Nikon D200 vs. Canon 5D: Fight!

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The Nikon D200 – Canon EOS 5D Head-to-Head Review marks the debut of our comparative review format. There's plenty of debate about whether the 10.2 megapixel Nikon D200, at $1700, and the $3200, 12.8 MP full-frame Canon EOS 5D even ought to be compared – the price and sensor size differences are often cited points. But here's why we think it's useful to look at them together: first, the D200 and the 5D are the latest cameras from the leading DSLR manufacturers, and are the results of big R&amp;D efforts. As such, they ought to show where the two companies are going, and what they're capable of. Second, they are Canon and Nikon's step-down models to their flagship DSLRs – both the EOS 5D and D200 represent more affordable, scaled-down versions of their top of the line cousins, with the full-frame 5D a smaller iteration of the 1Ds Mark II, and the D200 a mid-level D2X."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/5D200-Lust.jpg" /><br /><br />This is a somewhat curious match-up at first blush, as the introductory text mentions, but when you get right down to it each camera is aimed at the high-end prosumer market, but not quite the professional market (though one could easily argue that either camera would do good work in the hands of a professional journalist or other pro shooter). Based on my quick read of some of the article, I remain pleased with my choice of the D200 over the 5D. One of the most potent items that swayed me away from the 5D was the lack of an integrated flash. When I thought about how often I used my SpeedLite with my Canon Digital Rebel, I realized that my usage pattern simply demanded an integrated flash, no matter what. Anyone out there looking at the D200 or 5D for their next camera?

[GadgetDave]

I was looking at both of them ... but I've decided that I can't justify the price of the 5D (I don't make money off my photos) but I still drool over it. Since I have a stockpile of Canon "L" lenses, it doesn't make sense for me to move to Nikon right now, so I'm eagerly awaiting local places getting the 30D - should be this week. I just want to hold one and see the menus before I order it. I wish I could justify the extra money for the 5D, though ... :)

Edit: I read the review after I'd answered Jason's question, and although the review does seem mostly fair, the language in it is seriously biased against the Canon - disappointing, IMHO. Too many times the author noted something good about the Canon and then said "but ..." - I'd expect more from a good review.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Me!

But can't quite justify the expense, so I'll stick to my gf's D70. :P

[Doug Johnson]

I have agree about the anti-Canon bias in the article. The author tends to explain away some of the advantages of the Canon over the Nikon as "not important." And when the Nikon has the advantage, no comment is made about whether that advantage is important in real world use.

One thing that gets me, though, is that the author doesn't seem to know, understand (or therefore explain) one of the fundamental difference between the two cameras: Canon uses CMOS sensors whereas Nikon uses CCDs. The two image differently, and this seems to be missed. CMOS are much less noisy than CCDs, especially on long exposures. On the long exposure test, the Canon was clearly cleaner, but the author goes on to say that the image quality of the Canon would likely break down on longer exposures due to heat generated inside the camera. Here we have a basic misunderstanding of the technologies: CMOS uses less power, and therefore generates less heat, therefore creating a cleaner image. CCD is relatively power hungry, which would cause long exposures to get worse and worse over time.

Another thing that the author fails to understand is that the difference in noise levels is not primarily because of the image sensor size, but because of the fundamental technology difference of CMOS vs CCD. Even the 'lowly' Canon Rebel XT will produce a cleaner image at fast ISOs than any current Nikon: CMOS always has lower noise, but more especially at fast (>400) ISO settings.

I'm not trying to make criticism of the D200, because it is indeed a fine camera. But it does irk me a bit when reviews and comparisons are supposed to be unbiased when they clearly are not. Or when the author has not done sufficient research to understand the products they are reviewing. In this particular case, even in the conclusion section of the article the Canon holds the advantage in all of the areas that are important in photography: color, clarity, dynamic range, noise. (Given the fact that it is a more expensive camera, it should!) But yet most of the article seems biased toward the Nikon.

Still awaiting an unbiased comparison... This wasn't it.

[Bob12]

I haven't read the review since I'm not interested in buying either camera. However, I have held a 5D and, while it is a nice camera, if I was considering spending its cost on a DSLR, I'd add a few hundred more dollars and get the EOS-1D MkIIN simply because of the body size. After having a battery grip on the D60 that preceded my current 1D MkII, and the larger body of the 1D, I really prefer the feel of the larger grip surface.

As for the lack of an internal flash, for me, this isn't an issue because I can't use an internal flash due to the diameter of all of my lenses - they all cast shadows when used on a camera with an internal flash.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Eeek, CAM1000 has only 1 cross sensor?

The article does get quite a few things wrong. :P