D200 vs 5D

I suppose it depends what you’re used to as much as anything else. To anyone who’s used and liked an F100 the D200 will feel great, and I assume that if you’re used to canon gear the 5D will feel better. But either way, the price difference could get you some way towards some nice glass if you go with nikon :-P

i agree with stephan. i’m a canon guy, while my wife’s so used to nikon she couldn’t use my camera without complaining about such and such buttons and stuff. even though i’m a canon user, i still borrow my wife’s gear once in a while so in case i have to, i won’t get beffudled handling nikon gear. but your question really refers to which, D200 or 5D, operates better. i might be able to put in another two cents as soon as my wife’s D200 is delivered by ritz. hopefully soon.

Ben, I can’t comment on the D200 but the 5D is GREAT. 3200 ASA noise is roughly equivalent to 400 ASA negative film…the glass you put in front of it is really CRUCIAL towards the result…I use it a lot with a 35 1,4…simply outstanding…and strong enough to go through some abuse…see ya!

how about backfocus issues? any with either?

Ben, If you’re used to a Nikon, and I know you are, I think you’ll find the D200 very comfortable. It’s smaller but otherwise operates like your D2x. Feels more solid than the 5D (and I understand it’s well sealed). The controls, unlike those on my D100 and D70s are in the right place if you’re used to using the pro bodies. It’s also a little faster fps wise. That said, full frame and fast primes is tempting still just not sure I can justify the price of the 5D body. Certainly can’t when I take into account the need to trade all my glass and strobes. YMMV. P.S. – Glad to see you made it back safely from the garden spot. Good work. Heading back that way next month strapped with D200’s so I’ll let you know how they work out. Good shootin’. JLee

hey james, good to hear from you!!
im prob going back to for for fun in the sun, not sure when. i got rid of most of my digital equipment – basically i have one body and two lenses right now – so I can decide if i am going to continue with nikon or just make the jump to canon… oh boy…

Don’t jump. You’ll drive yourself crazy. I came to Nikon from Canon years ago. They fit better, the glass is better and the buttons are better. The D200 seems to be just right from my research. Now, if only they’d make some DX primes….

Having said all that, I can’t afford one yet, what with two youngsters and daycare fees.

Ben go the Full Frame! Unless your shooting with longer lenses, why on earth would you want the 1.6x conversion of the Nikons [saying that i shoot with an F100 but as soon as i get a digi i’m going Canon]. Can you really compare nikon 20mm glass [need to obtain the 35mm equiv] with a canon 35mm prime glass? the optics just dont hold up. plus you loose all that DOF! 



Bruno’s comment regarding 3200 looking like 400 neg film seems like another great reason. 

Actually, the conversion factor for Nikon DSLRs is 1.5, not 1.6.  So the 20/2.8 is effectively a 30, the 24/2.8 is a 36, and the 28/1.4 (if anyone could afford it) is 42/1.4.



With its all-magnesium chassis/body, environmental seals, 5 fps shooting rate, and 10.2 megapixels, the D200 is being positioned by Nikon as the camera you can use "for any assignment."  In other words, it’s well suited to the rigors of professional use.  At $1699.



The 5D isn’t built to such standards and has a lower frame rate (3 fps), despite costing upwards of three grand.  The fact that its sensor is the same size as a frame of film does give it a certain appeal (hence the price), but because it isn’t film, the glass you put on it, as Bruno mentioned, really does become a key consideration.   Once the excitement of "full frame" wears off, what are you left with?  Less camera than you’d like, probably, given the price you paid.



I’ve used both cameras briefly (borrowed) and didn’t see any backfocus issues with either.  Afraid I can’t speak to the noise question as I haven’t used either camera at high ISOs.

Also, if you’ve used DSLRs with a crop factor (20D at 1.6, say, or D70 at 1.5), you’ll have seen that the depth of field lost due to sensor size is not really noticeable.

" you’ll have seen that the depth of field lost due to sensor size is not really noticeable"

Doug, I am sorry but I couldn’t disagree more…not only it is noticeable but it is a MAJOR difference, also, on the 5D the transition between sharp and unsharp seems to be al lot smoother, very much like film in fact, and as James said, a cropped 24mm is not likely to give you the same ‘feel’ as my 35mm prime…and the viewfinder, you have 50% more picture real estate in the 5D then in the D200…the shooting comfort is just amazing…and regarding the ruggedness etc, I just made two stories in Pakistan Kashmir with the 5D, in seriously difficult terrain and conditions, this thing a pleasure to use and is solid, very tough: not a scratch after dangling fo 5 weeks (in all) in the rocks, dust, jeeps, donkeys, choppers, trucks and freezing cold of the Himalayan winter…anyone telling you the 5D is built like a 20D obviously hasn’t used the 2 cameras…I am convinced the D200 is a fantastic camera at an unbelievable price, but the full frame and the ‘Star Trek’ high ISO performance of the 5D are features that makes it the first digital camera that ‘feels’ right for me and delivers the goods in a superb manner.

Ben, I can send you a couple of files to show you what I mean…

Ben,

i’ll second Bruno’s comment on the 5d. It’s absolutely fantastic at high iso, and if you don’t mind some grit and shoot raw, you can push it a bit as well. The only caveat is the continuous-focusing banding issue, other than that, mine has been working really, really well. Then again, if you’re going to be buying all-new stuff and like primes, zeiss is releasing nikon mount glass. Now the question becomes : “what do you think is better ? a zeiss 20mm or a canon 35mm ?”. and a corollary : if you’re not into counting lines on a chart, is really going to make that much of a impact most of the time ? Another issue in favour of the nikon is dirt. there’s less surface for gunk to attach to on a smaller sensor, and that means less blobs. And since i haven’t played with the d200, i can’t tell you if it’s going to start falling apart the second you put it in a sandy, warm and vibration-prone environment.

"the full frame and the ‘Star Trek’ high ISO performance of the 5D are features that makes it the first digital camera that ‘feels’ right for me and delivers the goods in a superb manner. Ben, I can send you a couple of files to show you what I mean…"



Bruno, it sounds like you speak from lots of experience with the camera, so I’ll take your word for it.  (I did like the big, bright viewfinder of the 5D, by the way, but since i wear glasses it didn’t provide enough eye relief for me. )  You can send me a couple of files, too, if you want.

“Then again, if you’re going to be buying all-new stuff and like primes, zeiss is releasing nikon mount glass. Now the question becomes : "what do you think is better ? a zeiss 20mm or a canon 35mm ?”"


lens porn:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17122

Yup, probably some very nice glass but only the 50mm and 85mm 1.4 planar are going to be available any time soon it seems, this summer according to the info on Zeiss.com, so if you need a new system quickly that wont be an option :-/ And of course they are all manual focus lenses, so not everyone’s choice (but damn I want that 85 /1.4, damn nikon and their small sensors :O ).

None of you mention the fact that the D200 uses a CCD and the 5D uses a CMOS chip. The CMOS chips are usually much faster, reason why I can’t see why the D200 shoots 5fps as to 3fps of the 5D. CMOS chips also have a higher tendency towards the Red/Magenta spectrum while the CCD delivers more intense Blue/Cyan. I can see that in all Nikon shooters work right away, unless you spend hours in Photoshop, and I can still detect it. I know you all know you can play with color in Photoshop with RAW files, but overall, if I could put a CCD on the 5D I would never hesitate on which to buy. I tried that 5D baby out in Perpignan, solid sucker reminded me of EOS-1 and hell I confess to have been scheming on how to jump ship, cross the border or any other excuse not to give back…didn’t work out.

I own a 20D with a 20mm 2.8 tu use as a 35 and also have a 35mm 1.4 for a 50…and I’ll be dammed but here in Brazil I’m seeing how I can sell that 20D with the 20mm just to get my 35mm on the 5D and feel like I’m walking on water.

Hi Ben, not sure if you already made your decision but I must say that the 5D is fantastic. I use it only with fast wide angle prime lenses and love it. It is quiet and very sharp, the files are excellent and the color true and well balanced. Nice and light as well. Plus the viewfinder is much larger than the 20D which is what a lot of our staff here at The Washington Post use. The full frame is wonderful because it feels as though I have gone back to film cameras of yesteryear and I am composing accordingly. Nice to be back. Can’t say anything about the Nikon as I have never even picked it up but I think you will enjoy the 5D.

Take care!

Michael

stephen,

i saw the announcement after posting… underwhelming to say the least (how fast can you say “rebadged cosina lenses” ?). oh well… let’s hope Canon buys Leica from Hermes and calls it a day.

I had my D200 2 weeks ago, and I’m very happy with it. It feels solid as a rock, the ergonomic is great, I love it.

I was playing with the 5D in store today.  Wide angle is suddenly quite wide indeed.  Perfect for photojournalism.



The D200 is surely an amazing camera, but the wide angle will always be a compromise on 1.5x bodies.

But what’s the use of full frame if it goes together with the 5D’s severe vignetting, (even with the best lenses available)?



Very disappointing in my opinion.

Vignetting? What vignetting? I don’t see ANY vignetting with the 35 1,4 and nothing out of acceptable with the 17-40; however, a friend recently showed me the effect from a 16-35…nasty…so, it has nothing to do with the intrinsec qualities of this camera, but quite simply some lenses are not good enough…

Jan.

As far as I could understand vignetting appears when the 5D is used with latest generation digital lenses designed to get as much as possible from cropped size sensors. 16-35 is one of them. I’ve seen a picture shot with 5D and an older 17-35.. it’s fine. And it’s pretty nice with Canon’s primes. 

Best.

m/

Me neither. With 24 1,4 I have no vignetting. Yeah, with 16-35, yeah, I have some vignetting, but so I do with eos 1v…
You know, many Nachtwey’s photos have vignetting, but are fabulous pictures! With or without vignetting.

Ken

Actually, much more than pretty nice…

damm u guys make me have to spend money sooner!

"a friend recently showed me the effect from a 16-35…nasty…so, it has nothing to do with the intrinsec qualities of this camera, but quite simply some lenses are not good enough…"



"vignetting appears when the 5D is used with latest generation digital lenses designed to get as much as possible from cropped size sensors. 16-35 is one of them."



The 16-35 is supposed to be one of Canon’s best lenses, and also one of its most expensive.  And it’s not an ef-s lens – not one of those designed for the smaller sensor.

Doug, I can assure you that you can SEE very SEVERE vignetting in the 5D viewfinder with the 16-35 (of course it also shows on the images) and virtually NONE with the 17-40 or the 35 1,4…I met Paula Bronstein in Pakistan 3 weeks ago and she was complaining about this, so we made an A – B test, The 16 -35 is virtually unusable at wide angle with the 5D. It doesn’t mean it is a ‘bad’ lens, it just means that light exits the back element at an angle creating a MAJOR vignetting problem with a full frame sensor.

I believe you, Bruno.  I was just pointing out that the quality of the lens doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it.  Maybe it’s the combination of wide angle and wide aperture that causes the problem.  If the 35/1.4 works well, could that be because 35mm isn’t too wide (at 1.4) for the sensor? (How much shooting did you do with it wide open?)  Likewise, if there’s no problem with the 17-40, is it because that lens has a maximum aperture of only f/4?   I can’t wait to get my hands back on this camera and some lenses so I can find out for myself.

I have just started shooting with a D200 and so far I think it’s a great, solid little camera. The files are a decent size, images clean and sharp. When I compared files to the D2x I saw noticable improvements regarding noise and white balance. On the negative, I do wish Nikon would start making fast wide primes to suit. Not asking for much — the dedicated, digital equivalent, of a fast 28, 35, and 50 would do just fine. I own zooms, and regard the 17-35 as a fine lens. I just prefer the quality, size and simplicity of 2 or 3 small primes. 

I’m with you David. Some DX fast primes and we’re sorted. I find the smaller sensor size is great for glasses wearers like myself.

I’ve had a D200 for a couple of weeks and have been real happy with it.  Granted I’m coming from the D70, but it has everything I could really want in a body and Nikon generally seems to be coming out with very useful lenses these days.  Still, if you’re starting from scratch, Canon really seems to be the way to go.  I’ve played with the 5D. Functions great and it’s amazing at high ISO’s.  I’ll be having fun in the sun myself in a couple of days so I can try and post you at some point on how it does in that environment.

here is Digital Photography Review’s comparison of the two cameras:



http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond200/page12.asp

A Japanese photo magazine website has the first head-to-head comparison I’ve seen of images from the two cameras.  It looks like their methodology might be somewhat suspect (biased toward the Canon), with focus points and lighting being different in several of the comparison images (as well as some of the Nikon pics being underexposed).  Still, though, they do compare some of the best lenses from the two companies, and both cameras at high ISO.  Have a look.

I have had a 5D for a few months now. The general design, full frame sensor, and hi ISO are all very impressive, but it is clear that Canon’s quality control has slipped. The AF activation button on mine stopped working after two weeks, and there is no way to fix it here in Kathmandu. I know of two other photographers who had to return the first 5D’s that were shipped to them because of other quality control problems.

I am a Canon user Ben as you know. Cant say much on Nikons. Still to lay my hands on 5D. But having used Canon all my life, I would say that any product below its EOS 1 platform is not as sturdy. But since there is a great difference in cost, and in the changing digital environment, you need to evaluate cost versus features of EOS 1 platform. Like you may never need a 8fps unless you are shooting sports and so on.



Since my habits got spoiled using EOS1 platform, nothing else satisfied me more than EOS 1D or now the MKII. All my D30, D60, 10D etc remained as backup bodies since they gave higher resolution than the EOS 1 digital platform at that given point of time. To be honest I always carried them but never used them. The responses were slow.



It has been 2 years since 1D MkII came in the market and possibly there is something new on the 1D platform coming soon to match 5D. They have a 1DS MkII priced pretty high because commercial photographers love it…



My sincere advise will be to shift to Canon if you love the full frame. And if possible get on the EOS1 Digital platform. You will love it.



Amit

Ben, go with the 5D, with the kind of work you do you wont go wrong….it had some problems with the first batch, but that is solved by Canon now, you will love the high ISO



Raffi

I second Raffi!



Just make the shift… 2 lenses and body to get away with… its now or never!



cheers

whats with all this about full frame? arent nikons newer lenses (like the 17-55 or 18-70) made for digital SLRs supposed to fix that? are people really trying to shoot much wider than that?



if you arent married to nikon or canon, it seems like the full frame on the 5d is really the only definite advantage over the d200. is that really worth almost 2X the price? and if price isnt an issue why havent the next level cameras been thrown into the debate?



Im going with the d200 as soon as I can find a place that has them in stock… anybody know somewhere that does?

Matthew – If Nikon made some nice fast wide DX primes (something equivalent to the 20 f2.8, 18 f2.8, etc.) then I would agree with you. But if we want something really wide we can choose one of a handful of admittedly nice zooms and one mediocre fisheye.

The price thing is a huge factor, though. The idea that you can get almost two D200s for the price of a single 5D is very compelling.

Ben, there is NOTHING you can put in front of or do to a D200 that will make it a EOS 5D with a 35 1,4L…the big bright viewfinder, the ‘natural’ depth of field, the absence of distortion…this is a CAMERA! Nothing wrong with a D200 Iam sure, but different kettle of fish.

Matthew, I am sorry, I have to disagree…NO lens will make a D200 into a EOS 5D…it would be the same as finding a lens that put in front of a 35mm SLR transmogriffes it into a medium format…same difference…So, except if Calvin is one of your good friends and you are not afraid of tigers…

Has anybody tried the 5D with the (old) 17-35mm f2.8?

I switched to Canon(1D II) after using Nikon (FM2, F801S, F90x, F4s, F100, 1DX,Fuji S2) for years and I never looked back! I should have switched years ago! Nothing wrong with Nikon gear but Canon feels more natural to me, it makes more sense to me (although I like black lenses more LOL). The difference in DOF between a Nikon 1.5x crop camera and my 1D II 1.3x is very noticeable and is one of the things I really enjoy about my switch. i can’t wait to have a full frame but can’t afford a 1DS II and I think I’ll miss the AF system,speed, size and functionality of the 1D series if I buy a 5D…

how do the slower Canon primes stand up to their faster L versions? If im going to swap over to Canon my wallet will take a big hit… I’m thinking 24, 28, 35 and 50?
cheers

Matthew, I’m a Nikon shooter and will probably go with the D200 too based on the "bang for the buck" and my familiarity with Nikon. However, even if you can get the same "crop" factor with the Nikon DX lenses as full frame, it doesn’t look like full frame in terms of compression. If you take a 17mm and crop it to 24mm width, the backgrounds elements (compression) is still the same as the 17mm. That’s frustrating for a long time wide angle shooter of film. Just not sure that the extra money needed to purchase a 5D or heaven forbid, the 1Ds, would translate to that much better saleable images. Cheers, JLee

I’m beginning to wonder if Nikon’s slowness with regard to DX primes suggests that they too are planning a full frame machine. I’m a wide angle Nikon shooter and I miss the full effect as well. I see that Sigma have some fast digital primes and some of the other lens makers are making them also. However, I’d only be interested in Tokina should thay make some. Let’s go Nikon. Are you hearing us? The D200 looks like a real gem. How about some fast small primes please?

ok, but again, based on price these cameras should not even be comparable.  I really would like to buy a 5d after everything Ive read here, but cant, paying for a d200 will be hard enough as it is…  The d200 still appears to be a very good, affordable digital SLR.  and especially when compared to other cameras in its price range like the 20D or 20Da.



wouldnt you think that if the full frame on the 5d is this fantastic that nikon will have to release one soon as well?

Bruno & Others,

I use my 16-35mm almost exclusively with my 5D and maybe I just suck or something but I haven’t noticed anything I would call severe, certainly nothing that would ruin a photo. Canon is lending me a 35L for a while so I’ll see the difference.

But man oh man is photography fun again, having come off of working with two 20D’s. I hate hate hate crop factors and the weird everything in focus but not really look.

I’m with Dave. The 16-35 does vignette til about 24mm when wide open. Sometimes I use this look to my advantage. If shooting RAW, it’s about a 4 second fix in adobe raw converter with the lens slider, thingy thing. Having the big viewfinder is so rad. The files, and focus fall off is creamy and dreamy. The 5d is the first digital rig I have been comfortable with. Easy menu, biggish raw buffer (17?) and small battery and charger are a big plus. I could put 3 batteries and a charger in one pant pocket if I needed to. The d200 does look like a nice machine though. Especially for half the price.

i haven’t used the 5D but i’m very happy with my D200 so far. the price of course was right on target, but i like the handling and image quality so far as well. it’s also lighter than the D2X, handles nicely, and i’ve been happy with the battery (altho i’ve heard others complain). i have nikon lenses, and so for the change in lensing plus the extra cash for the 5D, it made sense to buy the D200. it’s got lots of great functionality too, and easy to navigate and set menus.

Having converted to Canon last may from Nikon, one thing I do miss is the flash performace/sophistication. My exposures with the SB800 were spot on, where as with the 580EX I get quite a bit of variation? Especially using a Sto-fen Omni Bounce, which tends to over expose a bit……… Given that I am using ETTL, I can’t explain why it should do this?



Martin

I read that the D200 metering is also compatible with the old AF-I lenses? Is this true?

It is interesting how this thread has gone on and on, because the underlying theme — the craving for a normal field of view as opposed to a cropped version — is obviously something that we all think about constantly.   The switch in technology has forced us all to compromise on one element that clearly rubs everybody the wrong way.  The relief on the part of those who are using the 5D is so palpable I can practically hear the sighs of pleasure.  But the price is high.  I am sincerely hoping that by the time I get around to shooting more digital than I do film that Nikon will finally have introduced a full size sensor and the issue will be moot; in the meantime, I guess the D200 will have to do, though I truly loath the whole idea of having to buy lenses specially to compensate for this unfortunate shortcoming of most digital cameras.  For years I got by with my excellent collection of Nikon lenses, and I figured I would never have to buy more, except as a luxury or on a whim. 

Jon, the old Nikkor lenses are just fine on the digital cameras. When and if Nikon do build a full frame unit, you’ll be laughing. However, I’ve completely adjusted to Nikon’s sensor size and being a glasses wearer it’s no bad thing. DX primes would be nice though because they’d be nice and small. Why should 35mm apply to digital anyway? Is it because most hi end digital cameras happen to look a little like the old 35mm SLR’s? What’s the big deal? We adjust accordingly. I guess adjusting for some means switching brands and that’s fine I spose. I’m sticking with Nikon for solidity, egonomics, lens quality and familiarity. Besides, they also make for good defensive weapons and I speak from experience.

The 5D is an awesome camera – full frame and amazing image quality at all iso’s. The build quality is also pretty good – I was initially worried that it didn’t have weather seals but it’s been outstanding. Sub zero winter in Ukraine, and then sun, sand and dust in Egypt so far with no worries. (I’d be more worried about the pop up flash on the D200). Does anyone using the 5D with the 24mm f1.4 have problems with the sharpness of this lens at 1.4 and 2? I had doubts about mine which were confirmed when I got a 35mm 1.4 which is just outstandingly sharp even at 1.4.

Paul, the bigger the sensor (or film) size, the shallower the depth of field at a given aperture at a given shooting ‘angle’, in other words if you want, say a 90° shooting angle, you will need a 16mm on a DX format, a 24 (ish)mm on a 24×35 (FF 35mm) format, a 38mm on a 6×6 cm, a 58mm on a 6×9 cm and so on…this results in a substantial difference in depth of field and of course distortions …I can assure you that a D200 with a 16mm lens will NOT produce the same image than a 58mm Schneider on an Alpa or a Horseman with a 6×9 back…oh, the D200 will be sharp in the center, I am sure, maybe even in the corners if you are REALLY lucky, but the distortion and color aberrations rise dramatically with the smaller focal lengths; and perhaps more importantly, the ‘equalized’ depth of field of the shorter focal lengths will produce a MUCH flatter and boring image…sad but fact…regardless of the camera intrinsec quality, a D200 with a 16mm CANNOT produce an image similar to an EOS 5D with a 24mm f 1,4, and a D200 with a 24mm lens however good will NOT produce an image similar as an EOS 5D and a 35mm f1,4…I am talking about focus to out-of-focus transitions, optical and chromatic distortions…all things are NOT equal… in photography, SIZE MATTERS!!! Ask anyone who has experience with medium or large format…it is not JUST about sharpness…

I have to agree with Bruno. I used medium format alot in the past and one of it’s charmes is the depth of field transition. If you always shoot with f8, f11, f16, or even f22 then that transition is less important, or at least less obvious. But if you shoot wideopen or 1-1.5 f-stops down (even with a wide angle) then size (film or digital) does make a difference if you enjoy that nice, soft transition in your depth of field.

Bruno DID hit the nail on the head. Another way to think about it? If you have a 24mm lens on a 1.5x sensor you’re getting equivalent of a 36mm lens for the field-of-view. However you still have a 24mm lens on the camera. You’re always going to get the depth-of-field of a 24, even tho the field-of-view is a “35mm” lens.

On the other hand…the smaller Nikon sensor provides a greater depth of field for any given f stop, compared with the full-frame Canon. This means that to achieve equivalent depth of field you can use a higher shutter speed or a slower ISO rating or lower flash power or some combination of all of these, which I find rather useful. And I am also quite happy to see my 80-200 f 2.8 Nikkor become the equivalent of a 120 – 300 mm when mounted on my D200 because it is more convenient for me to get that degree of magnification with a relatively small lens.

anyone have thoughts on how the d200 handles shooting raw format?

I bought my D200, a faster computer and stopped using Nikon Capture in favour of SilkyPix as my raw converter all at the same time, but I am sure that I am spending less time on post-production than before. For me, the raw files are just fine. The only problem I am having at the moment is that the picures are too sharp, which can be unflattering in a portrait and I sometimes have to resort to Photoshop to soften up the images a little. Frankly, with this camera, I feel I have gone beyond the point where image quality issues mean very much any more. I am getting better results than I ever did with analog 35mm ( I sometimes get the feeling people forget just how mediocre silver-based prints could be…) and probably taking more cretive risks because of the instant feedback. Battery life, now that is an issue…

YEp, Bruno, and that is why I keep shooting film whenever I can, and keep working in my old tried and true fashion. It is dependable,  it works.  The whole thing about being able to manipulate DOP is very important, and let us not forget that beautiful relic from the "past", Bokeh!  Oh yeah.  I still get everything I want with film, so as long as I am working on my own projects, or working for editors who want that look and dont mind waiting a little bit longer for me to deliver the scanned results after i have shot the film, then I will continue to work as I have always done, and I think there is more room for this than most photographers will admit.  Digital is fine, I enjoy it, and it provides incredible control to the photographer in the field.  I can live with the crop factor when other criteria have priority; but it’s not as good as a full sensor, and I am glad that Canon finally came out with the 5D, even if I am not prepared to shell out the shekels to buy one just yet.  It will certainly compel other manufacturers to come out with their own versions, if they are able, especially once they see all the photogs flocking to buy the 5D despite the steep price. 



Well, like Bruno says, size matters.  It is true.  But there is significant difference even between say a four by five image shot at f 4 and a 35mm shot at f4, allowing for equivalence in lens length.  Nothing beats medium or large format for bokeh.  Or just for plain image quality, remember that? 



But to be fair to Paul, unless one has the ready cash, one has to compromise sometimes, and maybe after all Nikon will catch up and I will be able to use all my Nikon lenses interchangeably again.  Hope so.  until then, as hart crane put it,



We make our meek adjustments

Contented with such random consolations

As the wind deposits

In slithered and too ample pockets.





Postscript: David C I reallly didnt quite understand your point.  Depth of field is determined by aperture, not by ISO, shutter speed and so on.  The crop factor complicates matters and gives you "more" depth of field, in a sense, but at the expense of a full view and with additional problems created by the use of extra wide angles to acquire an adequate wide angle view (so to achieve the field of view that a 24mm lens gives you on a 35mm film camera you have to make use of a 17mm lens,a nd that creates problems).



Moreover, while i admit, these days digital quality is remarkable, I dont at all agree that it gives you better results than 35mm film.  I have compared mural prints made from digital files and 35mm TriX, and in my view there is still no comparison.  Yes, there is good quality in the former, but the look is entirely different.  There are certainly alot of bad prints out there from 35mm negs but that is not due to an inherent flaw in the film, it is just bad printing.  Well, we will all eventually get used to digital prints, and prints from film will become a rarity or a novelty or whatever, and digital will continue to build in megapixels to the point that its "information" will exceed by far the "information" found on a 35mm or even medium format neg. But the look is different.  And the fact that many new shooters dont understand the difference means that alot of the digital black and white one sees, including work from famous photogs getting a lot of play these days, just looks like crap compared to a decent scanned image of a well done black and white print or a good quality scan from neg.  It hass to do with the tonal arrangements — Digital black and white, unless properly converted from color files, looks leaden and dull.  And even the converted stuff is not quite the same, though actually I like it fine.

Jon, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’ll try again. As I understand it, for any given f-stop and equivalent focal length, the smaller the surface to be exposed, be it film or a digital sensor, the greater the depth of field. For example, a 50mm lens focused at 3m and set to f4 on a 35mm camera will produce a greater depth of field than a 150mm lens (more or less its equivalent) also set to f4 and focused at 3m used with a 5×4 inch camera.
My point was simply that having a DX sensor that is smaller than full-frame 35mm can be an advantage precisely because it is smaller. If you want depth of field, the larger the film (or sensor), the more you have to stop down. The more you stop down, the slower the shutter speed unless you either (1) add more light or (2) use a faster film / higher ISO setting. So full-frame sensors require you to stop down more than DX sized ones. This is why it’s not strictly fair to compare image quality at 3200 on a Canon 5D with image quality at 3200 on a D200, because you could get the same depth of field with the D200 using a wider aperture and thus a lower ISO rating…. Just a thought (and I’m not claiming high ISO image quality is as good with the D200 as on the 5D – I own one, so I know it isn’t!).

David, that is IF you want MORE DOF…but the point is that we often want LESS…or rather, a smoother transition between focus and out-of-focus…this is where the 5D REALLY shines compared to all the digital cameras I ever used…then of course so does medium and large format…

Bruno, I agree. I’m not remotely interested in claiming that one camera is better than another and, yes, having a smaller sensor does force your hand somewhat as far as DOF is concerned. I like working close-up and using wide-angle lenses so I am glad to have a little more DOF and one less thing to worry about… It’s just a matter of personal preference. I’m also quite fond of zoom lenses on digital cameras: the less often I change lenses, the less I have to worry about dust getting onto the sensor. Again, it’s a matter of preference.

Gotcha David, and that is what I assumed you were getting at, I just wasnt sure the first time around. 



Anyway, sometimes more is less, and less is more.  I can see the advantages of getting more DOF, as I often work very close and with very wide angles, but via the crop factor it comes with certain drawbacks, and I like the versatility of the full frame better.



   When I am in a crowd of people I like to get as close as possible, so you can get a strong tactile quality from the contact, but also because you can "orchestrate" a number of different people doing different things in concert, so depth of field is important to me, and working with a 24mm lens on 35mm film always yields the desired result.  There is some distortion but not as much as with a 20mm and DOF even at say f4 or f5.6 is just fine.  But there are times when bokeh makes all the difference inthe world, it creates an incredible atmosphere, so I want that option too.   Ultimately, I am one of those who looks forward to using full sensors when they become available in a more affordable form (probably not any time soon!). 



I wonder if any of these posts have answered Ben’s original question, which was really about which of the two "operates" better?

Well all, Iv