* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

D200 vs 5D

Has anyone put these two cameras up against each other to see which really operates better. Obviously there is a huge price difference between the two, but not much else besides a full frame and 2 megapixels… Anyone have experience with both?


by [a former member] at 2006-01-17 14:00:38 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) New York , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

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

by Stephan Sturges | 17 Jan 2006 14:01 | | Report spam→
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.

by Max Pasion | 17 Jan 2006 15:01 | Jersey City, NJ, United States | | Report spam→
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!

by [former member] | 17 Jan 2006 17:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
how about backfocus issues? any with either?

by Kenneth Dickerman | 17 Jan 2006 18:01 | Chicago, IL, United States | | Report spam→
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

by James J. Lee | 17 Jan 2006 21:01 | | Report spam→
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…

by [former member] | 17 Jan 2006 21:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Jan 2006 22:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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. 

by James Brickwood | 17 Jan 2006 22:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
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.

by Doug Thacker | 18 Jan 2006 00:01 (ed. Jan 18 2006) | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by Doug Thacker | 18 Jan 2006 00:01 | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
" 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…

by [former member] | 18 Jan 2006 01:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→

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.

by [former member] | 18 Jan 2006 01:01 | paris, France | | Report spam→
"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.

by Doug Thacker | 18 Jan 2006 01:01 (ed. Jan 18 2006) | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
“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:


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 ).

by Stephan Sturges | 18 Jan 2006 04:01 (ed. Jan 18 2006) | | Report spam→
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.

by Cazalis | 18 Jan 2006 07:01 (ed. Jan 18 2006) | Sao Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
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!


by [former member] | 18 Jan 2006 07:01 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→

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.

by [former member] | 18 Jan 2006 09:01 | paris, France | | Report spam→
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.

by Fabien Penso | 18 Jan 2006 09:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
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.

by inactive account | 20 Jan 2006 07:01 | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | | Report spam→
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.

by Jan-Edward Dijkhuizen | 20 Jan 2006 10:01 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
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…

by [former member] | 20 Jan 2006 10:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
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. 

by [former member] | 20 Jan 2006 13:01 | Minsk, Belarus | | Report spam→
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.


by [former member] | 20 Jan 2006 14:01 | Milano, Italy | | Report spam→
Actually, much more than pretty nice…

by [former member] | 20 Jan 2006 14:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
damm u guys make me have to spend money sooner!

by Cazalis | 20 Jan 2006 16:01 | Sao Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
"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.

by Doug Thacker | 20 Jan 2006 19:01 | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by [former member] | 20 Jan 2006 19:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
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.

by Doug Thacker | 20 Jan 2006 21:01 (ed. Jan 20 2006) | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
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. 

by David Dare Parker | 20 Jan 2006 22:01 (ed. Jan 20 2006) | Asia, Australia | | Report spam→
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.

by Paul Treacy | 20 Jan 2006 22:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by [former member] | 21 Jan 2006 00:01 | Hamburg, Germany | | Report spam→
here is Digital Photography Review’s comparison of the two cameras:


by Jon Anderson | 21 Jan 2006 11:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
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.

by Doug Thacker | 22 Jan 2006 01:01 (ed. Jan 22 2006) | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by Tomas van Houtryve | 22 Jan 2006 23:01 | Kathmandu, Nepal | | Report spam→
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.


by Amit Bhargava | 23 Jan 2006 21:01 (ed. Jan 23 2006) | New Delhi, India | | Report spam→
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


by Raffi Kirdi | 23 Jan 2006 21:01 | Lugano, Switzerland | | Report spam→
I second Raffi!

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


by Amit Bhargava | 23 Jan 2006 21:01 | New Delhi, India | | Report spam→
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?

by [former member] | 23 Jan 2006 22:01 | | Report spam→
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.

by Brian Short | 23 Jan 2006 23:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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…

by [former member] | 24 Jan 2006 00:01 (ed. Jan 24 2006) | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
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…

by Guido Van Damme | 24 Jan 2006 01:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
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?

by Brian David Stevens | 24 Jan 2006 02:01 | london, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
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

by James J. Lee | 24 Jan 2006 05:01 | | Report spam→
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?

by Paul Treacy | 24 Jan 2006 06:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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?

by [former member] | 24 Jan 2006 08:01 | | Report spam→
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.

by Dave Yoder | 24 Jan 2006 16:01 | Milan, Italy | | Report spam→
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.

by Jethro Soudant | 24 Jan 2006 16:01 | Buffalo, NY, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by Jacquelyn Martin | 24 Jan 2006 20:01 | Syracuse, NY, United States | | Report spam→
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?


by Martin Shakeshaft | 25 Jan 2006 04:01 | Back home, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I read that the D200 metering is also compatible with the old AF-I lenses? Is this true?

by [former member] | 25 Jan 2006 06:01 | washington, dc, United States | | Report spam→
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. 

by Jon Anderson | 25 Jan 2006 07:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
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.

by Paul Treacy | 25 Jan 2006 07:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by David Gillanders | 25 Jan 2006 07:01 | Glasgow, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
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…

by [former member] | 25 Jan 2006 08:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
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.

by Guido Van Damme | 25 Jan 2006 08:01 | Lokeren, Belgium | | Report spam→
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.

by John Robert Fulton Jr. | 25 Jan 2006 09:01 | Fort Worth, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by DPC | 25 Jan 2006 09:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
anyone have thoughts on how the d200 handles shooting raw format?

by Angela Jimenez | 25 Jan 2006 09:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
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…

by DPC | 25 Jan 2006 09:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
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.

by Jon Anderson | 25 Jan 2006 11:01 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
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!).

by DPC | 25 Jan 2006 11:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
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…

by [former member] | 25 Jan 2006 12:01 | back home in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
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.

by DPC | 25 Jan 2006 12:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
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?

by Jon Anderson | 25 Jan 2006 13:01 (ed. Jan 25 2006) | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Well all, Ive read all these postings and gone down to Adorama and played with the cameras in question. Ive recieved emails and IMs from everyone on this list with their opinions to add and pictures to show.
what it comes down to is this (in my humble and indecicive opinion)
If money wasnt an issue… we would all get the 5D.

Credit card in hand – Ben

by [former member] | 25 Jan 2006 18:01 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
So? What did you think, having played with both? Will you stick with Nikon or embrace Canon? Let us know man.

by Paul Treacy | 25 Jan 2006 18:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Actually Ben, if money wasn’t an issue, I think the choice would be the EOS-1Ds Mark II. Or for that matter, I’d hire an assistant to carry my gear, provide protection, process my film, scan my chrome and rip out perfect captions… Let us know how you like your new kit. JLee

by James J. Lee | 25 Jan 2006 18:01 | | Report spam→
I dont think anyone mentioned this yet but any one who does this for a living and travels to remote regions where there are no rental houses, you have to have a back up body. If he or anyone swithches to Canon you have to at least add $1300 for a 20D as a back up/2nd or drop another 3G on a second 5D. So it really boils down to $3400 for two Nikons or $6000 for two Canons+lenses. I struggled with Bens same dilema, stayed with Nikon and got the 200, my old F5 is my back up for now. Good luck..

by Bill Thomas | 25 Jan 2006 19:01 | | Report spam→
i too was sold on the d200 earlier in this thread, that was mainly for $$$ reasons. but after going into calumet where I played with both cameras, I had to say fuck it. So, here I am a couple thousand more in debt than I wanted to be, waiting for fedex to bring me my 5d.

the full frame is a billion times better than a crop. also, after looking at a lot of image comparisons  between the d200 and 5d, the 5d is just so far superior in quality at any speed. the ability to maintain quality when bumping up to a higher iso is also crucial. I dont mind the graininess that comes with 1600 or 3200 speed film, but what you get with the d200 is just nasty.

im certain my pictures will  be a lot better when taken with the 5d than the d200. I was very comfortable looking through it, it didnt feel…digital.

by [former member] | 25 Jan 2006 20:01 | | Report spam→
We have always driven ourselves crazy with this stuff. It used to be the difference in quality between US made Trix and the rest (US was considered better). Then it was Kodachrome vs every other colour film. (Not much beats a roll of Kodachrome in a Leica — sharp, but with ultimate ‘bokeh’). Now it seems like we have to upgrade gear every six months in order to keep up — spending money that would probably be better spent on therapy.

by David Dare Parker | 25 Jan 2006 20:01 (ed. Jan 25 2006) | Asia, Australia | | Report spam→
Matthew Cassel, you’ve just turned my world upside down. I might just have to go back to Canon after ten years being a Nikon man.

Oh, wait a minute, I have no money.

by Paul Treacy | 25 Jan 2006 21:01 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
hey David you’ve got the point buddy. I’m gonna say that  VIVA CONSUMERISM !!!!!!! :)

by [former member] | 26 Jan 2006 00:01 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
I just switched to the 5D from a Nikon D2X, and I really like the camera. It’s so small and light, and doesn’t look too expensive on the street. Also, the auto white balance is really amazing – much better than Nikon’s, in my opinion. One small thing I don’t like about the 5D – you have to push a button to display the ASA. Of course, the ability to change ASA is one of the great things about digital slrs, but if it’s not displayed, it’s easy to forget what you’re shooting at. Lastly, I get 20 more raw files on a 2G card with the 5D (for some reason)…

by Kevin J. Miyazaki | 26 Jan 2006 19:01 | Milwaukee, United States | | Report spam→
I had my D200 for weeks now, and I have to say I miss prime lens (with real 24×36 angle) too, mostly I miss a 35/1.4 as Bruno said. I have the 17-55 which is a fine lens, but it ain’t prime. I have a 20mm/2.8 but it converts to 30 so…

I don’t know about the 12-24, and it still ain’t prime.

Life would be better if nikon just goes FF, or at least offers some prime lens for their smaller sensor.

by Fabien Penso | 30 Jan 2006 06:01 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
I’ve used a D200 since mid-December and am still very impressed. Everything where it ought to be, and the single press to zoom into the focus area at high mag is great when shooting portraits particularly (though silly of Nikon not to set it as default and hide it in the manual.)  It’s the only digital camera I’ve used that I’ve really felt feels like a real camera when you are working with it. 

I’ve used the Sigma 28 f1.4 on a Canon and was impressed by the lens (but not by the 350D it was on. if they (or Nikon) bring out a similar 20mm I’d buy it. However the 12-24 is fine when you consider the results at high ISO. 800 on raw is great, usable for anything I do, though obviously its better to shoot at lower speed when there is plenty of light. 1600 is pretty usable too, and 3200 much better than I expected, though I did run everything through a noise filter. The 10.5 is a nice lens too, and I hope to get the 18-200 VR shortly to replace a couple of zooms I’m currently using.

Around 220 raw files on 2Gb, and I shot 480 frames last time I took the camera out, returning with around 50% of battery life. (New toy syndrome with the great monitor has worn off!)  I carry a spare battery but haven’t yet needed it while out working since the first week when I didn’t have it!

I’d buy this rather than a D2X unless I had a particular need for one of the few features only present in the D2X (most don’t seem useful to me.)  If I’d worked with the 5D for a month or so I’d feel qualified to give an opinion, but a short play with it didn’t attract me enough to pay the extra. I don’t see any particular gain in film frame size.

by Peter Marshall | 02 Feb 2006 09:02 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Been using the 5 D since November, and I couldn’t be happier, everything has been said, except that I do mainly low light and night photography, and with side by side compairisons in print and on screen, at equal enlargment ratios, the 5d is three stops less noise compaired to d200, so 3200 on 5d is equal to 400 on d200.


by Patrick O'Connor | 03 Feb 2006 15:02 | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
Glad you like the 5D. Had it been the same price as the D200 I would have considered it for longer, but given it didn’t feel as good to me and cost 50% more…

You seem to have found a noisy D200 to compare it with. The high ISO noise reduction (not on by default) does make a difference, as too does shooting on raw, which I always do, though there its probably Capture One rather than the camera that makes it better. 1600 is pretty good, but I wouldn’t use 3200 unless forced. I haven’t tried long exposures at night – not something that interests me much. Works great with flash after all. 


by Peter Marshall | 03 Feb 2006 16:02 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Patrick with all due respect and Im sure the 5D is a incredible camera but there is not a chance that your claim holds a once of reality to it. I’ve been using the D200 since the day it came out and the Canon might very well be better at 16 or 3200 but come on. I shot a very well lit fashion show the other week at ISO 500 and if someone had told me it was shot at 200 I would of belived them. We are mostly professionals here unlike other websites and to endorse products is great but to make over exagerated claims like that is just bad judgement.

by Bill Thomas | 03 Feb 2006 16:02 | | Report spam→
I spent several days using the d200 in direct side by side shooting with equal quality lens and what I claim is true.  The d200 has good noise reduction, yet it softens a bit to much as you go into the higher ISO’s.  Test the cameras with NO noise reduction, and you will find that my statements are true; once you have done that, do the enlargements from both cameras, and the added (few) pixels from the 5d allow for less "apparent noise".  These factors together do end up giving the quality difference that I stated.

by Patrick O'Connor | 04 Feb 2006 10:02 | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
I, for one, feel gutted. However, I’m still shooting my old reliable D100 system as I was waiting to see what came next. Having read this discussion in detail several times now and having done other research I will be making the switch at some point in the near future. I guess I’ll be returning to my photographic roots as my first system was a Canon T90 kit. I loved it but ended up in a staff job with Nikon F3’s 4’s and 100’s. Time to go back. Thanks Ben for starting this conversation.

by Paul Treacy | 04 Feb 2006 12:02 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Why use the d200 without the high ISO noise reduction, when Nikon have provided it in the camera and it cuts down noise with no visible loss of sharpness or any other problems. 
Poor light today, so I was shooting at 800. Looks fine at 1:1. Noise is hardly noticeable. Good sharpness and colour. Considerably better than I would have expected on film. More than good enough for any likely usage. Anyone who has been working with a D100 (or D70) will find this camera a big step up in many ways, and I can’t imagine many currently using Nikon who try it deciding to switch to another make. I can hardly think of anything that hasn’t been improved (well ok, you still need to find something to stop light getting in through the eyepeice when using the camera on a tripod) and the price is sensible.

by Peter Marshall | 04 Feb 2006 16:02 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I haven’t got one myself but check this area out for feed back on the D200. It’s very similiar to Peter’s experience. http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=401122&an=0&page=0#401122

by Sean Dwyer | 04 Feb 2006 16:02 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
I have had a 5D for 2 days now, shot about 200 frames with it and have been VERY impressed. All the shots were at 800, both color and B&W. No noise, a bit of "grain" if you will, but none of that various colored spotting that we have all seen. A great camera all around, worth the hard earned money.

by Jeremy M. Lange | 04 Feb 2006 23:02 | New York, NY, United States | | Report spam→
Hello !

While I did not tested both cameras head to head, I had both for testing here at home thanks to NPS and CPS. I was astonished to see little improvement in picture quality between my 1Dmark2 with 24-70 and the 5 D. Today I think this was user error as other photographers report a good increase in picture quality. Might have been a misalignement which happens at Canon cameras (recalibration of lenses or cameras is a common thing, had to do it with my 17-40 to get acceptable pictures).
I tested now the D200 with the new 18-200, for a 11x zoom a really good lens and Vr works fine, but only effective in the lower shutter speeds (not of much use at 1/125 or shorter). So if you need a lightweight outdoor camera for long hiking I think nothing beats that combo, but for the best quality, if you do press stuff or weddings, things where light is low and too much flash ruins the picture, the 5 D is certainly better. D200 high iso is not bad, but as stated before 2-3 stops inferior to Canon. I tried a lot of different shooting conditions with the Nikon and while it is really great to have just one lens in such a versatile range I found that I got too lazy, thinking that vr will do the job instead of a tripod. But there is a big difference in picture sharpness between handheld with vr and tripod still. On a ski hiking up the mountains in bad weather certainly the nikon did a good job, but a 5d would work also fine and with the better lenses and better  iso performance I think you will even get better pictures with the Canon because lets asume I have 1/60 f 8 at 200 iso with the Vr on that leads to good sharp pictures. With the 5D and the 24-70 or 24-105 is I can work at least three stops better, I mean 1/500 at 5,6 due to the better lens which is okay at f 5,6 and better iso performance while the nikon superzoom needs stopping down to get that quality at least to f8 or f 11. Also af is faster with the 2,8 lenses. But certainly with a 24-70 and a 70-200/4 you add weight, have to change lenses and therefore might miss some shots. When talking about price please keep in mind while the 200 D seems like a bargain, Nikon lenses are a lot more expensive than the Canon counterparts and switching means also selling old stuff and buying new. A hard decision.
D200 viewfinder is as good as 5d, battery works very well, Af in low light not fast but accurate and better than my 1dmark2 which has a poor low light af performance, grid lines, gps ( I do aerial shots but not interested in that feature as I find it unpractical to have a cable attached between these units, better to make  automatical a waypoint all 30 sec and if I want to know where I have been at a special picture I do this via the time stamp) screen is better than 5d in sunlight. 5 frames per sec is great but when buffer is full needs long to clear. Nef are bigger (16 mb) than canon raw but compressed nef are a good thing (8MB). Need to buy nikon capture for studio tethered work and raw conversion is damn good with that but slow interface, I prefer the ACR interface for work with my canon files.
So over all I would say if you are a nikon shooter the D200 is great, if you are in the Canon world the 5 d fits the bill. Both will do the job.


by Christian Handl | 05 Feb 2006 08:02 | Berndorf, Austria | | Report spam→
A superzoom is a superzoom is a superzoom. You’ll find any decent prime or fast zoom will have better image quality than the 18-200 vr. It might be a handy lens to have on the camera all the same, but it wouldn’t replace a 17-35mm, 50mm 1.4, and a 70-200vr. I find less noise issues with good glass as well. For tethered work you could try Bibble which is an excellent raw converter, it has a tethered capability for nikon D series cameras.

by Sean Dwyer | 05 Feb 2006 14:02 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Hi Sean. What’s the Bibble url?

by Paul Treacy | 05 Feb 2006 14:02 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Hiya Paul, it’s www.bibble.com. It’s a very cool piece of software, and has been constantly developed since the D1 days. They do a 30 day down load, so you can try it out before deciding whether or not you want to try it. They are very good with feedback as far as I know. I shot these pics – http://www.seandwyer.biz/amma/ – in November with a D1h and D2x and processed them from raw through Bibble. I was happy enough with the results as the light was crap – sodium vapour I think.

by Sean Dwyer | 05 Feb 2006 15:02 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
The shooting modes knob at the bottom of 5D looks and feels like a chinese one dollar umbrella! It seems so easy to get rid of it/

by [former member] | 06 Feb 2006 10:02 (ed. Feb 6 2006) | Helsinki, Finland | | Report spam→
I have two 5D bodies and I think they are great little cameras. Having FF back again is wonderful and image quality from the camera is first rate. It does vignette a little wide open but it is not very distracting and very easy to remove if you use Photoshop CS2 and its lens correction tools. I notice the vignetting most when I use teleconverters on my 70-200 or 300. The 2X converter is particularly bad. Overall it is an excellent photojournalists camera.


by Jack Kurtz | 14 Feb 2006 21:02 | Phoenix, AZ, United States | | Report spam→
So I’m pretty sold on going to Canon from Nikon—I’ve just posted my D2H for sale. But I’m curios if the 5D is that much more adventagious over the 20D. Anyone used both camera bodies and can offer real world comparisons? Or maybe I should just wait a few more weeks and see if the 30D rumors are true.



by Thomas Boggan | 17 Feb 2006 23:02 | Sun City, United States | | Report spam→
the real world says 12 is better than 8, and full-frame does wonders….

-real world

by Patrick Cavan Brown | 18 Feb 2006 03:02 | Austin, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
I would wait. If Canon fixes some issues with the 20D (primarily focus issues) and increases the size of the raw buffer the 20D replacement will be a more desirable pro camera. That said, the 5D is a wonderful tool for most photojournalism. Files are amazing. If you shoot a lot of long lens stuff (sports, spot news, wildlife and birds, etc) the 1.6X crop cameras might be preferred because of the extra reach you get with long lenses. But if you shoot a lot with wide angle and normal the 5D is the camera to get.

by Jack Kurtz | 18 Feb 2006 06:02 | Phoenix, AZ, United States | | Report spam→
Interesting review of the Nikon D200 now posted on http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/ includes some comparisions with the 5D.  Includes a detailed look at noise. As expected the D200 does more or less as well at 800 or less, lags behind a little above that, although chroma noise is good. Little difference in practical terms though. Anyone tempted to move from Nikon might find it worth reading.

The current show at the Museum of Docklands in london by Crispin Hughes has some great work from the 5D (and the 1DSII that he used before the 5D came out) which are 360 pans stitched from 8 shots using a 17mm. The prints are 2.83 metres long and superb. There are some decent images in the press pack, though they are a little dull compared to the actual prints, I suspect someone got the profiles wrong. 

by Peter Marshall | 23 Feb 2006 14:02 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
To top it off, at least for anyone that might like the d200 – at least in NY – the waiting list for a new body stretches into the end of april..

by [former member] | 23 Feb 2006 18:02 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
Dude, just switch already.

by Bob Croslin | 23 Feb 2006 22:02 | Florida, United States | | Report spam→
"the real world says 12 is better than 8, and full-frame does wonders…. real world" 

Hey, that’s my world.

Not to be too flip but the "real world" also says that we’re all probably going to  be upgrading within a year anyway to a better camera, whether you own a nikon OR a  canon. So all things being about equal (especially below 800 iso where the "real world" shoots) it seems wise to buy the nikon and save the extra coin for the next big thing. Real world.

I love my D200. For now.

by Douglas Barnes | 24 Feb 2006 17:02 (ed. Feb 24 2006) | Salt Lake City, United States | | Report spam→
Yoba!! This has got to be one of the longest threads. Truth come to bear, as Canon person, (my only nikon being an FM2 with a 35mm) this D200 looks nice and the fact that they got it to 5 fps on a CCD is impressive. I hate it but I can’t switch to Nikon. I would just bc of the chip. CMOS doesn’t suck but it sure don’t give your them blues or yellows. Maybe when they finally make the chip ratio 1:1, I’ll flip over. Yet, since I love my 35mm 1.4, i got my 5D on the way and can’t wait…that’s all i need! Shoot in the dark!!
Yet for all you tech lovers, in the end we keep on ditching and replacing, so any of the two rocks. I hope never to have to replace the 5D.

by Cazalis | 24 Feb 2006 19:02 | Sao Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
You can buy a full frame Canon today and shoot with it for years. With Nikon, you buy the D200 or D2X now and the day Nikon releases a full frame camera (if ever) you end up buying that new camera as well. Almost seems more cost effective to buy a 5D and a few primes and be done with the cycle of upgrades.

by Bob Croslin | 24 Feb 2006 19:02 | Florida, United States | | Report spam→
No, we’ll all still dance when they bring out new toys, whatever :-) 

D200 or 5D will both keep on working and producing what we need for a few years, but we will all be tempted by the marketing of the 6D and D300…  For the moment, if 3200 or 5fps etc is absolutely vital to what you do it might be worth thinking of swapping systems, otherwise it seems to me to make the most of what Canon or Nikon currently has on offer and works with your lenses. Both seem darn good cameras to me (though neither is a Leica.)


by Peter Marshall | 25 Feb 2006 03:02 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
No, neither is a Leica. When it comes to digital, seems to me that Leica are a long way behind.

by Paul Treacy | 25 Feb 2006 07:02 | | Report spam→
All I know is this – I bought a 1Ds MKII a year ago and I have a five year plan to shoot with it. The only thing that will make me deviate from that plan is if a company releases a reasonably priced medium format digital back that can do many of the same things the 1Ds can do. I shot Nikon for several years and I was locked into buying whatever Nikon released every few years because they were so behind Canon. And I’m not just talking about megapixels. I’m talking high ISO’s and the dream of one day owning a full-frame Nikon. I finally just gave up and I couldn’t be happier.

by Bob Croslin | 25 Feb 2006 08:02 | Florida, United States | | Report spam→
I’m with Bob!

by Cazalis | 25 Feb 2006 10:02 | Sao Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
There’s more to cameras than megapixels and high ISO’s, Bob.. 

Some colleagues of mine switched from Nikon to Canon and cry themselves to sleep at night because of the lousy flash system and poor ergonomics of their new Canons. But they can’t afford to switch back.

by Jan-Edward Dijkhuizen | 25 Feb 2006 10:02 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
Ergonomics I’ll give you but lousy flash system?! Look, the last thing I wanted to do is start a camera religious war. To each their own. If Nikon floats your boat so be it. It’s just too bad Nikon can’t get thier head out of their ass and produce a full-frame camera. That’s where the real difference is.

by Bob Croslin | 25 Feb 2006 10:02 | Florida, United States | | Report spam→
With all due respects to your Nikon friends, the Canon flash system has come a very long ways in the last three years. The most recent Canon flashes and E-TTL2 introduced with the 20D are as good as any flashes out there. jack

by Jack Kurtz | 25 Feb 2006 12:02 | Phoenix, AZ, United States | | Report spam→
"Nikon can’t get their head out of their ass" … 
And you say you do NOT want to start a camera religious war? Somehow I can’t put those two statements together.

I just reflected the opinions of my very respected colleagues.

Just quit your  "Canon is perfect and Nikon stinks" flame war, obviously you can’t even stand that someone has a more nuanced opinion than your Canon-good Nikon-bad mantra.

by Jan-Edward Dijkhuizen | 25 Feb 2006 12:02 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
Ha.haha…yo fellas relax!…and please no cartoons defacing Canon or Nikon.

by Cazalis | 25 Feb 2006 13:02 | Sao Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
Encouraging news, men: 2 months and those Chinese pen style shooting modes knobs on my 5D’s are still there. 

by [former member] | 25 Feb 2006 14:02 | Moscow, Russia | | Report spam→
Hey guys the reason this thread is so long, is that there is a lot to say about each system. and regardless of what company is producing more – advanced – technologies, have no doubt that in another year or two the sides will be reversed. Canon has a lot of good features going for it, so does Nikon. In the end its just a tool.
That said Im switching to a digital lomo



by [former member] | 25 Feb 2006 15:02 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
Listen guys lets not get into a nikon v canon war. Come on they are both cameras, and they take pictures. I can’t really see any disadvantage in either system. My left foot is longer than my right, but I’m not looking for a second left or right, just get on with taking picture and it’ll be alright…


by Sean Dwyer | 25 Feb 2006 18:02 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Yeah the real point is what you make with it, NIkon or Canon, leica or holga, I dont give a shit, just show me good pix.  what counts is the imagination of the shooter.  Look at David Burnett, he shoots with everything under the sun, and he gets something different every time. 

Sean, my left foot is longer than my right too, what’s up with that? Is that my Irish blood talking?

by Jon Anderson | 26 Feb 2006 07:02 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
I’m Irish myself but I don’t walk in circles despite shooting Nikon.

by Paul Treacy | 26 Feb 2006 09:02 | | Report spam→
Can I just say for the record I wasn’t trying to start a flame war and I apologize. Just because I’m not a fan of Nikon doesn’t mean anything – I mean really, who the ‘F am I?! My favorite camera as of late is a crown graphic from the 60’s. I promise not to start a flame war touting the superior qualities of the Crown over the Speed graphic (even though you all know the Crown’s are better).


Also, I’m of english and irish heritage and my left foot is also larger than my right. WTF?

by Bob Croslin | 26 Feb 2006 10:02 | Florida, United States | | Report spam→
Well, Im German Polish and my right is bigger than my left, so there!!
And well, Im sorry to tell you, but a lensbaby kicks some booty, and it dont matter what camera you stick it on!


by [former member] | 26 Feb 2006 10:02 | NYC, United States | | Report spam→
Bob OFCOURSE the Crown’s better. Everybody knows it shoots 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 inch which is a ‘perfect’ 35mm format. Everybody knows THAT.

by John Robert Fulton Jr. | 26 Feb 2006 11:02 | Fort Worth, TX., United States | | Report spam→
I didn’t know THAT!

by Paul Treacy | 26 Feb 2006 11:02 | | Report spam→
I didn’t know THAT as well. Not ‘cause I’m a Russian Armenian Juish having my left bigger.

by [former member] | 26 Feb 2006 15:02 | Moscow, Russia | | Report spam→
Just bought a copy of the UK magazine, “Practical Photography” with an excellent 5-page article comparing the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 5D. It’s worth taking a look if you’ve got this magazine at your bookstore.

by [former member] | 11 Mar 2006 04:03 | Taipei, Taiwan | | Report spam→
Recently bought the D200 and am fully blown away by it’s quality and veresatility! Formerly a film person t’il now with the voigtlander thing…. but now embrace this outstanding camera!
Mind you I must now purchase an even wider angle just to get the angle I prefer…. oh well.

by Helene Cyr | 11 Mar 2006 14:03 | Victoria, BC, Canada | | Report spam→
so which is better?

by Ed Leveckis | 12 Mar 2006 07:03 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→

by Fabien Penso | 12 Mar 2006 08:03 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
If you really want quality, mammoth wet plate wins :-)  But the 5D would certainly have an edge on it at ISO3200. So which is better?

The D200 is a great camera to shoot with, and with lenses like the 10.5mm, 12-24mm covers wide pretty well. I’ve just bought a 20mm f2.8  for available light, though it would be nice to see something like a f1.8 18mm digital lens from (or even from Sigma) Nikon soon. 

Practical Photography was the first place any of my pictures was published, a portfolio on Paris in 1973, taken partly on a Russian tank of an SLR but mainly on a an Olympus SP. But I wouldn’t place much reliance on its equipment reviews. The DPreview site I think is generally more clued up, as are some (but certainly not all) other online sites. So far as pro use is concerned, the British Journal of Photography reveiwers generally have a rather better idea, though it does publish some pretty scatty stuff too.


by Peter Marshall | 14 Mar 2006 13:03 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→

by Omar Felgentreter | 15 Mar 2006 02:03 | Ventura, United States | | Report spam→
Omar, you mean http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page25.asp and following pages where you get some real stuff to compare, not just the specs, which are often misleading.


by Peter Marshall | 15 Mar 2006 13:03 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Peter, I’ve held and shot with both. I find that the Nikon D200 feels much more comfortable in my hand than the Canon 5D. The best thing about having a full frame digital camera is that at the moment of cropping you will have more pixels to work with. Another positive for the 5D is that your 50mm will be a 50mm not an 85mm.
I’m still going to buy the D200.

by Omar Felgentreter | 16 Mar 2006 03:03 | Ventura, United States | | Report spam→
I’d agree with what you say. I looked at both and bought the D200 in December. No regrets, its a good camera to work with.


by Peter Marshall | 16 Mar 2006 04:03 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I’ve been following this one for a while and come to this conclusion: I will probably switch to the 5D and use Leica R-lenses (with adaptors) in the future.

by Bill Putnam | 21 Mar 2006 15:03 | Ad Dawr, Iraq | | Report spam→
God, it’s still in the top of the threads..

by [former member] | 21 Mar 2006 15:03 | moscow, Russia | | Report spam→
And to help keep it there…

someone asked about who’d used a 5D and a 20D. I can put my hand up here and it’s so nice to have a big viewfinder, proper wide-angles and shallow depth of field and use digital. And without weighing as much as a medium format camera.
The pictures look soooo much nicer due to the larger sensor and the various optical aspects that result from that. I have to say I absolutely hated using a small sensor. I like w/a lenses with fast apertures as i do a lot of available light work and like shallow DoF, so crop sensors are a bit rubbish for my needs really. I got some great pics witha 20D, but they would have been so much better on a 5D,
Those who say a small sensor’s advantage is greater depth of field miss the point, you can always stop down to get more DoF [you may have to use a higher ISO if you need to maintain shutter speed, but that’s not an issue with a 5D] but you cannot open up to reduce unwanted depth of field inherent in a smaller sensor.

by AJP Lawrence | 21 Mar 2006 17:03 (ed. Mar 21 2006) | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I have another question: Coke or Pepsi? This thread will never end…

by [former member] | 21 Mar 2006 20:03 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
Blur or Oasis?

Beatles or The Stones?

by AJP Lawrence | 21 Mar 2006 20:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Lexar or SanDisk?

by Paul Treacy | 21 Mar 2006 21:03 | | Report spam→
Y-fronts or Boxers?

by AJP Lawrence | 21 Mar 2006 21:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
girls or beer?

by [former member] | 21 Mar 2006 22:03 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
If you choose beer you’re probably not much use to the girls anyway!

by AJP Lawrence | 21 Mar 2006 22:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Why not have both girls and beer!?!?

by Bill Putnam | 22 Mar 2006 01:03 | Ad Dawr, Iraq | | Report spam→
Seriously, though, unless Nikon comes out with a FF D-SLR and I can find Leica-to-Nikon mounts, I’m going Canon, baby. I’m going in!

by Bill Putnam | 22 Mar 2006 01:03 | Ad Dawr, Iraq | | Report spam→
Ajp, girls love beer too!

by Paul Treacy | 22 Mar 2006 05:03 | | Report spam→
Ajp, girls love beer too, but I prefer to call them women.

by Paul Treacy | 22 Mar 2006 05:03 | | Report spam→
Now that this thread has gone ever so slightly off-topic, I can post the ultimate phototheological question — what would Henri Cartier-Bresson do?

by [former member] | 22 Mar 2006 09:03 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
Ok, wow – this has gone on forever….
I just want you all to know, that reguardless of the outcome of pepsi and coke dilemas, and girls/beer, and great taste vs less filling questions – I made my choice…
Since I did start this thread I figure I should let you all know.

I made the switch to canon….

Now that the collective gasp has subsided, lets beging the boxers vs briefs argument


by [former member] | 22 Mar 2006 09:03 | Road-trippin!!!, United States | | Report spam→
Leica M3 and Summicron 50…no question!
He was wise!

by [former member] | 22 Mar 2006 09:03 | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
There are always compromises: boxer briefs!  Looks good, holds everything in place, no suffocation.

by Jon Anderson | 22 Mar 2006 09:03 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
I have my Leica M6 with Summircon 50 here with me. Love it. Shooting Kodakhrome with it too.

by Bill Putnam | 22 Mar 2006 11:03 | Ad Dawr, Iraq | | Report spam→
Paul, I prefer women too, but the choice was beer or girls! The problem with beer is that it gives people the courage to do things, but removes the ability to do so along with it.

Neal, HCB would use a paintbrush.

So, Ben what do you think now you’ve switched?

by AJP Lawrence | 22 Mar 2006 12:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I dress to the left, anybody dress to the right? And do you get your trousers tailored accordingly. Hey, whether you use nikon or canon in case you didn’t know, same focal lenghts, same plane of focus, same nodal point etc. same depth of field. I still have a problem getting things sharp at f2.8/f1.4 with the best lenses, but that’s probably because 1. I’m blind. 2. It is so fine a depth of field the af choses a plane of focus I disagree with. 3. I’m blind. 4. At f2.8 sharpness is poxy if you want sharpness otherwise it’s fun, regardless. 4. I failed the Pepsi test. 5. I use to like girls and beer, till I found out girls didn’t like me when I was a drunk ball of sweat, so I gave up girls. 6. I’m deaf. 7. I’m drunk now, been in the company of a die hard journo all day – god love her – so I’m probably not making any sense. 8. I went with Canon coz it was just as good as Nikon, that’s why I finally went with nikon. Because at the end of the day I couldn’t wait, I was sick of seeing the other side with all the measure baiting so I went with Sony, nice little compacts. and in the end settled with a finely finished indonesian teak pin hole camera with all the brass fittings, because that’s where the real stuff is at!!!!!

by Sean Dwyer | 22 Mar 2006 17:03 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
“Hey, whether you use nikon or canon in case you didn’t know, same focal lenghts, same plane of focus, same nodal point etc. same depth of field.”

But actually that’s not true, which is why there’s a dilemma. With Film you choose which ever camera you preferred the handling of. Now if you want fast wide angles, FF and the reduced DoF that goes with it, then you have to buy Canon even if you think Nikons are better designed.

by AJP Lawrence | 23 Mar 2006 08:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Patently not true yourself….

by Sean Dwyer | 24 Mar 2006 01:03 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Eh!? Different sensors give different optical characteristics, just like medium format and 35mm are different.
Nikon don’t make a FF, so they aren’t the same as Canon. They also have a diff. range of Lenses to Canon.

by AJP Lawrence | 24 Mar 2006 03:03 | Sheffield/London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Your correct, they ain’t the same as canon! But in relation to depth of field it’s all physics baby! You might consider an increase in subject to camera (film plane) might show an increase in apparent depth of field. However it’s only apparent. Excuse my earlier comment, I’m a big baby…

by Sean Dwyer | 25 Mar 2006 03:03 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Exactly, AJP is right…the same ‘frame’ shot with say, a Canon full frame with a 35mm @ 5,6 and with a Nikon 1,5 with a 24mm @ 5,6 will obviously have different DoF and Bokeh caracteristics…

by [former member] | 25 Mar 2006 03:03 | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→

The following is according to: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

"Note how I did not mention focal length as influencing depth of field.  Even though telephoto lenses appear to create a much shallower depth of field, this is mainly because they are often used to make the subject appear bigger when one is unable to get closer.  If the subject occupies the same fraction of the viewfinder (constant magnification) for both a wide angle and a telephoto lens, the total depth of field is virtually constant with focal length!  This would of course require you to either get much closer with a wide angle lens or much further with a telephoto lens, as demonstrated in the following depth of field chart:"

"On the other hand, when standing in the same place and focusing on a subject at the same distance, a longer focal length lens will have a shallower depth of field (even though the pictures will show something entirely different).  This is more representative of everyday use, but is an effect due to higher magnification, not focal length.  Longer focal lengths also appear to have a shallow depth of field because they flatten perspective.  This renders a background much larger relative to the foreground— even if no more detail is resolved.  Depth of field also appears shallower for SLR cameras than for compact digital cameras, because SLR cameras require a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view."

A 16mm lens (effective 25,6mm) at f2.8 on a 20d at 1m from your subject will give 46cm of DOF
A 24mm lens at f2.8 on a 5d at 1m from your subject will give 32cm of DOF.
A 28mm lens at f2.8 on a 5d at 1m from your subject will give 23cm of DOF.

by [former member] | 25 Mar 2006 04:03 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
A 16mm lens in a nikon is still a 16mm lens what ever about field of view, all that is happening is that the image circle is being cropped by a factor of 1.5. Regardless of what you read and where you read it, this is the simple physical fact. The manufacturers use fancy words like ‘effective focal lenght’ which gives you your results. ‘Effective’ ain’t science it’s a marketing ploy. This guy has compared a 16mm with a 24mm and a 28mm. Come on! On the wide end I use a 10.5mm and a 17-35mm and I don’t get hung up in DOF a 2.8. What I do get hung up on sometimes is the level of distortion at 17mm compared to a 24mm lens on full frame. If it’s that critical for you fair enough, but the fact still remains a 16mm on a nikon digital remains a 16mm with all that goes with it including the 1.5 crop. Remember it’s a crop, not a magnification, your lens does not mysteriously grow by a factor of 1.5, although I do use that bullshit with people who have a need to be impressed. But it’s still bullshit. At the long end these cameras, especially D2x resolve so much detail you can use the highspeed crop and turn around and say, ’ Ok I just shot at 400mm,’ But it isn’t true, it’s the same as saying a 16mm efffectively becomes a 25.6mm isn’t true. So once again I say yes, canon ain’t the same as nikon, that much is true.

by Sean Dwyer | 25 Mar 2006 14:03 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Sean, you are right but that is EXACTLY the point we are trying to make!!!
Of course a 16mm on a D200 remains a 16mm…it just means that if you are in a specific position in front of a scene and you want to frame it a certain way, you will have to use different lenses (yes diff focal lenghts) whether you are shooting on a D200 or on a 5D; this is precisely the point: the results will be different in terms of DoF and bokeh…this may or may not be a good thing…when talking about longer ‘focal length’ sorry no other way to explain it, it MAY be an advantage to use a 200mm where one would need a 300mm on a 5D, even though, again the DoF will be ‘larger’ on the 200mm; however on the wide angle side, I fail to see how significantly more distortion and video cameralike lack of bokeh could be an advantage….I am VERY happy shooting with my 24mm 1,4 on a 5D…‘replacing’ that combo by a 16mm f4 or f5,6 on a D200 will NOT yield the same results…
The ‘icing on the cake’, in this case is the stellar high ISO quality of the 5D (about equivalent @3200 to the D200 @800)…this gives my ‘combo’ a 4 (FOUR) stops advantage in low light to your D200 with the 17-35mm f2,8…this is HUGE…(and with lower distortion as well), very often, this will means being able to shoot the picture or not.

by [former member] | 26 Mar 2006 01:03 (ed. Mar 26 2006) | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
Good for you Bruno, I’m glad the 5D is working out for you. You’re right there’s no point in using a 16mm f4 or f5.6, what’s the point when you can get brighter glass. The fact is Bruno, both of these cameras, are new formats. They are not film. You pick the format that suits you and that’s that. The D200 does not show ‘video like lack of bokeh’ and distortion is not significant. The science of lens construction is older than I am so it speaks for it’s self. I don’t want to get into a slagging match about either camera so I’ll leave it at this. Parallel trains of thought sometimes never meet.

by Sean Dwyer | 26 Mar 2006 02:03 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
"The D200 does not show ‘video like lack of bokeh’ and distortion is not significant."
Bokeh is essentially a caracteristic of lenses, and yes, in the case of digital their interaction with a specific sensor…however, you mentioned a 10,5mm lens…and a 16mm lens will have SIGNIFICANTLY more distortion than a 24mm lens of similar quality…this reminds me of a ‘test’ in a French magazine where they trashed the 35mm 1,4 saying that until f2 in the center and f2,8 in the corners it was ’softer ’than a 24-70…at f5,6!!! Just a 3 stops difference…yes fully open at f1,4 it may be softer in the corners than the 24-70 at f2,8…but you can take the picture! That is a BIG difference in my book…

by [former member] | 26 Mar 2006 02:03 (ed. Apr 2 2006) | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
question is how often you’re in ev 0 or so!

by aizan | 26 Mar 2006 03:03 | torrance, United States | | Report spam→
often…too often…

by [former member] | 26 Mar 2006 03:03 | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
Hey Bruno, nice work on Foreign Policy this month. I subscribe that magazine and it was a good surprise to see you there. Was that job already using the 5d?? probably not, huh?

by [former member] | 26 Mar 2006 05:03 | Amsterdam, Netherlands | | Report spam→
Thank you Luiz,
actually I haven’t seen the publication yet…and no, not 5D…Leica…with 400 and 800 Fuji neg film…I used just 2 lenses for that job, a 24mm Elmarit on my 40 years old M2 and a 35mm Summicron Aspherical on a M7…scanned on my Imacon…

by [former member] | 26 Mar 2006 05:03 (ed. Mar 26 2006) | working like mad in Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
This thread never ends.  As far as the advantage that Bruno is touting here — the ability to shoot in low light, I dont know about the rest of you, but this is where I find myself most of the time, so the 5D is definitely looking better and better.

PS: quick question vis a vis FP magazine.  Are they still running the Wide View feature and is that what you all are talking about?  I can only get hold of the online version so I never see the magazine itself.  When this feature was announced I thought it was a good idea, and I hope they keep it running.  Instead of cluttering up this thread anymore shoot me a PM, anyone who has seen the issue.

by Jon Anderson | 26 Mar 2006 06:03 | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
D200 Vs 5D

Has anyone put these two cameras up against each other to see which really operates better. Obviously there is a huge price difference between the two, but not much else besides a full frame and 2 megapixels… Anyone have experience with both? Ben
by Benjamin Lowy, 1/17/06, 9:00 PM | New York, United States |

This is actually very easy… there are two ways to approach buying something like this…

a.) If you want the 5D… think that the full-frame chip is an advantage… think that it will Make Your Day to get it… then, by all means BUY THE CANON!!

If, for some reason, you think that The Grass Is Greener on the Canon Side Of The Fence… then you will NEVER be happy with a D-200. It will always nag at you that you MIGHT have had greener grass with the Canon.

b.) Buy the D-200 because you are already a Nikon user, and they’re just cameras, ferchrissakes. I use Nikons because… when I “went digital”… I had a bunch of arcane and esoteric lenses that I’d collected, that held only a small fraction of their value in terms of re-sale (on like… eBay)… but had a lot of value to me, for the pix that they allowed me to take. I’m basically cheap, and even if I wasn’t, I didn’t want to have to buy all new cameras,… and new 200mm f/2, 85mm f/1.4, and 400mm f/3.5 equivalents… on top of all that, too, when I already had them sitting on the kitchen floor.

You have already expended more energy on this than its worth… it’s just a tool. No matter what camera you end up with… you’re pix will pretty much look the same, because the same brain is framing ’em up, and triggering the shutter. No digital box is everything that you or I would like it to be (no film camera was, either)… so you makes your choices, spends your money, and picks your poison.

The only catch is, that it’s so bloody expensive to do it, and you have to live with the choice for a long time. On the other hand… none of the more modern cameras (since the Canon 10D, or the Nikon D70) actually stink, either.


by greg mironchuk | 26 Mar 2006 17:03 | boston, MA, United States | | Report spam→
i just moved from NIKON F5 to a Canon 5d – loving it.. solid rig. minimal noise on 3200, shooting mostly with a fixed 35mm 1.4, and the results have been just lovely.

by Peter Reid | 29 Mar 2006 01:03 | maputo, Mozambique | | Report spam→
have shot with the 5d for the past five months, since it came out, and with all lenses I have tested, the images are as good or better at 400 or higher iso than my 1ds.  I use the 24-105L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 135 2.0 l 80-200L, etc etc.  The best images come from this camera!


by Patrick O'Connor | 29 Mar 2006 01:03 | San Francisco, United States | | Report spam→
I have owned a 5d as well for the past 5 months. I’ve just been printing my 5d images on a epson 2400 and the results have been amazing. I am very happy.


by Adam Amengual | 02 Apr 2006 00:04 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
IS THIS THE LONGEST LS POST OR WHAT ? ( I just made it longer) :)

by Alex Reshuan | 02 Apr 2006 01:04 | | Report spam→
Ben, I have not read this post from beginning to end but my recommendation is to look at the lenses that Canon and Nikon offer and see which company offers you the best glass that meets your shooting style. At the moment I have the 5D and a 10D as a backup. I have had difficulty finding Canon lenses that are sharp, well built, and give me the point of view I want. I have owned 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2, 200mm f2.8, 16-35mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. Because of the Nikon 1.5x factor you may be use to a certain look a lens gives you, but you may not be able to get the same look from an equivalent focal length on a full frame camera. I have been a digital shooter since the NC2000 and have gone through 2.5x, 2x, 1.6x, 1.5x, 1.3x, and now full frame. Every multiplication factors puts me in a spin where I have to comb through lenses looking for a lens that gives me that certain look. Some would say just shoot and crop later, but lenses are all designed differently, a 21mm lens gives you a different feeling than a 20mm or a 24mm, it’s not just about stepping forward or moving back to achieve the same amount of info in the frame. But of course this is all personal opinions and feelings. Adam

by Adam Rountree | 05 Apr 2006 17:04 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Anybody of you consider this?

A CMOS are more susceptible to noise than the CCD sensor… another one;

A sensor with dimension of 24 × 16mm with 10MP (3872 × 2592 px) has 0.006mm per pixel dimension?

24 divided by 3872 is equal to 0.006mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)
16 divided by 2592 is equal to 0.006mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)
multiply it by 1.5 to get the 35 × 24mm sensor size

0.006 multiply by 1.5 is equal to 0.009mm (1 pixel size)

a 35 × 24mm sensor with 12.7MP (4368 × 2912),
35 divided by 4368 is equal to 0.008mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)
16 divided by 2912 is equal to 0.008mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)

if the 24 × 16mm sensor with 12.7MP (4368 × 2912),
24 divided by 4368 is equal to 0.005mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)
16 divided by 2912 is equal to 0.005mm (to get 1 pixel dimension)
multiply it by 1.5 to get the 35 × 24mm sensor size

0.005 multiply by 1.5 is equal to 0.007mm (1 pixel size)

it’s up to you, professional to conclude…
this test is more accurate than visual evaluation; correct me if I’m wrong.

by Banny Catolico | 14 Apr 2006 10:04 | Singapore, Philippines | | Report spam→
Nice math, Banny, but what exactly is the point. Is the full frame 5D or the APS frame D200 better under your analysis?

by [former member] | 14 Apr 2006 18:04 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
I guess the 0.006mm Nikon (Sony chip) pixel yields sharper imagges while the 0.008 Canon pixel yields better noise control. That right?

Just the other day I saw prints from a night time high iso shot made with a D200 and I was utterly flabbergasted at the quality. Extremely sharp and brilliant noise control. It was a 5×7 but could have been stretched a long way past that. It would have made a beautiful 16×20 easily. I’m convinced and will get one shortly. I’m no longer interested in Canon. The D200 also has some delightfully clever touches for us shooters that are hard on cameras. It’s no wonder Nikon took so long with this camera. It’s a brilliant piece of engineering and design. They got it right first time. That sensor, though small, ROCKS! I’m going to get myself a 20mm f2.8 and a 35 f2 real soon.

I’d still like some DX primes though, wouldn’t you?

by Paul Treacy | 14 Apr 2006 19:04 | | Report spam→
hi neal,
i’m not too sure. but for me(just my opinion)the finer the grid(1 px size)the sharper the image, and also the color. that why i leave the conclusion to the prfessionals :D
Happy Easter to everyone!

by Banny Catolico | 14 Apr 2006 22:04 (ed. Apr 14 2006) | Singapore, Philippines | | Report spam→
had the same question, and after a long debate, i finally bought the D5, less noise, full frame,….the way to go. am super happy with it.

by [former member] | 18 Apr 2006 06:04 | Hong Kong, Hong Kong | | Report spam→
just contributing for the record

we could make this thread longer and go to www.guinnessworldrecords.com

by [former member] | 18 Apr 2006 14:04 | Madrid, Spain | | Report spam→

by Sean Dwyer | 18 Apr 2006 15:04 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Just when I thought it wasn’t possible to exhume an already dead horse for the sole purpose of beating it again, here we go.
They will both be obsolete by the time this posting gets retired.

by Jethro Soudant | 18 Apr 2006 16:04 | Buffalo, NY, United States | | Report spam→
5D vs D200 review if anyone is still interested….

by John Carolan | 17 Jun 2006 11:06 (ed. Jun 17 2006) | Shetland, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I have been a Nikon shooter for 20 years and have had all the generations of cameras in the past, I bought a D200 5 weeks ago as an addition to my D1x, thinking it to be a great addition, yesterday I returned it Calumet and got a full refund. over the past weeks I shoot over 20,000 frames with the D200 and not once has the screen on the back of the camera been an acurate reflection of the file that appeared on the camera. especially with the 12-24mm dx lens ( my favourate lens ) The back always showed a well exposed image, when the file on a calabrated moniter showed an image that was 1-1.5 stops under exposed, I know you can retrieve the images and you can work off the histogram, but when you are use to using the screen as a rough exposure indication, this situation is a nightmare when you are working at speed and need to take a quick glance at the screen and make adjustments. if its not showing the actual exposure that is being recorded on the card, you cant do that. I know you can check the exsposure using the histogram, but the screen in my opinion is still a vital tool, especially when using flash. nikon have made the screen so you can view from a 170 degree angle, ’ a party ’ screen so you can show your friends, it is very much in the ameatur end of this pro-am camera. maybe this was just a personal issue between me and that particular camera, but I thought I better warn you.
nikon have added this new ’ 170 degree viewing screen ’ to the new D2Xs.

by [unverified member] | 17 Jun 2006 20:06 | lincoln, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I have been a Nikon shooter for 20 years and have had all the generations of cameras in the past, I bought a D200 5 weeks ago as an addition to my D1x, thinking it to be a great addition, yesterday I returned it Calumet and got a full refund. over the past weeks I shoot over 20,000 frames with the D200 and not once has the screen on the back of the camera been an acurate reflection of the file that appeared on the camera. especially with the 12-24mm dx lens ( my favourate lens ) The back always showed a well exposed image, when the file on a calabrated moniter showed an image that was 1-1.5 stops under exposed, I know you can retrieve the images and you can work off the histogram, but when you are use to using the screen as a rough exposure indication, this situation is a nightmare when you are working at speed and need to take a quick glance at the screen and make adjustments. if its not showing the actual exposure that is being recorded on the card, you cant do that. I know you can check the exsposure using the histogram, but the screen in my opinion is still a vital tool, especially when using flash. nikon have made the screen so you can view from a 170 degree angle, ’ a party ’ screen so you can show your friends, it is very much in the ameatur end of this pro-am camera. maybe this was just a personal issue between me and that particular camera, but I thought I better warn you.
nikon have added this new ’ 170 degree viewing screen ’ to the new D2Xs.

by [unverified member] | 17 Jun 2006 20:06 | lincoln, United Kingdom | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Stephan Sturges, Student/Photographer Stephan Sturges
In Brussels , Afghanistan
Max Pasion, Street Photographer Max Pasion
Street Photographer
Bayonne, Nj , United States ( EWR )
Kenneth Dickerman, Photographer Kenneth Dickerman
Nyc , United States
James J. Lee, Photojournalist James J. Lee
Myrtle Beach , United States
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
James Brickwood, Photographer James Brickwood
Sydney , Australia
Doug Thacker, Photojournalist Doug Thacker
(Free to Travel)
San Francisco , United States
Cazalis, Documentary Photographer Cazalis
Documentary Photographer
Mexico City , Mexico
Fabien Penso, Software Architect Fabien Penso
Software Architect
Paris , France
inactive account, . inactive account
[undisclosed location].
Jan-Edward Dijkhuizen, Photojournalist Jan-Edward Dijkhuizen
[undisclosed location].
David Dare Parker, Photographer David Dare Parker
Sydney , Australia
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Tomas van Houtryve, Photographer Tomas van Houtryve
(VII Network)
[undisclosed location].
Amit Bhargava, Photojournalist Amit Bhargava
New Delhi , India ( DEL )
Raffi  Kirdi, Photojournalist Raffi Kirdi
Paris , France
En route to Montreal (ETA: May 24 2015 ).
Brian Short, Consultant Brian Short
New York City , United States
Guido Van Damme, Photographer Guido Van Damme
Brussels , Belgium
Brian David Stevens, cheery ray of sunshine Brian David Stevens
cheery ray of sunshine
London , United Kingdom ( LHR )
Dave Yoder, Dave Yoder
Milan , Italy
Jethro Soudant, Photographer Jethro Soudant
Buffalo, Ny , United States
Jacquelyn Martin, Photojournalist Jacquelyn Martin
Washington, Dc , United States ( DCA )
Martin Shakeshaft, Photojournalist Martin Shakeshaft
Barcelona , Spain
David Gillanders, Photographer David Gillanders
Brantome , France ( LIM )
John Robert Fulton Jr., Photographs John Robert Fulton Jr.
Spring Lake, Michigan , United States
DPC, Photographer DPC
Paris , France
Angela Jimenez, Photographer Angela Jimenez
Brooklyn , United States
Bill Thomas, Photographer-Videographer Bill Thomas
Nyc , United States
Kevin J. Miyazaki, Photographer Kevin J. Miyazaki
Milwaukee , United States
Peter Marshall, Writer-Photographer Peter Marshall
London , United Kingdom
Patrick O'Connor, Freelance Photographer Patrick O'Connor
Freelance Photographer
Shanghai , China
Sean Dwyer, Press Photographer Sean Dwyer
Press Photographer
Dublin , Ireland
Jeremy M. Lange, Photographer Jeremy M. Lange
Durham, North Carolina , United States ( RDU )
Christian Handl, photographer Christian Handl
Berndorf , Austria
Jack Kurtz, Photojournalist Jack Kurtz
Bangkok , Thailand
Thomas Boggan, Photographer Thomas Boggan
Scottsdale, Az , United States
Patrick Cavan Brown, Documentary Photographer Patrick Cavan Brown
Documentary Photographer
Austin, Texas , United States
Bob Croslin, Photographer Bob Croslin
New York , United States
Douglas Barnes, Photographer Douglas Barnes
(commercial photographer)
Salt Lake City , United States
Helene Cyr, Professional Photographer Helene Cyr
Professional Photographer
Victoria, Bc , Canada
Ed Leveckis, Ed Leveckis
New York , United States ( LGA )
Omar Felgentreter, Photojournalist Omar Felgentreter
San Juan , Puerto Rico
Bill Putnam, Producer. Bill Putnam
Washington, D.C. , United States
AJP Lawrence, Photographer/Graphic Desi AJP Lawrence
Photographer/Graphic Desi
Sheffield/London , United Kingdom
aizan, aizan
Torrance , United States
greg mironchuk, Professional Photographer greg mironchuk
Professional Photographer
Boston, Ma , United States
Peter Reid, Freelance Photojournalist Peter Reid
Freelance Photojournalist
Los Angeles , United States
Adam Amengual, Photographer Adam Amengual
Brooklyn, Ny , United States
Alex Reshuan, Photographer Alex Reshuan
Guayaquil , Ecuador
Adam Rountree, Photojournalist Adam Rountree
Jacksonville, Fl 32210 , United States
Banny Catolico, archi/graphics designer Banny Catolico
archi/graphics designer
Singapore , Philippines ( SIN )
John Carolan, Photographer John Carolan
Shetland , United Kingdom
Andy Weekes, photographer Andy Weekes
London , United Kingdom


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven