Am getting close to buying a new camera...input needed on Nikon and Canon

[Whoa_Nelly]

I'm leaning more toward the Nikon D200 SLR, and can get one with the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6, and a 60-200mm lenses for $1569. It also comes with a 1 Gig card, tripod (already have one, but hey, can always keep one i the car), and a 1 Gig flash drive. I would have to buy the flash attachment, but don't consider that a big deal, and would probably get a macro lens as well.

Are there comparable Canon digital SLRs within the same price range and with the two lenses?

Which camera do you consider to be better in terms of warranty, performance, ease of use, and any other things you can share.

Thanks! :hi:

[priller]

1. That's a very good price

The D200 body by itself normally sells for around $1600.

However, the lenses listed are not that hot, and IMHO not worthy of the camera. The 28-80 lens is a very cheap, plasticky "kit" lens from the pre-digital days. I think even the lens mount is plastic. Nikon doesn't make a 60-200 zoom, so I assume you're probably talking about the 55-200 DX lens? Again, it's okay, but still a "bargain" lens.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think you will be getting the best results from that fantanstic camera with those lenses. It would be sort of like buying a very nice $1500 stereo and then adding $100 speakers to it. I would recommend foregoing the cheaper add-ons and see about getting a single good lens, like the Nikon 17-80mm (which is a very good consumer-grade lens) or even starting off with something like the 50mm 1.4 prime lens (which I have and love it every time I use it) and adding on later.

As far as comparing it to a Canon, I guess the 30D is probably the closest competitor. The D200 is a bit more expensive, and probably slightly better (10.2 MP, weather seals, faster fps, etc), but they're both super cameras. But again, to me, the lenses are more important than the camera.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. So, what other lenses could I use on the Nikon?

I haven't had a camera with interchangeable lenses since the '70s. I had a Canon back then, and if iI remeber right, I had to buy Canon lenses to go on it...but, hey, I was just a teen and didn't know much.

There is a Nikon D200 factory new I can get for about $1400, and it comes only with the 28-80mm lens and a 256 mb card. Can I buy other/better quality lenses that will fit the Nikon?

I so appreciate your input, priller! Thanks! :hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I have the Canon 20D and love it...

Most of my lenses are also Canon but I do have the Sigma 10-20 mm which takes really fun ultrawide pictures. Your deal sounds good, although I don't know anything about those lenses you mentioned.

Also I should add that I'm very new to this, so my opinion may not be worth a lot. :rofl:

[priller]

5. Oh my, there are so many...

The D200 uses standard Nikon "F" mount, which will work with lenses going back to the 70's.

Also, the 3rd party lens makers like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make their lenses to fit Nikon.

And yes, you can certainly buy better lenses for your Nikon. All it takes is money! :)

But seriously, the 28-80mm I wouldn't let anywhere near the D200. As I mentioned earlier, the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX lens is very good for the price. It was the "kit" lens introduced with the D70s a few years ago, but all the reviews say it's much better than your typical kit lens. There are thousands of them used floating around, they're all over eBay, so you shouldn't have much trouble finding one for a good price (around $300).

Instead of that lens, I got the brand new Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, which is fast and really sharp, for about $450.

Or you can go up to the pro-level "everyday" lens, the Nikon 17-55mm, which is big and heavy and costs about $1200.

And, as I also mentioned, the Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a super lens. I don't know what it is about it, it just makes pictures look good. Good for people pics. Very lightweight, makes it good for carrying around all day.

I also have the Sigma 30mm 1.4, which is a bit wider, a better "standard" lens for digital cameras.

One reason I went with Nikon is because they've made really good lenses for a long time, so there are a lot of quality used lenses available. I got a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens from eBay for about $250. It's an older manual-focus "Ai-S" lens. It's an absolutely wonderful lens, though, and for macro work, auto-focus wasn't that important to me.

Learning about the lenses out there takes some time, but it's an interesting endeavor. Just beware, "lens lust" may ensue.......

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. It IS all about Lens Lust ROFL

And the Nikon D200 is the camera I've been drooling over for several months.

Thanks so much for the info, priller! It's been extremely helpful! :loveya:

[CC]

4. If you can find a local

camera shop that will let you handle and try out their store models I would do that first. See how they feel to you, and get them to at least show you that basic function on each. Aperture, shutter speed in manual at the minimum. They are digital, see if they will let you take a couple pictures with each. And try it in manual. That is where you will find out which feels batter to you and which ones controls are easier for you.Even better see if they do hourly or daily rentals. That way you can take each out and see which is a better fit for you.

Here is a very good site on lenses http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm for the Nikon. Priller is right on lens quality being very important. But I would not pay more to get less stuff just so I could buy better lenses. You can always sell the ones that come with it.

Another thing, make sure the camera you buy is not grey market. You want the US warranty and Nikon (pretty sure Canon is the same way) will not cover grey market camera for US people.

I have the Nikon D200 and love it. I also know lots of Canon users that love their cameras. Quality wise I don't think you can go wrong with either. I've used both the Canon 20D and 10D and found somethings irritating but that is most likely being unfamiliar with them and being used to the Nikon set up. I have seen beautiful pictures out of both.

[RagingInMiami]

7. The other day I was out shooting

And I ran into this other freelance photographer down here who has been shooting with Nikon for years, ever since he was shooting film.

He said if he didn't already have thousands invested in Nikon lenses, he would go with Canon.

[Gregorian]

8. I recently made the same decision.

Be careful with the cheap deals. Most likely it's a grey market camera. And if you need warranty work, no one will touch it. You honestly won't get a Nikon D200 for anything less than retail price.

The differences between the Canon D30 and Nikon D200 are mostly subtle. And I have memory like a seive, or I could tell you what I learned in my discovery.

It's things like lenses, high ISO noise, autofocus function, user friendly menu, control layout, that made the decision for me. I'm thrilled with the D200.

Here's the D200 forum that I used when I was looking for answers-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1021

If you search that forum for say, D30 D200, you will find testamonials. That's pretty much why I went with Nikon. The pros who did their homework, and finally went with the D200.

Here's one example of a thread that goes into the comparison. I only read one or two posts, so hopefully it's right. But you can see the endless length of study one can got through. These are all good cameras. You almost can't go wrong.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=18486798&page=1

Here's the D200 review-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/

And the Canon D30 review-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/


If I were to be buying a D200, my choice would be to get it with the 18-200mm lens. It has the vibration reduction. Plus, unless you buy prime lenses (fast. Ie., f2.8 or larger), the 18-200 replaces all of them, pretty much. And prime lenses are EXPENSIVE!

If I can find or remember the key reasons I went with Nikon over Canon, I'll post them. I just don't recall at the moment. I know one of them is because I grew up with the Nikkomat, and this is just a digital version of that configuration.

Also, the argument that Canon produces a sharper image is not true. I found that with the proper settings the Nikon produces a brilliant picture. At first I was disappointed. It's all how you set it up. In camera sharpening only pertains to the non-RAW formats. So shooting RAW uses none of the in-camera stuff.


Also, check that 60-200mm. I don't recall a lens that size.

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. priller, Blue, CC, RIM & Gregorian!

In just a few short posts, you all have given me much to consider. Have also had some of my basic questions and suspicions about grey market answered. I will go to an actual shop and personally check it all out.
All of you are absolutley wonderful! :pals: :loveya:

Thank you so much! :hi:

[priller]

12. You're welcome, and good luck!

[bvar22]

10. My 2 cents.

You won't go wrong with either the Nikon or the Canon.
They are both excellent cameras capable of producing superb photographs.

I went through the agony of making that decision earlier last fall. From October through March, I studied magazines and web sites. I made lists of camera bodies, lenses, and accessories and shopped them through the InterNet and local stores.
It was a "toss up" to the end.
I eventually bought the Nikon D200, and am a happy owner.
But I could easily have gone with Canon, and I would be a happy Canon owner.
IMHO, as far as final product, there is not much difference.
I don't believe that anyone can look a final picture and tell you if it came from a Canon 30D or a Nikon D200.

Spend some time on the Net. There are plenty of Websites for Canon and Nikon.
Discount ALL anecdotal testimonials from 3rd Parties.
"My brother has a friend who works for National Geographic, and he bought Camera X and was SOOO disappointed that he sold it and bought Camera Y, and now he is happy and that proves that Camera Y is better".:puke: BOGUS
Instead, visit the sites of people who are happy with their cameras and look at the quality of their work. I could find little difference.

Others here have already offered the advice to go to a store and handle each camera. Find out which one fits your hands, and feels comfortable against your face. In general, you will take better pictures with a camera that is comfortable.

The Nikon D200 is heavy, and will expose sloppy technique. I moved up from a much lighter camera, and spent the first couple of weeks wondering why my pictures were blurry (camera shake, operator error)(and I'm a big boy :)). The D200 DID fit my big hands better.

The Canon will take better JPGs out of the box.
Explanation: The Nikon D200 applies less in camera "processing" unless you tell it to. Nikon decided to leave those decisions to the photographer. If you want to shoot JPGs with the D200, you will need to read the manual and wander through some bewildering (at first) Menus to arrive at the proper settings.
Most D200 owners shoot RAW, and you will too eventually. (I'm working on it)

You will need a large HardDrive and a fast computer to process the images from either camera. The files are HUGE. The images you see on DU have been resized to less than 10% of their "in camera" size. You will need at least one 2Gig Flash memory card (two would be better) for the D200. A 256meg card for a D200 is a joke.


Lenses:
Bite the bullet and get good glass. The system is only as good as the lens.
The best camera body in the World can't correct or improve poor (bargain) lenses.
If $ are limited, consider the Nikon D70 (or Canon equivalent) with a "good" lens.
A D70 with a good lens will take better pictures than a D200 with a "bargain" lens.

I would suggest a good zoom, 18-200mm VR (if you can find one).
If I could only have one lens, this would be it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital

For fun, you can add this little gem for about $125.
The Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 is fast, very sharp, and inexpensive. ($125)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm
Dollar for Dollar, and pound for pound, it is the best buy on the market.
It is great for indoor, low light No-Flash photos, and I've had great fun just walking around with it.

Be careful Shopping Online. There are many scams.
If the price is too good to be true....:(.

There are some websites that will rate Vendors. Here is one:
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1995.html

There are others. Just Google "Review {camera store name}"
Many of the online scammers will quote a good price on the camera body, but radically overcharge you for accessories (Memory, strap, filters, batteries). Some will even take these items OUT of the original box and then charge you extra. Any tripod offered FREE with a camera purchase will be a piece of junk.
These salesmen are very good. Be careful if they get you on the phone.


All in All, don't let all this become overwhelming. Remember to have fun.
If you are choosing between "The Canon" or "The Nikon", you can't make a bad choice.

Cheers!
Bob
St Paul

[priller]

11. Excellent advice, Bob

You said many of the things I was thinking, just much better written.

A D70 with a good lens will take better pictures than a D200 with a "bargain" lens.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I bought a slightly used D70s for my first SLR and decided to concentrate on acquiring "good glass", as they say. I'm sure in the future I will move up to the D200 when it drops in price more and I feel more worthy of it.

Several have mentioned the 18-200 VR lens. I had that lens for a while but ended up selling it (for $30 more!). Now don't get me wrong, it's a very good lens, especially considering the huge range, the VR, and the compact size and light weight. I just didn't like the way my photos looked. Maybe it was just my copy of the lens, I don't know. And I was so excited to get it because I had read such fantastic reviews. But I never loved it, and it was way too much money to spend and not be completely happy with it.

[Whoa_Nelly]

14. Wow, bvar!

Thank you so much for all your input!

It sounds like the Nikon might be too heavy for me...but, the old Canon I had back in the '70s, along with the 200mm lens I used frequently, was pretty heavy, and I did manage to take some pretty good photos (used slide film almost exclusively back then.)
Here's a 1972 photo, hand held, that I took in Utah near the border of Colorado

(from old slides recently put on CD. Some of the slides were pitted, as this one is... :( )

[dodger501]

13. Beware of low light and noise

I use the Nikon D2X and D270 and like them both.
However, Canon handles low light situations better.
The D2X won't even let it go above 800 ISO unless you specifically set it, which is a favor to their customers. But higher than that is useless due to the noise -- I will never ever use it.
I use Noise Ninja but that only gets me so far, it seems to use gaussian blur a lot in its algorithm.
And at 800, you are still pushing it. I shoot youth sports and for basketball this becomes problematic.
I don't use flash, players hate it so I got a Sigma 70-200 pro and a Tamron 28-75mm, both f/2.8 max aperture.
This helps, for sure but I have to get a 1.8 in time for next season.

Actually, the D70 is better, 1600 is about the same as 800 on the D2X.

Canon at 1600 ISO is not a problem at all.
Otherwise, the other posters here are right, the quality is pretty equal and it definitely depends on the glass.

I make 95% of my camera and accessory purchases with B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) and with Cameta Camera on EBay.
You won't get the greatest deal but they are the gold standard of online camera retailers.

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. Thanks, dodger!

More info is good to know! :loveya:

Damn this photography group is awesome!!! :party:

[regnaD kciN]

16. If I may throw you a curve here...

...unless you must have this camera in the next 2-3 weeks, I'd wait until the reviews are out on the Sony Alpha 100. This is an upgrade to the Konica Minolta 5D model I've been using (Sony bought out KM's camera business), with a 10.2 MP sensor that may or may not be the same basic chip found in the D200. It also has in-body vibration-reduction, meaning that you get image stabilization with any lens. (Speaking of which, it is compatible with virtually every lens made for Minolta SLRs since the Maxxum series, including some very high quality glass.) It also sells for about half the price of the D200.

Now, I'm not saying that the Alpha is the equivalent of the D200 at half the price. But it has the potential to, at least, come very close. It's due out on the 28th -- I'd wait until the first reviews, or at least the "official" on-line ones at DPReview.com and imaging-resource.com.

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. Thanks, rk

I can wait :bounce:
(am actually thinking ahead by about 4-8 weeks re: making purchase so I an have great info, such as all that am getting here :) )

This is going to be one of the most fun buys I've done in a long time!

Thanks for the heads up! :hi:

[alfredo]

17. CC is right about seeing which one feels best in your hand.

Back in the 60's I picked a Pentax over a Nikon because the Pentax fit my hand better. I am now a Canon user, but could have gone Nikon if it had the right price/feature set at the time I purchased. The way the market is now, the price/feature set comparisons change quickly.

[Gregorian]

19. A couple of quick things.

Not to rebut anything anyone has said here.


Most of the differences between the two cameras are noticed pretty much only by "pixel peeping geeks" (quote found on another photo forum). Or if one starts printing the shots on large prints. Then they start becoming noticeable.


And by the way, the computer being a problem is not insignificant. I have 2.3 Ghz with 256Meg of ram. And my machine is really unusable. I still can't believe it. But after the last few days of paying close attention to what is going on, it has become obvious that much more ram is needed. At 3 Meg per photo, half a dozen shots open in photoshop at a time can slow the computer down to a standstill. OR if even using Windows Explorer to preview pictures, scrolling is almost unusable.


As for camera weight, I don't even notice it. I prefer heavy. And it's only something noticed if one is doing it for a living, all day. That's my take on it.

And fast versus slow lenses is also controversial. Just look at the shots people take in low light with an f3.5 lens.

Anyways, we could go on and on. The bottom line is what you are using it for.

[Whoa_Nelly]

20. More good input--Thanks!

Along with buying a camera soon, am also buying a new computer...well actually two computers since both my desktop and laptop are over six years old...yikes! Am planning on buying a Mac for both desktop and laptop. Was planning on buying the extra gig of RAM for both, and the 80GB hard drive (MacBook) and the 250 GB on the hard drive for the desktop.

I do a lot of graphics work/design, and figured along with photography, would need the extra RAM and disk drive.

Thanks so much, Gregorian!


on edit: SpellCheck is your friend :D

[Touchdown]

21. Max out the RAM on your Macs

Go for the full 2 Gigs. If you buy Aperture, you will be thankful for it. That software screams with max ram. 200 fine Jpegs (2-6 megs a piece) downloaded in 2.5 minutes. Get an external HD as well. Aperture makes vaults and puts them in there, so your main HD doesn't get filled up with RAW files. Might as well go with the nnew Intel iMacs and Macbooks. They;'ll at lkeast take the same software.:hi:

EDIT: I didn't know you were the OP WN. That price on the D200 sounds a little too good to be true. It might be grey market. Camera shops are notorious for that. Nikon will not honor the warranty if you bought it on the grey market. Something to think about, since I have a feeling I'm about to send mine in for repair (dead pixels, sensor problem)

Regarding the warning you got from another poster on Nikon's high ISO problems, the D200 is another animal than their older models, and the D2Xs fixes that camera's problems as well. Back when mine was new I took this at 1600 ISO at 11pm in March. Pitch Black outside. I did use a flash (the SB 800), but check the metadata, it was less than 1.016 of a second. I'll break the size rules and you can try to find excessive noise in it.;)

[Whoa_Nelly]

22. Good idea! Thanks!

Great info! Sure appreciate it! :hi:

[Touchdown]

23. I added more, please come back.

:P

[Whoa_Nelly]

24. Thanks, again!

I bookmarked this thread early on so will have all the info/input right at hand.

Thanks for your additional comments! :loveya:

This group is so darn GOOD! :bounce:

[Ms. Toad]

25. OR...

<<Most of the differences between the two cameras are noticed pretty much only by "pixel peeping geeks" (quote found on another photo forum). Or if one starts printing the shots on large prints. Then they start becoming noticeable.>>

OR if one tends to crop heavily. When I was buying a camera people told me I only needed 2-3 MP unless I wanted to print 8x10 shots - which I rarely do. But I do tend to crop, especially when I'm taking candid people shots and need to snap quickly without paying a lot of attention to framing so as not to be noticed. I ignored the advice to scrimp on MP, since I also know that expanding a cropped photo to 5x7 can be as significant a blowup as printing a full shot at 8x10.

[Whoa_Nelly]

26. True enough, Ms. Toad!

Pixels can make a difference when trying to get just a part of a photo for reproduction/print. I use selective digital sharpening from my editing program, and usually work my way out from the inside as I seek the clearest/sharpest when going for enlarging the cropped part of the photo.

Thanks for your input! :hi: