Canon has the stronger system overall, but Nikon does exceed them in areas like flash metering and low-tech macro gear. The D200 can also meter with most of the old manual lenses.
They often seem to stair step each other in terms of bodies.
Myself, I shoot a Canon 1D Mk II. Screen's small by today's standards, but the quality is outstanding. Thanks to the large area/pixel of a 1.3 crop 8Mp sensor, it can actually out-resolve most higher-res DSLR's at aperatures narrower than f/11 (bigger pixels=less vulnerable to diffraction blur). With the new Mk III model just announced, you might be able to catch some used II or IIn bodies for sale by owner. Downside: It's heavy.
The real question is "do you have a specialty?" Truth is it's hards to go wrong with either one, but I'd lean one way or the other depending on the situation.
I don't think I can afford anything near a Mk II or the III :( but I know they're great *whimper*
But thanks, as for specialty, well, I can't relay narrow it dowm, as I shoot portraits, weddings and really would miss the multifunctionality of something I can do all kinds of landscapes with when travelling...
I'm not sure about the nikon family, but in my opinion the differences between the Canon 30D and the 350D or 400D don't come near to justifying the difference in price and weight --- the 30D is about 250g heavier and about $400 more expensive, and really doesn't provide much difference in terms of functions or features...
I love my 350D, and I've heard good things about the 400D...
i like my 30d. i justify the added expense over a rebel style body because of the plastic casing, which isn't a particular problem if you can accept the cheap feel of it over the magnesium alloy of the 30d, but if you mount larger telephoto lens on them it feels like the camera's going to snap. i bought a used 350d as a backup camera, but have never used it.
nikon has a good system. i've nothing against it, but once you start buying one brand, compatibility is really the important part. do you have any previous equipment?
Comments 14
They often seem to stair step each other in terms of bodies.
Myself, I shoot a Canon 1D Mk II. Screen's small by today's standards, but the quality is outstanding. Thanks to the large area/pixel of a 1.3 crop 8Mp sensor, it can actually out-resolve most higher-res DSLR's at aperatures narrower than f/11 (bigger pixels=less vulnerable to diffraction blur). With the new Mk III model just announced, you might be able to catch some used II or IIn bodies for sale by owner. Downside: It's heavy.
The real question is "do you have a specialty?" Truth is it's hards to go wrong with either one, but I'd lean one way or the other depending on the situation.
Reply
But thanks, as for specialty, well, I can't relay narrow it dowm, as I shoot portraits, weddings and really would miss the multifunctionality of something I can do all kinds of landscapes with when travelling...
hmm...
Reply
For exemple the EF 50m f/1.8 MkII. And that one cost $115 new.
Reply
I love my 350D, and I've heard good things about the 400D...
I'd definitely be up for photo excursions...
Reply
Although the rebels do have problems when using slaves and flash cords. they're not properly protected so be careful. :S
But that's good to know, I was wondering which camera you had actually.
And I am sooo up for a shoot, and though I still have not purchased nor decided, count me in for shoots! ;)
Reply
Once the snow goes away I think a trip to the botantical gardens will be in order.
Maybe I'll be able to identify some of the things growing in my backyard...
Reply
Reply
nikon has a good system. i've nothing against it, but once you start buying one brand, compatibility is really the important part. do you have any previous equipment?
Reply
I have tried a Nikon D100 and really liked it. I don't know about the D200 but it looks like it would be as good.
Choice is hard.
Reply
Leave a comment