Rockwell Nikon D200, 300 vs Cannon 5D

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007.

  1. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents from
    a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some of
    you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.

    Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
    will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.

    Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8

    Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6

    Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7

    None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in lenses.
    I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter

    That is it.

    So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
    about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked I
    saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
    for the D3

    Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
    and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior to
    the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
    and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.

    I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
    littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.

    My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
    Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd buy
    a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more than
    Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell did
    Nikon do the D300 without full frame?
    Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Calan

    Robert Brace Guest

    One paramount fact you must remember is that in any comparative testing you
    find on Rockwell's site, you need to absolutely verify the comparisons have
    been carried out apples-to-apples. Hardly ever the case from Ken's site.
    Don't, under any circumstances, buy based only on his presentations. Look
    for other confirmations and try the products yourself before jumping in with
    both feet.
    The fact that you ask the question about lens quality influences, confirms
    that you need to seek out other sources of comparisons.
    Robert Brace, Dec 1, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Calan

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If you feel that your photographic abilities have reached your such
    high level of expertise and abilities you should go for the best most
    expensive camera body and lenses made. Apparently
    you consider images produced by Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 & D300 users
    are "lesser"
    images. I am a bit puzzled by your previous posts in which you
    complained of not getting what you set out to get and you have a Nikon
    F5 and Nikon SB28 flash. What is puzzling was that you went for
    Nikon's best film camera (for it's time) but then chose a slew of
    second rate lenses (with the exeption of the Nikon 70-300ED).
    Ordinary mortals who can live with needle sharp, 11x14 dependable
    images who use simple Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 or D300 cameras who use
    the newer Nikon DX "S" VR lenses
    may continue in their ignorant bliss. These users enjoy their
    photography and their photographs and these aren't the ones writing in
    complaining why I missed my best shots.
    Frank Arthur, Dec 1, 2007
  4. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    I deal with statistics, studies and reports all the time and I know
    how slanted they can be and even sometimes unintentionally.

    What I don't understand is can Nikon be that stupid to present a new
    product that is highly inferior to one of its major competition. Every
    picture Ken Rockwell showed, be they macros or distance shots were far
    more sharp or in focus than those of the D300 and D200. Where the
    white on the animals head looked like rice in the photo by the 5D, it
    looked like cream of wheat and the two prosumer Nikons.

    From what I've heard of Ken Rockwell I don't think he'd look to fool
    us and I am weighing that against Nikon's stupidity. One of those
    two have to be true. Before I purchase or use the F5 and wait for the
    next prosumer full frame D400, I will look for other comparisons. If
    anyone knows where they might be, I'd appreciate the information.

    Actually, maybe it's not the full frame at all but rather Canon's
    sharper focusing mechanisms, if that is the case. But that too could
    be a reason to choose Canon, something I never thought I'd do.
    I live not too far from Nikon USA in Melville and I will be going to
    the building across the parking lot from it this week, I wonder if
    they have any information that might be helpful.

    Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007
  5. Alan Calan

    HankB Guest

    Or maybe it's the post processing done in the camera. Try fooling
    around with unsharp mask using your favorite PP program to see what a
    difference it makes.

    HankB, Dec 1, 2007
  6. Alan Calan

    Sosumi Guest

    First of all: it´s about in camera noise reduction. Different pictures and
    situations make different pictures. Turn the noise reduction of and the
    Canons are beaten hands down.

    The fullframe you want is the Nikon D3. Much like the D300 but with full
    frame and extra's.
    Funny if you go over to Canon. I just read here or somewhere else, that many
    photojournalist jump to Nikon because of the D300 and D3..
    Sosumi, Dec 1, 2007
  7. Alan Calan

    M-M Guest

    The sensors are not equal (full-frame makes a big difference at high
    ISO's), the lenses are *completely* different (the Canon is
    image-stabilized and the Nikon is a Macro lens with a whole lot more
    glass to look through) and the post-processing is not equal.

    But the stuffed animal was the same, so that makes it ok in Kens' book I
    M-M, Dec 1, 2007
  8. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    Frank, great question,

    My son just got married and I took a few rolls of pictures. They were
    pretty good but not as good as those the pros took, with their D200s
    and Mamiya larger format camera. But as great as they were, somewhat
    due to a partly overcast day, lots of very green grass and big full
    trees (at the end of Aug), beautiful girls in purple dresses, good
    looking young guys in tuxedos and a gorgeous bride, if you look really
    close they could be even better, even sharper just exploding out at
    you, like the new LCD TVs.

    I will never have the photographic eye that some of you have or at
    least not until the mechanics become second nature in getting to the
    perfectly captured image. Then and only then can someone like me be
    free to focus on composition. In school, I could not write to save my
    life. With the introduction to word processors and spelling and
    grammar checkers I became free to express my thoughts.

    To me a great picture is like hitting a golf ball straight down the
    middle for 300 yards. It is something that will continue after I am
    gone. If a great lens or a better designed camera can help me get
    there and the price is within my means, what right does anyone have to
    criticize that?

    In problem solving, you clear up many of the extraneous little
    problems first so that you can better see what is at issue. I want to
    take what I think are great pictures and how I get there might be up
    for discussion but the final choices are mine. I don't know if you
    saw it but I also posted something about Lark Books, which I am having
    my daughter buy for my birthday, even if I have to pay for them.

    Also, a truly good digital slr is like a work study program. Unless
    you are shooting and developing and printing immediately and often it
    is very hard to learn from your mistakes because who remembers the
    mistakes. With digital you see it right there and then you can do it
    again the right way.

    So, if you can afford it, why not get what you want because if it
    works for you, you might make it larger part of your life and during
    the successes you also due what is necessary to do it better.
    Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007
  9. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    Frank, One more thing,

    A bunch of years ago I ran a reunion. I hired a professional
    photographer to photograph the dinner dance portion of the weekend. I
    saw her portfolio and I was in awe of what she had done.

    She showed up with one of the smaller Canon slr cameras and flash that
    was much less powerful than my SB28. I took all the pictures for
    Friday's arrivals, dinner of Friday night, all of Saturday's
    activities, from breakfast to our softball game (when our team was at
    bat). I also did the Sunday brunch.

    My pictures were great. That Tokina lens is was a very special lens
    before it dropped on concrete, with the camera...that Nikon checked
    and said was fine.

    The pro's pictures were Ok with far too little light coming from one
    source in the hot shoe. I was surprised there was no red eye but
    without auto focus and a nice sized flash, not to mention no secondary
    flash as a slave, the photos needed lots of work. I hard to sharpen
    up a few, crop the huge dark areas out of almost every one of them. I
    had Kodak CD's made so I was able to crop and expand without losing
    all the resolution.
    Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007
  10. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    I am not running to Canon that fast but I might wait for a D400 that
    is full frame, if that really does make a huge difference.
    Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007
  11. Alan Calan

    Paul Furman Guest

    I'm a big Nikon enthusiast and still I think for Alan's situation the 5D
    might be a better choice. The D3 looks spectacular but costs another
    $2000 over the 5D and it is huge.

    However... I think Ken R's tests regarding sharpness are flawed. The
    advantages of full frame are low light high ISO performance and dynamic
    range, *not* sharpness or color rendition as he claims.

    And yes the lenses in your kit are not going to improve between an
    $1,800 body or $5,000 body because the lens *is* what matters more than
    the camera apart from high ISO & dynamic range. If you were willing to
    haul around that huge pro D3 & get a couple more nice prime lenses, that
    would be a good setup. It'll cost a lot to get all new Canon lenses good
    enough to take full advantage of the sensor over an APS DSLR.

    Also note that the 5D is not a very robust camera. The cost savings
    means a less durable body which is considerably outdone by a D200/300
    especially compared to your old F5 tank. Go to a store & handle them to see.
    Paul Furman, Dec 1, 2007
  12. Alan Calan

    flambe Guest

    I can assure you without ever seeing any of your photographs that any of the
    cameras you mention technically exceed both your aesthetic capablilites and
    certainly those of Ken Rockwell.
    flambe, Dec 2, 2007
  13. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    OK, but to bring this discussion back to earth, here are some

    if you shoot jpegs or convert the way most people seem to you won't
    see this DR; you won't see it anyway below ISO 400 or so, probably.

    If you play for a while with sharpening at different radii (ie spatial
    frequencies), you'll soon work out that the biggest single difference
    (ignoring colour differences) between raw converters (and jpegs from
    different cameras) is in which of these frequencies get emphasised

    The 20d and 5d do feel a lot less satisfying than a d200 in all
    respects, but they're hardly not robust! and so on.

    And a lot more but you get the idea.

    Anyway, a larger sensor does have its advantages, but it seems to me
    that in this case it'll be like a first-time car buyer a porsche
    because it'll get him to the corner shop faster than a bike.
    acl, Dec 2, 2007
  14. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    Well, there you go. I just looked and saw the IS in the lens. I
    assumed it was on a tripod, so would that make a noticeable

    If the larger sensors are doing it, then that is a valid difference
    between the 5D and the D300 and the D200 and should affect a purchase

    Actually, I saw the stuffed animal in a Bloomingdale's catalogue that
    came in the mail today
    Alan Calan, Dec 2, 2007
  15. Alan Calan

    RichA Guest

    Canon's what??! ha ha hah aha aha !
    RichA, Dec 2, 2007
  16. Alan Calan

    RichA Guest

    As long as Canon can "buy" markets, their share is likely secure, even
    with second-tier equipment.
    RichA, Dec 2, 2007
  17. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest


    Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
    Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.

    I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
    little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make the
    change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can sell
    Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
    lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale. Even
    my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.

    As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
    image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many very
    upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
    rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others) who
    of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
    all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but I
    have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
    some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
    Alan Calan, Dec 2, 2007
  18. Alan Calan

    Sosumi Guest

    He's a clown. Look at his first pictures of the D300; he's in awe because he
    can make very ugly, over saturated pictures! First he claims the D300 makes
    the best pictures, than the ISO is bad. He also has a lot of crap on his
    site. The Nikon D40, according to him, is just as good as the D40x. It
    doesn´t matter that you have 6 versus 10 MP. Bullshit! I have both camera's
    and can see a very big difference in print and on screen.
    Sosumi, Dec 2, 2007
  19. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    Maybe I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't
    get an expensive camera because you're incompetent; sorry if it
    appeared that way. What I am saying is that if you decide to get the
    5d because you saw some samples and thought thatthen, unless we're talking above ISO 1600, the difference there isn't
    due to the larger sensor but other things. Of course, if you prefer a
    5d then there's not much more to it, get it :). Just be careful what
    you believe, a lot of stuff you read on the net is nonsense (then
    again, maybe this is also nonsense :) ).
    acl, Dec 2, 2007
  20. Alan Calan

    Robert Brace Guest

    Based on your previous answers about your use of the SB28 (you said you
    shoot it in A mode) with the F5, you would not need to replace the SB28 if
    you go to the D200.
    It will operate in A (which is the "Auto" exposure mode with light delivery
    measured by the on-flash sensor, not TTL) on the D200 as well as the F5.
    I don't know why you'd choose A over the available TTL settings with Matrix
    Fill flash, etc. making use of the F5's Matrix meter ability to balance
    flash vs. available light, etc. or your ability to override any portion of
    it as well.
    Get into the SB28 operator's manual (even though it isn't the easiest
    reading to plough through) and try the available functions. You will find
    there is much more flexibility available than you realize.
    Robert Brace, Dec 2, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.