Canon EOS 40D vs. Nikon D200

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by alexgn, Jul 20, 2008.

  1. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    Two great cameras cost about the same on the market. I was going to buy the D80 but now that I found I can get some discounts I want to spend saved $200-$250 on the body. :biggrin:

    I am inclined to choose the D200 since I am familiar and I like Nikon's ergonomics. I also would like to know your honest and un-biased opinion on these two fine cameras. :smile:

    Thanks!
     
  2. Seneca

    Seneca

    Dec 4, 2006
    Texas!
    I shoot both Canon and Nikon...but if I were you, I would get the ND200. That has been a superb camera for me.
     
  3. Mart61

    Mart61

    Dec 23, 2006
    Camberley, UK
    I'd agree with Sen, but would ask one question - do you have any other kit already? If you have a host of Nikon or Canon lenses, then it may be worth sticking to the brand you have.

    If you're starting from nothing, then go Nikon - but then I'm biased...

    :biggrin:
     
  4. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    Having both I would definitely prefer the Canon 30/40D compared to the D200 just for the ISO performance.
     
  5. Tosh

    Tosh

    May 6, 2005
    NY
    Also consider what types of lenses you'll want to use.
    Canon has fast AF/fast aperture primes in the sub-200mm range that are affordable. Nikon really doesn't. If you shoot sports (particularly indoors), that might be a factor.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2008
  6. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    RichNY,

    Is 40D a clear winner when taking pictures in RAW? Or the difference is marginal and only noticeable at ISO level 800 and above?

    Thanks!
     
  7. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    Mainly landscapes. It'd be Tokina 12-24mm but could have chosen Sigma 10-20mm too.
     
  8. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    It doesn't matter whether it is raw or jpg, the difference isn't marginal and is very noticeable at ISO 800 and above. If someone was going to always use the camera in the studio or well lit environments then the Nikon is the way to go especially in the area of flash.

    The D300 gives the best of both worlds.

    For me high ISO was/is very important since I shoot youth ice hockey at ISO 1600-3200 on a regular basis-YMMV.
     
  9. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    If you are shooting landscape with a tripod then the ISO performance isn't a big issue and the D200 is the nicer camera. As a general purpose camera where you will find yourself shooting in lower light or if you are shooting faster moving objects then increasing ISO comes into play.
     
  10. tintingkc

    tintingkc Guest

    I agree with RichNY. I looked at the 40D when looking to upgrade my Canon gear. Ended up getting the D300 instead. The Nikon bodies are layed out much better in my eyes. Set up like a camera should be. I do a lot of low light photography so my needs were different. Either camera is great. I would go to your local shop and play with both and fire off some pics.
    I feel you should be comfortable with your gear. You can't go wrong either way. I got great pics with both cameras. Just enjoying using my equipment more with the Nikon bodies.
     
  11. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    Okay, it will be the 40D then. Just for the benifit of having better ISO performance in low light conditions. :smile:
     
  12. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    If you do go Canon I would make a few suggestions:
    - Consider a used 30D as a much less expensive option than the 40D
    - Switch to Canon's 10-22 ultrawide as it is worth the price difference
    - Consider Canon's 17-55 IS lens and if that is out of the price range go with the Tamron 17-50
    - Join the POTN forum; they have a very active Buy/Sell forum
    - If any of the Canon stuff in my signature line becomes part of your shopping list please PM me- I am getting ready to sell it all
     
  13. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    I am on a tight budget so I won't be considering the EF-S 10-22mm or the EF-S 17-55.

    P.S Do you know if Tamrons, the 17-50mm or the 28-75mm come with BIM (Built-in motor) for Canon bodies? :smile:

    Thanks!
     
  14. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    Yes they do. If you are really on a tight budget the 20D will give you the same images as the 30D. The upgrade from the 20D to 30D was relatively small and evolutionary, nothing at all revolutionary.

    What is your budget for camera and lenses? You might be better off with a lower end camera (Nikon or Canon) and spending the difference on your lenses where it really matters.
     
  15. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    I asked your opinion on 40D & D200 and you are recommending me different lenses and other cameras.

    Thanks again!:smile:
     
  16. RichNY

    RichNY Guest

    I gave answered your exact question and then offered you the same advice I'd give to a family member or friend: if you have a limited budget it serves you better to put it into quality glass not a better body.

    I hope you enjoy whatever kit you determine best meets your needs.
     
  17. alexgn

    alexgn

    42
    Jul 18, 2008
    Australia
    I don't think price/performance of the EF-S 10-22mm is any better to that of Tokina 12-24mm. Optically it is marginally better than Sigma’s 10-20mm which is also wide but1.5x cheaper. Besides, I mentioned in my original post I am getting discounts, mostly on new gear.

    I understand you have a set of equipment which you have used and would recommend it to anyone. I've considered my options, on cameras with APS-C size sensosr it will be wide angle lens from Tokina and standard lens, probably from Tamron.

    Thanks!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.