Canon 20D vs. Nikon D200

[SketchySmurf]

I've stumbled across an opportunity to buy either one of these fine cameras. I've been lurking the Canon boards lately, been reading up on performance of Canon lenses and thought I had my heart set on a 20D. A used D200 for the same price now came to my attention.

I don't mean to start any brand wars, and I hope this thread doesn't devolve into that. But in a soup to nuts comparison, what should be the better value?

Background: I've been shooting with prosumers, this will be my first dSLR. I'm going to get a 50mm prime to get started and once I get familiar with the controls and the quirks, I'll be using it for nature and landscape photography.

Thanks for your opinions.

(I should mention that both of these are selling for generally the same price +/- $100 of each other and is the body only.)

[coldrain]

That D200 is available about a month now, and already 2nd hand? Must not have been a very happy customer, maybe a D200 with a big (corduroy/banding) problem?

I personally am not so impressed with the samples of the D200 till now, here and on the rest of the web, the colours seem a tad somber to me (again). I WANT to like the D200's pictures but I have not come across uneditted photos yet that have me impressed. But on paper it is a very nice camera.
My preference would probably still go to the 20D because of its image quality and the lens lineup, but others may prefer the Nikon.

Maybe you would like to wait till feb 21'st and the PMA, the 20D will get a successor that may be worth the wait and a bit more saving.

[beachluvr]

Maybe you would like to wait till feb 21'st and the PMA, the 20D will get a successor that may be worth the wait and a bit more saving.

Shhhhhhhh, you're not supposed to tell

:rolleyes:

[erichlund]

I have a D200. I have to agree with Coldrain about one thing, for a D200 to drop in the price range of a 20D, you are either paying way too much for the 20D, or there is something wrong with the D200 (or the seller is an idiot). Of course, if you are talking about an Ebay sale, and aren't in the last half hour of the sale, then you have no idea about the final sales price.

I've seen some excellent images coming off the D200. There is one area Coldrain and I will always disagree on, and that's color. The D200 color output is not lacking in any way. It simply is not the same as the Canon color output. I would have to post process, or adjust the camera to get the same color output as you get on a Canon. Some might say that this is then a problem, but I'd rather say, a Canon user has to post process to get my wonderful Nikon color. It's merely a matter of perspective and which you prefer.

When I set my camera up correctly, I get color that matches what I saw directly with my own eyes. There is no "extra" punch. It is very fair. Some people don't like fair, they like punch. I would occasionally see a little punch in D70 reds, but I'm not seeing that with the D200. As I said, very fair.

Some say the Canon's have better skin tones, but I'm not seeing that on the D200 images I'm seeing. I'm seeing one guy who has a serious white balance issue, but I don't think it's the camera. He has plenty of outdoor photos that show no color cast, but he's showing yellow/green casts on some indoor shots, mainly of kids and females. To me, it seems he has some mixed light issues that he needs to overcome, but he's in denial. (Remember, the first step to the cure is admitting you have a problem :) )

Now, as to the banding issue. Nikon has spoken, if in only a limited fashion (we do, after all, live in a highly litigious society, so you have to be careful what you say). A very limited number of the early cameras had some hardware problems. This was rare, and it magnified the issue. These were not even mentioned in the Nikon message, and the hardware has been replaced.

There were a larger limited selection of early cameras that were significantly out of tune. Nikon is fixing these cameras as they are submitted. These are the cameras that exibited long chain banding over much of or the entire image.

It is easy for Nikon to tune the cameras so that they don't exibit this much banding. However, it is apparently very hard for them to make them perfect. It is possible, because some cameras do not show any banding under any test (so far). However, they have been successful in tuning them to the point where it is very difficult to achieve even the minor banding, and then only in very minor and very short chains. This is what they are doing with the current fix. Occasionally one comes back perfect, but I suspect that this is pure dumb luck, or all would come back perfect.

My camera does exibit minor banding, and when I'm ready, I will send it back to see if they can make it even more minor (El Segundo is less than 40 miles away). I'm going to give it a very complete test before I do. Based on what I'm hearing, I don't expect banding to ever go away completely, and for the pixel peepers of the world, that is a life threatening issue. For the rest of us, we are happily taking pictures with a great camera, and not seeing any banding in any of our real world photos.

I would not hesitate to recommend the D200. It's a great camera. I would urge caution if the price is inordinately low. You get what you pay for, and that deal may be a situation where you are paying for a broken camera. Remember, Nikon only offers warranty service to the original owner of cameras purchased from authorized Nikon dealers. So, if this camera has serious banding issues, then you want the original owner to send it back for you, because you would have to pay for the repair, and that might cost you any money you saved over buying one new. Nikon says the cameras coming out of the factory now will not have the "serious" banding issue, so you have to weigh what you are getting.

[Ray Schnoor]

Maybe you would like to wait till feb 21'st and the PMA, the 20D will get a successor that may be worth the wait and a bit more saving.
I am one person who is definitely waiting until Canon's announcement to see if I will upgrade from a D70 to a D200 or a new Canon, if at all.

Ray.

[SketchySmurf]

thanks for all your posts. what you all say makes a ton of sense, and yes I'm suspicious about the price. I've emailed the seller and so far no response, but in the case that I get all the right answers, I'm still going to tote my laptop with me and take some tests before i fork over the cash.

That being said, what prompted my question is the lens lineups. I've recently been picking up the latest issues of photo mags and I'd say 3 to 1 there's always more coverage of the performace of canon lenses. Not that I'm swayed very much by ads, but Canon has one where there's a line of sports photographers on the sideline all with white L lenses and while of course its a biased shot, you can't help but say to yourself "these guys do have a point..."

the color issue between the two models (canon with more pop and nikon being more representative) is a tough one for me to decide...I have noticed the difference and to be honest, I'm not sure what I would rather prefer...

[erichlund]

thanks for all your posts. what you all say makes a ton of sense, and yes I'm suspicious about the price. I've emailed the seller and so far no response, but in the case that I get all the right answers, I'm still going to tote my laptop with me and take some tests before i fork over the cash.

That being said, what prompted my question is the lens lineups. I've recently been picking up the latest issues of photo mags and I'd say 3 to 1 there's always more coverage of the performace of canon lenses. Not that I'm swayed very much by ads, but Canon has one where there's a line of sports photographers on the sideline all with white L lenses and while of course its a biased shot, you can't help but say to yourself "these guys do have a point..."

How much are you looking at spending. If you are concerned about the price diff between D200 and 20D, then I wouldn't be too concerned about who's long glass is more popular with the pros. A lot of those guys are using the 600mm f4L (or the 300 and 400 equivalents), which runs about $7000. The same thing in a Nikon costs $9000, which may explain some of why they buy Canon. OTOH, it's probably a marketing trend, where Canon beat Nikon the punch. That sort of thing can be a many years trend. Also, while Nikon lenses are marketed in black, you can get the long lenses in white. White is cooler, so you don't get problems with heat buildup in the lens. Of course, you may be seeing the Canon 1200, which apparently doesn't even make the Canon site. For that one, if you have a brand new Porsche, they might take it in trade, straight up. Bottom line, look at the lenses that you can realistically afford in the foreseeable future, and what types of lenses you want for the things you want to shoot. If you are a wide angle junkie, Nikon is stronger on that end. If you are a telephoto junkie, Canon has the lead there.

the color issue between the two models (canon with more pop and nikon being more representative) is a tough one for me to decide...I have noticed the difference and to be honest, I'm not sure what I would rather prefer...
Don't take the color issue too seriously. There was a challenge done, years ago, where Carver said they could make their M1.0 amp (about $250) sound just like a $4000 McIntosh, or other high end amp. One of the leading Sound rags supervised the challenge, and McIntosh accepted. The result was that McIntosh had to accept that Carver largely succeeded. Asked why they didn't make it sound like that all the time, they said they preferred their own sound.

Too a large degree, the same thing applies to these cameras. I can pick a different color space and set the camera for more vivid colors, and I suppose I can reasonably match the Canon colors. I believe a real expert could do so for sure, just as I believe you can do the same with a Canon camera.

There is a different look to the photos that I'm not sure can be matched. Canon images look more "polished?" (is that a fair word) where Nikon's photos have a more raw, film like quality. It's hard to describe, and I'm struggling with the words here, but this is one part of the image that I just don't believe you can mimic between cameras, and it's probably the biggest root difference between the cameras. I think this is really at the root of the noise issue. Nikon's not willing to give up the look they want from their images for the sake of controlling noise. Canon's position gives much more weight to noise control, but controlling noise does have an impact on how an image appears. You've heard the word "plasticky" perhaps, but I don't like that word because it's too loaded. Polished seems to fit. As Canon polishes away the noise, there is an appearance that is purely Canon. If that is what you want in your images, then you really should buy a Canon, because you won't get that in a Nikon. You might be able to do it in Photoshop, but that seems like a lot of work when you can just buy the right tool in the first place. If you prefer, as I do, the look of a Nikon image, then perhaps you should look there. If you've not considered this, and are only looking at camera features, then I frankly don't know what to tell you, and you may end up with a camera that disappoints or makes you happy, whichever one you end up choosing.

[coldrain]

Canon does not pollish noise away, and you should know that. Nikon does more pocessing that Canon (well, in teh D50/D70) and if a Canon performs well in the noise area it is because the sensor just does well. I really do not understand why you think Nikon looks more "raw" and why you think Canon does much more noise reduction. It is plain bull (pardon my french).

The reason teh D70 (your past arguement) showed more detail is because of harsh porcessing in camera, and that is well documented and well known.
The D200 on the other hand looks to be "soft" compared to the D70, in fact it is really hard to tell the 20D and D200 apart in that area. DSLRs with these RGGB sensors just are soft by nature, and not because of "antialiasing bull" or "noise reduction". Trying to guess the colour from surrounding pixels just does not make the sharpest photos in the world (look at how soft the top DSLRs(D2X, 1Ds MK II) look, they apply (almost?) no sharpening and noise reduction, the difference between the 1Ds MK II and the 5D is very interesting in this area.

Also you seem to think the D200 is very dynamic (past posts). It does not look very dynamic to me, not more than we are used to with the D70s/350D/7D cameras anyway. If you want to see a better dynamic range, the CMOS sensors of Canon are a little bit better in that respect (the 5D is a most impressive camera in that respect).

Fact is, the D200 is a very complete and robust camera, and is a good buy for anyone. Do not think I do not agree with that. But, besides its build quality, to me it is not something that really stands out (image quality wise), it is just what it is, a good camera.

[Jason25]

Honestly, I'd get a D70s or 350/XT and some nice glass instead of a shiny new expensive body, unless you can't live without the extra features or resolution that the higher-end bodies provide. :)

Like previously mentioned, someone is way off the mark in the price of the 20D or D200 for them to be close. A "used" D200 should still fetch USD$1,700, unless the seller is a moron or just doesn't care.

[Ray Schnoor]

Honestly, I'd get a D70s or 350/XT and some nice glass instead of a shiny new expensive body, unless you can't live without the extra features or resolution that the higher-end bodies provide. :)
What, and not satisfy my techno-envy?

[ReF]

i'm gonna start off by saying that i don't have the time or interest to look up articles and such to prove the point (i'll leave that to someone else), but this is what i recall from things i've read in the past:

CMOS uses less electricity to begin with, so there is less noise from heat.

images from canon DSLR's are generally "smooth" in appearance, due to low noise and a more "hands off/leave it to the user" approach to sharpening and other in-camera processing, especially with their 1 series.

i think you can find this on dpreview, but i've seen side by side images (jpegs?) where the canon shot is actually noisier but retains more detail, while the comparison shot (can't remember which brand) had lower noise but less details. the text that accompanied the shots basically said that the lower noise was due to more aggressive noise reduction and therefore less details, while canon's approach was to leave the noise redux option to the user.

blacks usually appear darker/deeper on film as compared to digital.

nikon dslrs by default are programed to process their digital images to appear more like film images.

some pro photog (don't remember who) wrote an article about how he is not used to the extra visible details in the shadow areas of digital photos as compared to film; he "needs his blacks to be black" so he processes his images to have deeper shadows.

again, i'm not saying any of this is fact. it could all be wrong, and y'all could prove me wrong if you want. it's just what i've read.

[Jason25]

What, and not satisfy my techno-envy?
Well, it's either techno-envy or lens-lust, unless you have plenty of cash on hand to satisfy both, or already have a nice collection of lenses :)

[jeisner]

nikon dslrs by default are programed to process their digital images to appear more like film images.

I think that is to a large degree a property of the Sony sensor used too..

[jeisner]

Canon does not pollish noise away, and you should know that. Nikon does more pocessing that Canon (well, in teh D50/D70) and if a Canon performs well in the noise area it is because the sensor just does well. I really do not understand why you think Nikon looks more "raw" and why you think Canon does much more noise reduction. It is plain bull (pardon my french).

According to Phil Askey (see the ist D review) Nikon and Canon both do more in camera processing than Pentax :eek: he was referring to the 10D and the D100 in that comparison though... I prefer to use RAW and process my own images so that works well for me... That said to a degree it is pointless of me to bring this up :cool: it is just a matter of which picture you like better, it would be a bit boring if they all had the same look and we all liked the same thing... None of them is ultimately 'better', it's just preference...

EDIT: just to add on the different 'colour' of the various DSLR brands, I find the lenses themselves also make a HUGE difference to colour.. For example no Sigma lens I have had (except maybe the 50 DG EX macro) comes near the colour reproduction I get with 1st part Pentax lenses, a good friend (shootinng buddy) who uses the 20d finds the same when comparinng his Sigma EX lenses to his 1st party canon lenses... I also found a number of Tamron lenses I have tried although in many cases better, still didn't produce the same colours as my pentax lenses, with maybe the possible exception of the Tamron 90mm SP DI... Unfortunately the camera reviewers don't see an advantage, when they compare DSLRs, to actually use the same 3rd party lens, so as to take the lens difference out of the equation..

[beachluvr]

According to Phil Askey (see the ist D review) Nikon and Canon both do more in camera processing than Pentax :eek: he was referring to the 10D and the D100 in that comparison though... That said to a degree it is pointless of me to bring this up :cool: it is just a matter of which picture you like better, it would be a bit boring if they all had the same look and we all liked the same thing...

so true

~... and if they could only know that photography means so much more than technology~

[coldrain]

According to Phil Askey (see the ist D review) Nikon and Canon both do more in camera processing than Pentax :eek:

...

EDIT: just to add on the different 'colour' of the various DSLR brands, I find the lenses themselves also make a HUGE difference to colour.. For example no Sigma lens I have had (except maybe the 50 DG EX macro) comes near the colour reproduction I get with 1st part Pentax lenses, a good friend (shootinng buddy) who uses the 20d finds the same when comparinng his Sigma EX lenses to his 1st party canon lenses... I also found a number of Tamron lenses I have tried although in many cases better, still didn't produce the same colours as my pentax lenses, with maybe the possible exception of the Tamron 90mm SP DI...
Very true,not only Phil Askey but the entire german photo press have always comments on the seemingly "flat" and artifact free photos of the *istDS, which make them perfect for post processing. It is the reason the Pentax has a seemingly lower resulting resolution than the KM and Nikon models with the same sensor. I like that they take that approach :)

And I too have a colour cast with my Sigma, nothing bad but noticable, especially compared to my Canon EF 70-200 f4 L.
If colour accuracy is needed I have to use custom white balance with that one (the Sigma).

[jeisner]

And I too have a colour cast with my Sigma, nothing bad but noticable, especially compared to my Canon EF 70-200 f4 L.
If colour accuracy is needed I have to use custom white balance with that one (the Sigma).

Yeah it isn't very bad, but it is a contributing factor (there are others of course) in my selling off of my sigma lenses, and predisposition to now favour the purchase of first party (pentax) lenses...

[erichlund]

Canon does not pollish noise away, and you should know that. Nikon does more pocessing that Canon (well, in teh D50/D70) and if a Canon performs well in the noise area it is because the sensor just does well. I really do not understand why you think Nikon looks more "raw" and why you think Canon does much more noise reduction. It is plain bull (pardon my french).

The reason teh D70 (your past arguement) showed more detail is because of harsh porcessing in camera, and that is well documented and well known.
The D200 on the other hand looks to be "soft" compared to the D70, in fact it is really hard to tell the 20D and D200 apart in that area. DSLRs with these RGGB sensors just are soft by nature, and not because of "antialiasing bull" or "noise reduction". Trying to guess the colour from surrounding pixels just does not make the sharpest photos in the world (look at how soft the top DSLRs(D2X, 1Ds MK II) look, they apply (almost?) no sharpening and noise reduction, the difference between the 1Ds MK II and the 5D is very interesting in this area.

Also you seem to think the D200 is very dynamic (past posts). It does not look very dynamic to me, not more than we are used to with the D70s/350D/7D cameras anyway. If you want to see a better dynamic range, the CMOS sensors of Canon are a little bit better in that respect (the 5D is a most impressive camera in that respect).

Fact is, the D200 is a very complete and robust camera, and is a good buy for anyone. Do not think I do not agree with that. But, besides its build quality, to me it is not something that really stands out (image quality wise), it is just what it is, a good camera.
But, you see, you are talking about a bunch of technical folderol that has little to do with what I was talking about. I couldn't care less how they get there, and they certainly aren't telling. I look at the images and I see differences and I simply describe the differences I see. I suppose you don't like the description. Frankly, I just don't care. You might note, that in the paragraph you had a problem with, I did not once name any particular camera, just brands. The thing is, for all your argumentative response, you are basically in agreement that there is a different look that comes out of the two brands. Would you RATHER I use the word plasticky?

[jeisner]

But, you see, you are talking about a bunch of technical folderol that has little to do with what I was talking about. I couldn't care less how they get there, and they certainly aren't telling. I look at the images and I see differences and I simply describe the differences I see. I suppose you don't like the description. Frankly, I just don't care. You might note, that in the paragraph you had a problem with, I did not once name any particular camera, just brands. The thing is, for all your argumentative response, you are basically in agreement that there is a different look that comes out of the two brands. Would you RATHER I use the word plasticky?

Its a matter of personal interpretation, one mans smooth is another mans plastic... ;-)

[TheObiJuan]

Shhhhhhhh, you're not supposed to tell

:rolleyes:

I dont like the direction this forum is going...
:(

[SketchySmurf]

I dont like the direction this forum is going...
:(

*sigh* and that was what I was trying to avoid...oh well, at least we are all passionate about gear which I suppose is half the fun.;)

I've looked at plenty images from both Nikon and Canon (and I'm going to be looking at much more before I finally make a decision) and while I can discern a difference, I cannot ever say I would prefer one over the other. A good photograph is what it is regardless of the gear.

I'm VERY compelled to the D200 however for its weatherproofing and rugged build. I'm going to be taking this puppy into backwoods and the beach and maybe even antarctica. The fact that its built like a tank is extremely appealling. Although I could be swayed towards a 20D if enough people found the build to be sufficient.

Ugh...I'm tired of all this hemming and hawwing I wish Canon and Nikon would just merge already and make life easier for the rest of us...

[cdifoto]

*sigh* and that was what I was trying to avoid...

Seriously, what did you expect when you started yet another vs debate? You can't honestly tell me you didn't see it coming... just look at past threads with "vs" in its title.


Personally I think these types of threads should be banned.

[SketchySmurf]

Seriously, what did you expect when you started yet another vs debate? You can't honestly tell me you didn't see it coming... just look at past threads with "vs" in its title.


Personally I think these types of threads should be banned.

Good idea. Censorship ALWAYS works out in the end.

[cdifoto]

Good idea. Censorship ALWAYS works out in the end.


Jeff's forum, Jeff's rules. If he doesn't like the pissing contests that always result from these types of threads, he can ban them. Free speech doesn't apply when you're a guest in someone else's home.


I'm not Jeff and Jeff isn't me so it's not my choice. It's just my opinion.

[SketchySmurf]

I'm not Jeff and Jeff isn't me...

Great. Now that that's settled, who can comment on the build/ruggedness/weather resistance of the D70/D200 VERSUS the 20D?

[cdifoto]

Great. Now that that's settled, who can comment on the build/ruggedness/weather resistance of the D70/D200 VERSUS the 20D?

D70 would probably be more like the 20D and the D200 almost Canon 1D-ish. If you have a local shop that sells them you could ask to handle all 3 to compare.

[coldrain]

And don't bother with weather sealed cameras unless you want to use weather sealed lenses. A bit of rain does not fry a camera. Not does a bit of dust.

If you find weather sealing important, you probably are planning a trip to a desert with sand storms. Or go out in stormy weather. Else, just place it into perspective. Weather sealed cameras are for people who need to be out shooting even when it is crap weather, normal people stay home in weather that would need a weather sealed camera (and I do not mean to protect their gear, but because they want to stay inside for themselves... you do not go out to make photos when it is crap outside).

[George Riehm]

And don't bother with weather sealed cameras unless you want to use weather sealed lenses. A bit of rain does not fry a camera. Not does a bit of dust.

If you find weather sealing important, you probably are planning a trip to a desert with sand storms. Or go out in stormy weather. Else, just place it into perspective. Weather sealed cameras are for people who need to be out shooting even when it is crap weather, normal people stay home in weather that would need a weather sealed camera (and I do not mean to protect their gear, but because they want to stay inside for themselves... you do not go out to make photos when it is crap outside).

I'm thinking the D200 was designed more for the PJ needing a second body/lens in the bag, as it really is priced above the normal consumer market (at least this consumer).

I don't know about the rest of the members here, but I find some of my best shots are of severe weather adding drama to the mix of scenery, and sometimes just the clouds themselves. Weather sealing is handy when you are shooting between rain storms and one sneaks up on you, which has happened to me several times.

In those cases the weather-sealed Lowepro TLZ Mini has come in handy (just drop it in and zip it up (about 4 seconds). But it would be nice not to have to worry about it and keep shooting. Here's a Ferinstance:

[coldrain]

Of course, George. My camera has gotten rained on too, and had sleet and snow on it. It has been out in the warm dust. It is fine, and I never was worried... Cameras can really stand a bit of all that. The sleet left white residue on the black rings of the 70-200 f4 L. But my point is, by the time you need it to be weather sealed, you are way past some rain, and you are not anymore standing around to make photos.

If your camera happens to be weather sealed, fine, but you will probably never need that anyway. I do not find it more important than other factors, that is what I mean.

[cdifoto]

When I shot at the race track, I wished my body and lens were dust proof. It's filthy down there. Plus if I ever got hit by a car, I wouldn't wanna get even more sh1t in my gear.

Sadly the track owners didn't want to pay me much of anything, and the print sales weren't high enough to buy a 1 series body and all sealed L glass, so I said hellwithit and quit.

[coldrain]

When I shot at the race track, I wished my body and lens were dust proof. It's filthy down there. Plus if I ever got hit by a car, I wouldn't wanna get even more sh1t in my gear.
Your cameras are still functioning correctly, aren't they? So, the weather proofness was not needed... they survived fine without, that is my point. And you still need to clean the dirt off, no matter if it is weather proof or not. Shit on an XT or on 1Ds still is shit.

[cdifoto]

Your cameras are still functioning correctly, aren't they? So, the weather proofness was not needed... they survived fine without, that is my point. And you still need to clean the dirt off, no matter if it is weather proof or not. Shit on an XT or on 1Ds still is shit.

Shit may be shit but the other photog's camera quit working from all that shit. I would rather my camera be sealed against that shit and keep working. Yeah it still works now...but how long would it? The other shooter had a not-so-old Nikon D100. Quite a rugged camera.

Yeah I coulda got a 1 series but not on my income. Point is, some people mind getting shit inside their camera.

[George Riehm]

Of course, George. My camera has gotten rained on too, and had sleet and snow on it. It has been out in the warm dust. It is fine, and I never was worried... Cameras can really stand a bit of all that. The sleet left white residue on the black rings of the 70-200 f4 L. But my point is, by the time you need it to be weather sealed, you are way past some rain, and you are not anymore standing around to make photos.

If your camera happens to be weather sealed, fine, but you will probably never need that anyway. I do not find it more important than other factors, that is what I mean.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Or maybe I just find myself shooting in adverse conditions more often .

A big part of the reason I will end up forking over $1700 for a D200 is environmental sealing. So far I have been lucky with the D70, but it has seen its share of salt spray, waterfall mist, rain, snow, and dust storms, in the past 2 years, and I've missed a lot of shots because it was tucked safely away in the, before mentioned, Lowepro.

Just because I live in the desert doesn't mean I'm anchored here. I still manage to put 30K to 50K miles of skidmarks-in-the-sky every year. Tokyo, Osaka, and Shanghai in August are like shooting in a steambath.;) The UK and Northern Denmark are a tad rainy (year round) as well.

During the last cleaning there was a little corrosion starting on the battery contacts, and a bit of residual dust and salt in the battery and CF compartments (luckily not yet on the CF or lens contacts). I'm pretty tough on my camera, which is why I had it cleaned and checked. Just because you don't see the damage...

... I'm betting that the 20D replacement will be weather-sealed.

For all who are reading this and thinking exposure to a little rain or snow will kill your camera, that is "probably" not the case. But like I said my camera takes a beating environment-wise, so sealing is important to me.

Anyway, as always thanks for the dialog.

[coldrain]

Don't bet on the 35D being weather sealed. It most probably will not.

[cdifoto]

Don't bet on the 35D being weather sealed. It most probably will not.

If it's not I'd be a little surprised. Canon will be expected to bring out something that leapfrogs the D200 and lack of weathersealing might be seen as falling short. Canon isn't a company to be undersold.

[sherlock]

If it's not I'd be a little surprised. Canon will be expected to bring out something that leapfrogs the D200 and lack of weathersealing might be seen as falling short. Canon isn't a company to be undersold.


I agree but if they didn't weather seal the 5D, why would they on the 35D when neither is a pro body?

[coldrain]

If it's not I'd be a little surprised. Canon will be expected to bring out something that leapfrogs the D200 and lack of weathersealing might be seen as falling short. Canon isn't a company to be undersold.
That Nikon wants to position the D200 at 1700 dollars, is their choice, and they have decided that probably over a year ago.
The 35D will already have been well into the end of development when the D200 was announced, just because one manufacturer puts weather sealing on a camera does not mean everyone will act like crazy to get something out the door with the exact same features. You can not change something that is not simple to just add into the design, and manufacturing lines, just because some competitor has a different price/model agenda.

I think Canon will just do what they have planned, to impress with image quality at a higher resolution, bring refinements we have already seen in the 5D, and keep the price lower than the D200. Canon has kept letting the prices go down from model to model (D30, D60, 10D, 20D) and that will be their objective again.

If they want to position a camera below the 1D mkII N with weather sealing, they may well do that in future, but I think since a weather sealed camera needs weather sealed lenses to make sense, they will go for lower price instead of bumping it up to D200 level, weather sealed is not the 35D's target audience.

[cdifoto]

I agree but if they didn't weather seal the 5D, why would they on the 35D when neither is a pro body?


Only because the 5D came out before the D200. The D200 is sealed so Canon should seal the 35D or whatever-its-called.

[cdifoto]

That Nikon wants to position the D200 at 1700 dollars, is their choice, and they have decided that probably over a year ago.
The 35D will already have been well into the end of development when the D200 was announced, just because one manufacturer puts weather sealing on a camera does not mean everyone will act like crazy to get something out the door with the exact same features. You can not change something that is not simple to just add into the design, and manufacturing lines, just because some competitor has a different price/model agenda.

I think Canon will just do what they have planned, to impress with image quality at a higher resolution, bring refinements we have already seen in the 5D, and keep the price lower than the D200. Canon has kept letting the prices go down from model to model (D30, D60, 10D, 20D) and that will be their objective again.

If they want to position a camera below the 1D mkII N with weather sealing, they may well do that in future, but I think since a weather sealed camera needs weather sealed lenses to make sense, they will go for lower price instead of bumping it up to D200 level, weather sealed is not the 35D's target audience.


IMO, the 35D is going to have to be siginificantly less than $1700 for people looking into a new SLR system to opt for it over the D200. The D200 (on paper...I haven't handled it) seems to be rugged and has the sealing. If the 35D comes out at a price near that, it's going to be a no-brainer...go for the weather sealed rugged almost-pro build. You don't need sealed lenses for it to make sense. It might not be 100% air tight but a sealed body will let in less dust and dirt than an unsealed body, no matter what lens is on it.

If the 35D comes out at a price less than the 20D was when it came out, I can see it not being sealed. Any higher and it better be.

[coldrain]

Only because the 5D came out before the D200. The D200 is sealed so Canon should seal the 35D or whatever-its-called.
The D200 is also a lot more expensive than the D70. Most of that is probably in production costs, weather sealing is not something cheap and simple to slap on.

So, unless Canon wants to raise the price, and I don't think they want to because most just do not need weather sealing but price is a big part of the camera's success, and the design of a new camera is not something you do in a month, my guess is no weather sealing (unless they had planned that already when the 20D was introduced).

[cdifoto]

The D200 is also a lot more expensive than the D70. Most of that is probably in production costs, weather sealing is not something cheap and simple to slap on.

So, unless Canon wants to raise the price, and I don't think they want to because most just do not need weather sealing but price is a big part of the camera's success, and the design of a new camera is not something you do in a month, my guess is no weather sealing (unless they had planned that already when the 20D was introduced).

Yeah it's really hard to tell...since none of us sit on the design teams. I really don't care either way though because I'm so broke my XT's have to last me a good loooooooong time. Low 20D price or high D200 price, I can't afford either. lol.

[erichlund]

The D200 is also a lot more expensive than the D70. Most of that is probably in production costs, weather sealing is not something cheap and simple to slap on.

Some, but not so great if you compare release prices. IIRC, the D70 was released at $1499, but that may have been a kit. Mine was $1299 when I bought it in August, 9 months later. The D200 release price was more in line with the D100, which I believe was also released, body only, at $1699 (or so).

When the D200 is over 2 years old, I don't believe it will still be at $1699.

I believe all these camera start significantly higher than cost of production alone justifies. A new release camera is definitely a sellers market, particularly in the hot models. Frankly, if Nikon had really wanted to, they could have spent the time ironing out some of their release problems (aka banding), waited for PMA, released the body for $2199, and still sold them like hotcakes. Based on the first reasonably accurate leaks back in July/August, I was assuming a release price around $2300, which would have been too rich for my blood, but I would not have thought unjustified. I'm glad I decided to wait on the real announcment, because given all you get for $1700, this camera is a drop dead bargain, even with a little banding.

[cwphoto]

My money's on NO weather sealing for the 20D replacement. Besides, fundamentally the D200 is pitched at slightly different markets IMO. My take on the D200 is more a modern day EOS 3 competitor (ie; entry-level pro) than 20D (high-end amateur).

[George Riehm]

Some, but not so great if you compare release prices. IIRC, the D70 was released at $1499, but that may have been a kit. Mine was $1299 when I bought it in August, 9 months later. The D200 release price was more in line with the D100, which I believe was also released, body only, at $1699 (or so).

When the D200 is over 2 years old, I don't believe it will still be at $1699.

I believe all these camera start significantly higher than cost of production alone justifies. A new release camera is definitely a sellers market, particularly in the hot models. Frankly, if Nikon had really wanted to, they could have spent the time ironing out some of their release problems (aka banding), waited for PMA, released the body for $2199, and still sold them like hotcakes. Based on the first reasonably accurate leaks back in July/August, I was assuming a release price around $2300, which would have been too rich for my blood, but I would not have thought unjustified. I'm glad I decided to wait on the real announcment, because given all you get for $1700, this camera is a drop dead bargain, even with a little banding.

Eric, just out of curiousity... would you have kept the shots that have banding even if they were not banded? Better yet... Would you have even taken those shots?

Just like the moire' issue it seems like a lot to do about nothing. And like it's predicessors... Quite a camera for the price.

[erichlund]

Eric, just out of curiousity... would you have kept the shots that have banding even if they were not banded? Better yet... Would you have even taken those shots?

Just like the moire' issue it seems like a lot to do about nothing. And like it's predicessors... Quite a camera for the price.
Well, so far, I have only one shot with banding, the lamp shot. Since I'm not particularly interested in introducing that as a new art form, it's really only a demo shot.

I've seen some shots that were real keepers that had severe, type II or III banding. The one that comes to mind is a snowboarder. Apparently one of the Photoshop tools is very good at eliminating the banding, and there's every likelihood this shot could be saved with that application. However, it's not my shot, and I don't know what the guy did with it.

For most of the cameras, you pretty much have to muck things up badly to get a shot with banding. In most cases, its not a shot you would keep. There have been some sunsets, where the meter was on the foreground (the classic orange and black look), that could get banded. However, since that shot is usually taken with the sun below the horizon, there might not be enough dynamic range for a well tuned camera.

For a well tuned camera, you are not going to see banding in a print until you get up into sizes that you need very high end printers or you are sending them out for printing. Frankly, I don't know what size will show banding of that sort, but it would have to be very large. My R1800 won't do it without printing something like a 200% crop.

Bottom line, if I ever get banding in a keeper, I'll do what I can in software to salvage the photo, and print at whatever size I can that will not show the banding. I am not anticipating a problem. The only time I really think about it is when I am constantly bombarded with banding threads over at DPR. That site's been a little insane lately.

[cwphoto]

The only time I really think about it is when I am constantly bombarded with banding threads over at DPR. That site's been a little insane lately.

You mean more insane than normal? Didn't know it was possible...:eek:

[cdifoto]

LOL I don't even go over there anymore.

[cwphoto]

LOL I don't even go over there anymore.

I go there to read the news (it usually breaks there first), but you take your life in your hands when you post something...

[George Riehm]

LOL I don't even go over there anymore.

It's one of my scanners (news) after Galbraith. Otherwise, the Nikonian site is pretty tame.;)

[erichlund]

The Nikon D 1,2,100, 200 forum is rather "interesting" (as in the Chinese curse) at the moment. It's starting to get back to merely insane. However, there are a lot of D200 owners there, so as long as you stay out of the pure flame threads, there's a lot of good information.

It also doesn't hurt that they have guys like Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan as somewhat regular contributors. Of course, those two are not much use if you are a died in the wool Canon guy. I don't even think they can spell Canon. :rolleyes:

[sherlock]

I don't even think they can spell Canon. :rolleyes:


It's two n's right??? :D

[Jeff Keller]

There is no Canon EOS-35D. But there is a 20D replacement -- it just has a different name.

Also, let's refrain from four letter words in posts here, thanks.

[XaiLo]

Once upon a time I used to be a carpenter and there is one undeniable fact that is ever present. There is nothing like the right tool for the job. The key is to understand all aspects and requirements of the job, so you can select the right tool.

Imagery is subjective and therefore it is inherent towards bias. In such a case the best you can hope for is an understanding of the job at hand.

New job, new tools :) just another reason to spend some money.

[SketchySmurf]

Yeah, now that PMA has come and gone, the decision is clearly the D200. And I'm completely peeved I can't just walk into my local camera shop and get it...

[Elitefroggy]

http://poperotzy.smugmug.com/photos/57017073-L.jpg This is a sample of an ordinary picture with the D200. The colors are exactly as it looked to me when I took it. The camera feels so much better in your hand than the 20d. It is to bad that most places don't have any stock for you to handle prior to buying. My D200 was ordered early, and arrived in the first shipment from Ritz Camera. It does show slight banding when shooting into extreme contrast situations. The type of pic would probably not be a keeper even without any banding. All of my shots taken under ordinary conditions, show no signs of banding. Both the 20d and the D200 are excellent cameras, and you should be very happy with either one.

[SketchySmurf]

I would be very satisfied with that picture. Do you have an early model D200? From various accounts, it's not even a problem worth mentioning...

I played around with a D70s which felt a heck of a lot better than a 20D. I have large hands and long fingers and the Nikon just felt so much more natural. Plus the aforementioned ruggedness really sold me.

[Warin]

The 20D is a damn nice camera. Takes great shots. I am willing to bet the 30D will be the same.

I own a D200. Why? Because of the ergonomics. The 20D is light years ahead of the RebelXT, and I just find that it is nowhere near the Nikon in terms of menus and feel.

But that's my opinion. I know a few Canon shooters that would call me a heretic ;)

Basically, pick the one that feels the best to you and go with it. Arguing whether one brand is better is, when comparing Nikon and Canon, a lot like comparing BWM and Mercedes.

[erichlund]

BWM!!!!???

You are a heretic! ;)

[coldrain]

I'd rather have an Audi :p.

And since I do not like the slight colour casts the D200 has, and the 20D/30D's noise and dynamic range are still quite a bit better, I would still choose a Canon if I were to choose now. To me the image quality is most important, although the D200 is a very cool camera with some pretty nice features.

[erichlund]

I'd rather have an Audi :p.

And since I do not like the slight colour casts the D200 has, and the 20D/30D's noise and dynamic range are still quite a bit better, I would still choose a Canon if I were to choose now. To me the image quality is most important, although the D200 is a very cool camera with some pretty nice features.
For all that both hold their value (and BMW has a lot more cachet here in the US), I wouldn't buy either one. Waste of money. People who have them like to say how they hold their value, but that's because there's so much to hold. A buddy of mine replaced the tires on his twice in the last 5 years. At $300 a pop, they are not cheap. And at 4X the price of my wife's Ford Focus, I don't care how much % value you hold, you're still going to see more actual cash value lost. Sure, they're fun to drive, but in the end, they are just transportation.

As for the slight color cast, I won't even answer that. It's just silly. I can make the D200 show whatever color I want. I can make the colors look exactly the same as a rebel, but why would I? Color is subjective, and I like what I get. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard about unnatural skin tones from Canon cameras. I discount such statements, because if you want natural skin tones, you adjust the camera and post processing to show them.

As for dynamic range, the only REAL test I've seen that compares the two, compares in jpg and the 20D gets a whopping .2EV advantage. Whoop-de-do. Any photographer with a modicum of skill can easily overcome such a small advantage. For instance, in daylight, you can use a CC040M magenta filter to suppress some red channel (the likely first to blow), in order to compress the image dynamic range into the available sensor range (and also slightly increase the sensor range by more fully utilizing the other channels). I've seen this work to recover both shadow and highlight detail in the same photo. The white and black points do not change significantly, but more detail is made available to the sensor within its dynamic range.

I've not seen it, but apparently, similar results can be had under tungsten light with an 82C Kodak Wratten filter.

BTW: In raw, using ACR, DP Review was able to get about 2.5 extra stops out of the D200. They could not guarantee color fidelity, but as long as you don't take it past blown channels, you can extend dynamic range quite extensively with the correct tools. Nikon Capture is also capable of showing significantly increased dynamic range, at least on the highlight end. I haven't had a chance yet to play with the shadow end.