k i dont want to start a war here lol. but which do you reccomend. im open to they types of cameras but i was thinking along the linds of the 40d or the d200 please help me make the best decision. and if those arent that great tell me another camera to get.
djkamoe, D200 has excellent reviews from this very reliable source http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d200/4540-6501_7-31568586-4.html?tag=sub
djkamoe, Then I suppose, you need tonarrow it down to their respective specifications and features--pound per pound. It all really depends on what you're looking for in a camera; and also, how much you're willing to spend for it.
well here is a side by side comparison of the two cameras in question: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=canon_eos40d,nikon_d200&show=all enjoy!!!! I have been enjoying Canon for over 30yrs now! I used to own the original Canon AE-1! and then went to the EOS Rebel... then the digital Eos Rebel...... then the Canon 10D and recently just bought the Canon Eos 30D at a spectacular savings of over $500.00 because the 40D was just about to be released. I have had fantastic pictures since 1976 with Canon cameras. Now my brother, who was the head photographer on the SS Shangri La (1960s US Naval Air Craft Carrier--- now mothballed)...used Nikon cameras...... and to this day we have a photo competition between us! So far I have gone to more places than he has and have taken more breathtaking shots than he has! But that could change! We are both going to Vegas in 2 weeks and then taking the Grand Canyon tour and finally see who beats out who! LOL Getting back to your comparison...... buy the 40D..... it's newer and very much into the newer technology than a camera that is now 2 yrs old! but...... I'm sure you can find the Nikon D200 at a much much cheaper price than listed in the comparison since the D300 is out! buy Canon and you'll never go wrong! IMHO! then again I'm biased! What lenses do you have???? or are you staring out? taken 9/30/07: http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img7486sfr4.jpg http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hopediamondedited1ad1.jpg http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2011py3.jpg http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1914gt6.jpg shot with these lenses: http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541160834.htm http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=9802 and the Canon 30D
I've always used Canon's. Started with the AE1 and moved on up through the EOS line and then my first digital was the 10D which I am getting ready to sell so I can buy the 40D. All the above cameras took great photos and got better as I upgraded. I've had the 10D since it came out. When the 20D and 30D came out I let them pass by. I knew there was something better coming that was worth waiting for and it came in the form of the 40D. Have you checked out all the upgrades that camera has. I'm drooling!! I can hardly wait to get my hands on it. Canon is the way to go, and if you can afford the 40D, buy it. You won't be sorry. Recently I went to Disney World and decided I needed a small camera to fit in a waist pack so I could take it on the rides and bought the PowerShot A710 IS and am blown away at the shots I get from that little camera. Canon Rocks!!!!
It does depend on the phtotgrapher, and how the camera suits you. Some people work better with a particular camera just cos it suits them. My personal rave is the Canon 5D right now. So far I think it's the best digi camera ever made.
the canon has good cheaper lenses.. but the nikon tend to cost a little more i find that both do a really hood job.. but man the nikon d200 with a 200m lense that cost 1600 does an amazeing job for bird pictures.. its super fast but the key is dont waste your money on many cheaper lenses get 1 good one for about the same you would spend over time.. and it makes a huge diffrence.. for cannon for for the white lense cant rember the name.. but they are good and expensive..
I shoot Canon professionally, but it's much of a muchness - definitely personal choice. The best advice I can give you is to go into a camera retailer and try both - see how they feel in your hands, is it comfortable, do you find the menus easy to navigate, does it feel good. Those are by far the most important considerations, as the features between the D200 & the 40D are negligible. Get whichever body you personally warm to when trying it, and then spend your money on the lenses - that's what really makes a difference, not the body.
well i had the same problem nikon or canon,i talked to some ppl read some reviews and at the end of the day the all do the same so i got a canon 400d for £320 my budget was £500 soo with the camera bought i had cash to spend on lens ,tripod ,case etc and i have been happy with it ever since
Correct me if I am wrong but all nikon's have the motor for the auto focus built into the body not the lense (except for the d40) where as the cannon all have the motor in the lense.
I would go nikon. i just received my cert. in photography from green river community college and we where using a nikon 35mm and a nikon digital and both took outstanding photo's. I really dislike canon's rigging of there cameras where you must install there software in order for the camera to read correctly and with the introduction of the new canon camera's and there support for the 4 gig with sdhc you cannot read the card unless it is in the camera which sucks.
*I really dislike canon's rigging of there cameras where you must install there software in order for the camera to read correctly* Read what? I lost mt CD's just after buying the 5D and haven't had a problem with the camera. * and with the introduction of the new canon camera's and there support for the 4 gig with sdhc you cannot read the card unless it is in the camera which sucks.* I just don't understand what is said here. Could you clarify for me please?
Well, my two cameras are still the Olympus OM-1 (when I want full control), and the Canon AE-1; so I just borrow others' digital cameras. However, before buying anything, I download the users manuals of those things I'm interested in, and see which best fits my needs. At one time, for example, my need (want, actually) was nature photography; for example, shooting one or more photos of a squirrel digging a nut, using remote controls, and creating no disturbing noise. (Can I do this better with a laptop and digital camera?) So, I can only advise that you read the manuals, see how your brand of operating system interacts with each (and its RAW format), and imagine what you might be using it for.
I only have one gripe with Olympus (well 2 really) first is the non standard memory cards which cost 30% more than standard ones and the cameras are size limited.. the older ones anyway. and the other is how hard it is to turn the flash on and off. I tried a new samsung belonging to an associate on Thursday. Can't remember the model.. he thrust it in my hand with a "what do you think" and I was pretty impressed. As easy to use as my 35mm and standard memory. I would advise looking at what features you want, and the ease of use.. You don't want to be fiddling with a stupid flash on/off while what you want to shoot is vanishing into the distance. I still haven't managed to work out the lodgers olympus in this respect. IMHO anything above 7.5MP is overkill unless you want to print posters.
My apology, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the Olympus in this thread. No one asked what operating system the original poster preferred, or what editors the poster preferred. (Right, Windows & Photoshop, I know.) These are important if one wants to use more than PTP, and wants to edit non-standard, RAW images. The squirrel offered an example of wanting a camera that can be silently controlled by a laptop. (One wouldn't even need binoculars.) I only have one gripe with Olympus (well 2 really) first is the non standard memory cards which cost 30% more than standard ones and the cameras are size limited.. the older ones anyway. and the other is how hard it is to turn the flash on and off. My OM-1 doesn't have either problem. I double check its meter readings with my Weston reflected meter with Adams's zones taped to the front.
Personally I own the Nikon D200 and by the way this is my first camera. I had the same questions such as which camera should I buy such as Canon or Nikon. I even had my sights on Sony's new DSLR's which have the vibration reduction built into the body instead of the lense *which is a money saver* Nikon: Great pictures excellent range of lenses great quality. Has a great sealed body and can take plenty of abuse. Has a half frame sensor but is the same as the D2x. Canon: Great pictures, good lenses, and has a good name. I have heard of some instances where the gears break rather easily inside the lenses of canon's "cheaper" lenses *$1000 or below* Overall it took me over 2 months to gain enough information and trying out of cameras to spend around $4500 to get me set up with everthing from the body to the lenses to the card and bags. Overall for your moneys worth I would get the D200 or possibly the D300 if you want but I do not think that the D200 will be out dated for a very long time. By the way Nikon's D200 holds a half frame sensor. Do not let this fool you because the full frame sensors of Canon's DSLR's are full frame sensors. A full frame sensor will give you blurriness around the edges of the picture. Where as a half frame sensor will keep equal clarity around the whole picture. Just remember most of these differences you have to find under a microscope. So I would say Try out the different cameras and see which is for you. I am sure I would love Canon's cameras or perhaps Sony's. Just do your research and choose which is right for you.
