years the 20D is going to be obsolete. Now your'e talking about the 30D ! Maybe I better wait and keep my money in the bank.

[Gup]

the "hello I'm worth about 2 Grand" White lenses that Canon offers.

 

Decide on Canon and you are back to this statement you originally made. I only have Nikon experience here, but I don't find any of my three AF-S lenses to be noisy in the least. There probably isn't any other considerable differences between the two, except Nikon's exceptional metering and flash abilitiies offered in the better bodies (I know this is discussed on various Canon forums).

 

Good Luck!

 

Gup.

[mark pav]

<i>"However, I've been told that Nikon AF lenses are kind of noisy or not as quiet as Canon

lenses."</i><br><br>

 

I think anyone who says that the Nikon silent wave lenses are noisy has probably never used

them.

[steve_solomon2]

Harry, in my opinion, choosing between Canon and Nikon is a matter of style, ergonomics, and personal preference, since both systems are more than adequate for professionals, let alone amateurs.

Since I only have experience with old Nikon manual bodies and lenses, I may be partial to that system, although I've admired the higher-end Canon equipment ever since I got into digital about 5 years ago. Like others have said, if you already have a stable of lenses from one brand, go with that one, but on the other hand, the new Nikon D200 seems to be quite awesome indeed. The best thing might be to go handle each camera, and take sample images using your own CF card, with similar lenses on both systems, and then compare images. If the images are comparable, go with whichever feels ergonomically "correct" in your hand! Good luck!

[basscheffers]

Go handle them both. You don't have any serious investment in any lens system at the moment, so you can go either way.

 

I recon the FM2 takes better pictures because you shoot it with primes and the Canon with cheap zooms, right?

 

The D200 is supposed to be more professional, both feature wise and build quality. I would appreciate that *a lot*.

 

Nikon has a 17-55/2.8 now, Canon soon. The Canon probably won't be the same quality, but also seems to have a lower price tag and be lighter. That kind of lens lens would be a very important consideration for me.

 

Nikon AF-S lenses are comparable to Canon USM ones; it's only the old lenses that are focussed by a motor in the body that are of the slow an noisy type. (but no more so than canon non-USM lenses like the 50/1.8)

[andrew robertson]

"Nikon has a 17-55/2.8 now, Canon soon. The Canon probably won't be the same quality,

but also seems to have a lower price tag and be lighter. That kind of lens lens would be a

very important consideration for me."

 

I don't know. It's priced as high as the Nikon, and has a stabilizer which the Nikon lacks.

I'm not sure why one would assume that it's going to be a lesser lens.

[david_lau3]

"Nikon AF-S lenses are comparable to Canon USM ones"

 

Not all AF-S lenses but only those with silent wave motor. However the no of such lenses in Nikon is far less than Canon.

[andreas_weber]

> Not all AF-S lenses but only those with silent wave motor. However the no of such lenses in Nikon is far less than Canon.

 

The number of AF-S lenses without silent wave motor is exactly zero, as the "S" stands for "silent wave" ...

 

Andreas

[hjoseph7]

"I recon the FM2 takes better pictures because you shoot it with primes and the Canon with cheap zooms, right?"

 

Some of the Canon lenses which I own are actually mid-range lenses like the 85mm 1.8, the 28-105 3.5-4.5 zoom, and the 70-200 F4. Usually on a 36 exposure roll, 75%-85% of the pictures I take with the FM2 are properly exposed and focused, the camera is very forgiving. However, I only get about 50% rate with the Elan II and the EOS-3.

[basscheffers]

<i>I'm not sure why one would assume that it's going to be a lesser lens</i>

<p>

Maybe because Canon says so in their press release: "image quality and construction <b>approaching</b> that of Canonﾒs renowned professional lenses". :)

<p>

As the recently introduced 24-105/4L proves, the street price is often quite a bit lower than the announced price, so I am assuming the same will be true here and the Canon will be cheaper than the Nikon.

<p>

Harry, I owned the same lenses, plus 50/1.4 and 18-55. The 85/1.8 and 70-200/4 are great lenses and not what I would call "cheap zooms"! :) That 28-105 on the other hand... it's just too soft below f/8 and even above that, I did not like the contrast.

<p>

To be honest, in your case I would see if I could afford to ditch the EOS 3, Elan II and 28-105 (they all go for reasonable money on eBay) and get a 30D and 17-55/2.8 instead to go with the 85 and 70-200, that would be a great setup. Go all digital in the Canon world and keep the FM2 for film, if you want to.

[hjoseph7]

"To be honest, in your case I would see if I could afford to ditch the EOS 3, Elan II and 28-105 (they all go for reasonable money on eBay) and get a 30D."

 

One of the reasons why I want to get into digital is the multiplication factor, (1.6X when it comes to the 20D and 30D) that you get when using a non-digital lens. Since I'm into Nature photography, a 300mm lens would be the equivalent of a 420mm lens in the field. Add a 1.4X teleconverter and now your'e talking about 588mm(not great, but pretty good for wild life) with just one stop loss of light ! On the other hand, a 24mm lens would be the equivalent of a 38mm lens which for certain situations is unacceptable. This is where tough decision making comes in. Keep in mind that 300mm and 400mm Canon 'L' lenses retail for a wopping $5000. Maybe that's why I'm better off keeping the EOS-3 when it comes to situations where I need to use a wide angle lens. As far as the Elan II, that's my everyday/throwaway camera with allot of sentimental value. If I try to sell it on ebay I might get $150 bucks. If I decide to keep it maybe in 15 years it might be considered a classic.

[edverosky]

Call that a "cropping" factor to be more accurate. Your lenses aren't magically multiplied in terms of reach with a smaller image area on the receiving end of your lens. You can use the same lense with a full-frame sensor (or film), and simply crop it to whatever you want -- if you want to call that "multiplication" then you can.

[andrew robertson]

"Maybe because Canon says so in their press release: "image quality and construction

approaching that of Canon?s renowned professional lenses"."

 

Oh man. You're kidding, right? It's not an L lens, but I'm not sure it's that easy to write off

a lens completely. The IS feature alone would push it ahead of the Nikon for image quality

in most situations.

[michaelschrag]

Harry,

 

You said"Keep in mind that 300mm and 400mm Canon 'L' lenses retail for a wopping $5000"

 

That's simply not true. The Canon 300mm f4 L retails for around $1000 and so does the 400mm 5.6. With the the low noise Canon sensors these lenses are very usable.

 

If you are interested in long glass I would go with Canon - more selection, IS and great quality. If you want to shoot landscapes I would buy a 200D - the 17-35mm Nikor is in a world apart from comparable Canon lenses.

[basscheffers]

Ehrm, Andrew, you forget that I don't have a black and white/right or wrong train of thought like you do. Where in any of my posts did I "write that lens off completely"? I merely hinted it was likely to be not as good, considering Nikon's version is a top-of-the-range pro lens and Canon makes this statement about theirs. It being only about half the weight likely also means lower build quality and less glass.

 

And I really don't see how IS on a standard zoom will give you better image quality "in most situations". For me, most situations are ISO 100 f/5.6@1/125. I even wonder why Canonites are so hung up over this feature on the new standard zooms; weren't you guys able to take "noise free" images at ISO 1600 these days? Then what do you need IS for on anything under 200mm?

[andrew robertson]

Better low light pictures. Why else?

 

There's nothing inherently strange about wanting to take pictures in available darkness at f/

2.8, ISO 3200, and 1/8th.

[basscheffers]

For sure, but "most situations"? I know they are for youm, but after quick glance at the photo.net gallery you gotta admit that it is a bit of a niche requirement. (unless, of course, everybody isn't doing it because they feel they can't because they don't have IS)

 

So I would say the value of IS on standard zooms for most people is quite limitted and many would probably rather pay $200 less for the lens and lose it. On 200mm and up, however, it becomes a much more important requirement.

 

Harry: Canon is a good (probably the best) brand for your wildlife interest. The 300/4L IS mentioned above being a prime example, and also the 70-200 you already have. Nikon has a good 300/4 also, but it lacks IS/VR. Not sure I'd like it with a 350D, though, I'd seriously try to get a higher end model like 20D or 30D.

[gentryfunk]

I recently purchased my first digital camera, a Nikon D200. I looked at the 20D as well

and purchased the Nikon because I had the AF lenses to go with the camera. In my limited

experience, I liked the Canon images better than what I have found with the Nikon. The

biggest problem are indoor shots with the Nikon. The white balance is way off. Some

friends have said "you can deal with that in Photoshop", but I believe the camera should

deal with the issue directly. I have adjusted WB to compensate, but then I have to change

the settings again when going outside or moving into another context.

 

I like the Canon CMOS sensor a little better than the Nikon CCD.

[hjoseph7]

OK guys great answers. I'm leaning towards the Canon because it's cheaper and like I said, I already have an small assortment of Canon Lenses. However the Nikon looks so well built... OK suppose I want to make enlargments of 11X14 or greater wouldn't I be better off with the Nikon's 10 megapixels ? I mean does 10 megapixels means greater resolution whe it comes to enlargements ?

[japan_photo]

Both cameras are great toys, you won't regret buying either one. Nevertheless, if you like shooting with FM2, like I do, you might appreciate that many Nikkor lenses are compatible with both cameras (FM2 and D200). I currently use D200 and FM2n for my travel photography and got rid of F100. I think this is a very powerful combo. Also, the new flash units (SB600/800) work fine with both bodies. As for sturdiness, I had these two bodies with me on my recent trip to Northern Kenya and both survived the sandy-dusty-windy-heat conditions without any hiccups.

You can see some low-res samples from D200 at <a href="http://phototravels.net/kenya/">http://phototravels.net/kenya</a>

Frantisek