Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 5D in online grudge match

We're not sure comparing Nikon's 10.2 megapixel D200 to Canon's 12.8 megapixel, full-frame EOS 5D is really a fair fight. After all, Canon's camera has a bigger sensor, higher resolution and much higher price ($3,200, vs. $1,700 for the Nikon). However, DigitalCameraInfo decided to put the two cameras in a head-to-head battle (on the rationale that they represent their respective manufacturers latest technologies), and came up with some interesting results. While the 5D, not surprisingly, offered a greater dynamic range and better high-ISO performance, the D200 won points for a faster burst rate, better white balance accuracy, and better controls. So, which one should you choose? The review sort of leaves that up in the air, pointing out that each has its benefits. Sure, in the end, it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but if you're considering either of these cameras, it's well worth the read.

[Mike @ Mar 27th 2006 6:48PM]

i like nikon better. there just a more 'quality' company

[ezlovin @ Mar 27th 2006 7:12PM]

5D & Canonon L glass / untouchable !!!!!

[Brandon @ Mar 27th 2006 7:26PM]

"I like nikon better. there just a more 'quality' company."

Next time you watch any major league sports event, tell me how many Nikons you see.

[Richard A. @ Mar 27th 2006 7:30PM]

"I like nikon better. there just a more 'quality' company."

I think you want to explain what makes Nikon a "quality" company... it's just too vague. As for me, I am a Canon freak all the way. My colleagues who use Nikon and those in my department who use Canon don't tear each other's heads off. Nikon doesn't suck, and Canon doesn't either -- although it's really gonna come down to what you look for in a camera.

[Mike @ Mar 27th 2006 7:31PM]

ok brandon. ill' be sure to count. ;)

[lensman @ Mar 27th 2006 7:37PM]

"it's really gonna come down to what you look for in a camera."

Actually, it's who's behind the camera that counts most.

[Rob @ Mar 27th 2006 7:47PM]

If you don't know the difference between "there" vs. "they're" I'm not sure I trust your opinion of Canon vs. Nikon... Though you certainly presented the most persuasive and informative argument I've seen on the subject!

[Eric Carlson @ Mar 27th 2006 7:48PM]

"It's never about the body, always about the glass."

At least that's been my motto when it comes to film photography. In digital, the only thing I feel is lacking from the Canon 10D/20D and the Nikon is a full frame sensor - which the 5D offers. Outside of that, I feel the Canon line of lenses outshines the Nikon line. Long live the Canon L lens.

[mickster @ Mar 27th 2006 7:56PM]

Hey Brandon,

I just spoke to a Sports Illustrated photographer today who was at Spring Training. He told me all he saw was Nikon. He uses Nikon.

I'm on the waiting list for a D200 and I got to use his for a day. I can't wait. For the money I'm saving over the 5D I get a 1.5x multiplication factor (with the smaller sensor in the Nikon) for the 70-200 2.8 lens so I can shoot sports faster and better.

I think the tide is turning once more.

[Alan @ Mar 27th 2006 8:02PM]

Wow, that's quite a price difference.

I bought a Nikon D50 for around $850 total w/ the 18-70mm that comes with the D70S. It's an amazing value IMO and I'd expect the D200 to be the same. The 5D is really appealing to me but obviously beyond my budget (and skill).

Once you get to this level, in my opinion the quality differences are minimal. It's really in what you do with it. I've seen D50 pictures that look more "professional" than that of the person with a disposible income and 5D.

[James @ Mar 27th 2006 8:03PM]

Digital Camera Info isn't such a hot site.The last few reviews I've read were highly biased, and I don't care anymore for that site's opinion.(They were a good site before, but they turned bad)

[Dr Rock @ Mar 27th 2006 8:04PM]

Dear Brandon,

I was talking to God today and he said that he makes sure that only those using his favorite brand get the good shots and that brand is Canon. Or was it Nikon. Damn, I can't remember. Well, the important point is that God definately only likes one and not the other, so remember that!

your welcome,

Dr Rock.

[Dr Rock @ Mar 27th 2006 8:07PM]

you're welcome

My spelling is shit.

[Mark @ Mar 27th 2006 8:08PM]

The 1.5 times multiplication is due to the smaller sensor in the camera which is all fine and good if you want to do telescopic shots, but it also means you have a smaller area trying to collect the same amount of light. So if you want to do wide angle shots it is no where near as good, also you get a higher amount of noise on smaller sensors.

[mickster @ Mar 27th 2006 8:21PM]

I don't know Mark about Wide. I looked at the SLRGear.com and saw the tests of the Wide Angle Canon lenses and they looked pretty bad compared to the Nikon 12-24mm.

Also when I read the forums on dpreview.com and see some of the shots, they don't look that good from the Canon wide.

I'm going to buy the D200.

[troy @ Mar 27th 2006 8:22PM]

Nikon has my vote, as a photographer. I�m not going to say anything bad about Cannon; I have some great Cannon cameras. I think Nikon has a better history, better optics and more choices in the SLR arena. No flames needed as this is a no brainier. Brand loyalty means little in today�s market, but for building a quality camera with a history and support, Nikon wins. The market has changed, no question, but let the results speak for themselves.

[RyanV @ Mar 27th 2006 8:36PM]

Both Canon and Nikon are great companies and both make incredible cameras and lenses. That said, i honestly think it is moronic to compare 2 cameras with a $1500 price point difference and its a real shame that DigitalCameraInfo would be so irrisponsible.

[jorellh @ Mar 27th 2006 8:38PM]

I'm switching from a point and shoot Olympus Ultra Zooom and am looking to get a quality SLR. I'm considering the Canon 30D. What would be the comparable Nikon and which would you recommend.

[Washington DC Photographer @ Mar 27th 2006 8:44PM]

As someone who owns BOTH complete Canon and Nikon systems, I can tell you that Nikon has better glass, hands down, and the pixels per inch are higher than on the Canon, however, the Canons right now are far far more inovative and responsive to the professional's demands.

[carpeicthus @ Mar 27th 2006 9:00PM]

Whee, instant flame war.

I think it's a really well-done review. Simply put, both cameras are amazing in some ways, "merely" quite good in others � but what's amazing about both of them is different, so it will depend on the individual photographer's needs.

What is clear is that while it would take a lot of technological advancements to improve the D200 (basically, getting a better, better sensor, which changes everything), there are a lot of things that could have easily been better about the 5D's exterior design. Good news, I suppose, for the 5D Mark II.

[Mike @ Mar 27th 2006 9:12PM]

well, everyone has their oppinions.

[Mike @ Mar 27th 2006 9:14PM]

opinions (rob!) ; )

[TeleCustom @ Mar 27th 2006 9:54PM]

Bossman just got one of the Nikons last week, but he's stuck me with using the D50 still. If the D50 is great, I can't wait to see how awesome the pictures are going to be with the D200. Especially with the macro lens :)

[Peter @ Mar 27th 2006 10:03PM]

As a former photojournalist, I can tell you 'Washington DC Photographer' is completely correct. Nikon glass can't be beat. Canon makes very nice products that might be more technologically advanced in some ways. However when you have only one chance to make that perfect shot, I want the old reliable equipment that I'm totally familiar with.
The other main reason Nikon used to be very popular was that newsrooms always had Nikon glass in the lens pool, so while few people would could afford a 400/2.8 you could use the pool lens when you went on a shoot that needed it. Since you could only use the Nikon pool lenses if you had a Nikon body, you bought Nikon.
I have abused Nikon's film bodies and lenses and they never failed to perform beautifully.
In the long run, as others have said, it's the person behind the lens, that makes the shot great.

[Don @ Mar 27th 2006 10:18PM]

"It's never about the body, always about the glass."
That is why Tim Burton used Nikon Lenses with Canon bodies when he 'filmed' "Corpse Bride" using DSLRs (yes all shot with digi-stills).

While full-frame cameras are great (and both Nikon and Canon sell them) probably 100 "APS-C" (like the D200) DSLRs get sold for every full frame, as they cost about twice as much (and go up from there). While 'the bigger the better' usually is a rule for sensors, you have to remember that even an APS-C sized sensor is enormous compared to all point and shoot cameras - at least 15 times larger what is used on most high quality (eg Canon or Nikon or Panasonic) point and shoots.
(see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/graphics/tut_digital_sensor-sizes.png )

Unless you were willing to spend more than 4 or 5 grand for a setup (a body and a few lenses -- remember the above prices are just for the bodies) you would be better served with a APS-C DSLR like the reviewed D-200 (or the Canon 30D) and not with a full frame like the 5D (or the Nikon D2).

I just bought a DSLR, I started my research thinking I was buying an Olympus (as I have some good Oly glass I could have used) but wound up with a Nikon D70s as its mixture of features and layout of controls was best for me. Your milage may vary.

By the way, here are a few links where the authors think that full frame may become history (I think they may be overstating things)...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/SensorSize/index.html

don

[Jimbo @ Mar 27th 2006 10:37PM]

As an owner of the Nikon D200, there are many MANY nice features of the camera, like the easy to access "pro"like buttons without having to pass through the menu. Infact, I was at my high school soccer game (yes I am a high schooler with a D200), and the local newspaper DID have a Nikon D2X, so to all the people who think that pros use Canon is not true! I like the Nikon except for one thing. The battery life is a little poor.

However, many people either love Nikon and hate Canon, or they love Canon and hate Nikon.

So to almost everybody: Choose your side.

[Fred @ Mar 27th 2006 10:58PM]

The biggest reasons for me in going with the 5D were full-frame, low noise, the high resolving power, and the viewfinder. I almost can't bear to look into the 20D's viewfinder anymore. If you're not going to make prints larger that 8x10, or shoot higher than ISO 800, then the D200 will work really well for you.

The 5D demands L glass, just like its bigger brother the 1Ds MkII. Essentially if the idea of dropping a grand or two or more on a lens does not sit well with you, the 5D will not meet your needs.

For me, buying the 5D brings me back full circle to my film shooting days, where the edge quality of your lenses mattered if you used Velvia or Provia, the viewfinder really brought you into the scene and you put your thinking hat on before taking a photo. Now we spend more time and energy on our tools than taking images.

[Pork Chop Flavored Cupcake @ Mar 27th 2006 10:59PM]

#7 post is correct.

Nikon and Canon both make some outstanding tools.
Canon has deeper pockets, and a great R&D backcourt, but they are lone runners.
Nikon is a legacy, possessing deep connections within the entire market among all major players, i.e. Kodak, Sony, Zeiss (look out for the new Zeiss F mount lenses), FUJI (it's speculated a new Fovean-like Super CCD crossbreed sensor is being co-developed between Nikon and Fuji) and even Canon (Canon used Nikon glass when they first started out) - not to mention Nikon glass is still considered superior since NASA will only use Nikons due to the fact that L glass can't hold up under certain environmental extremities like the Nikon (Nikkor) lenses can. From what I understand the L fluorite becomes quite unstable at high heat, and thus we see a number of precautionary implementations within the lens lineup, particularly the white casings on many of their larger size lenses.

At any rate, they're both currently producing great cameras, both are insanely innovative, and offer a great selection of lenses that are well adjusted to suit the market needs of professionals and amateurs alike.

However, in terms of future long term assessments of where these two will stand on innovation, I have to tip my hat to Nikon.
I say this based primarily on Canon's isolation from the rest of the players.
Nikon plays well with others.
Canon does not.
But don�t get me wrong, Canon has accomplished a lot with its current protocol, even though they�ve distanced themselves in the process, they're not afraid to attack other manufacturers � even if it does claim quality superiority behind a veil of sales figures � meshing quality with quantity.
Granted, their current market share is indicative of a secure future, but that does not necessitate the security of success over Nikon, or anyone else for that matter.

Peace out

[Rico Suave @ Mar 27th 2006 11:04PM]

I'm a fan of RICOH....Suave

[dave @ Mar 27th 2006 11:12PM]

Why the hell are we all worrying about _CAMERAS_ anyways?

[Hamish @ Mar 27th 2006 11:30PM]

It's a little disturbing to read some of these comments. I honestly feel that as a Canon Rebel XT and Nikon F user, both companies got where they are today by the presence of each other. Each strives to be better, more innovative, and produce higher quality bodies and lenses.

How can that be a bad thing? If you're all Canon, good, you're not in the market for Nikkor glass, and if you're a Nikon user, you won't quite get the benefits of the L series if it doesn't fit on your camera.

I'm sure you all scoff at the Mac vs PC threads, but a lot of this is no better.

Enjoy what you use, and take pleasure from competition.

[Minuk @ Mar 28th 2006 12:53AM]

#25, the main reason they used Nikon glass with Canon bodies was because they had $25,000 worth of Nikon glass sitting in their studio. The only reason they chose Canon was because for some reason they got weird background artifacts when they used the Nikon D2X.

This doesn't mean that Nikon's bodies or Canon's lenses were crap. It just means for this instance, Canon bodies with Nikon lenses got the job done. They mention this is not a indicator of performance, as no one really designed DSLR's with stop-motion in mind.

This review has utterly no practical value. It's just foreplay for camera freaks like me who like to read about the features and differences between models.

If you reall want a debate, go talk about which rules more. Coke or Pepsi. Or whether Captain Kirk or Captain Picard was better.

And for your reference, the correct answer is Coke and Captain Picard would kick Kirk's ass. Those who disagree can suck c*ck by choice.

[Silver @ Mar 28th 2006 1:19AM]

"If you're not going to make prints larger that 8x10, or shoot higher than ISO 800, then the D200 will work really well for you."

Huh??? Fred, are you seriously arguing that a D200 can't give you high-quality prints larger than 8x10? That's just silly.

[Matthew @ Mar 28th 2006 3:17AM]

This is utterly pointless, folks. When my wife bought an SLR, she tried D70 and 350D... she has small hands and found the 350D more comfortable, figured the D70 was too heavy, so went with the Canon - she knew she'd carry it with her more often.

That sort of value judgment is *way* more important than nitpicking over specs. Go with what works for you, what you like the feel of. Pretty much all DSLRs are great cameras, the user is by far the most important component.

[mirobin @ Mar 28th 2006 4:49AM]

When you get right to it, both of these camera's capabilities probably exceed the photographic talent of every person posting here by a wide margin ... Arguing about which one is "better" is like arguing that a Ferrari is better than a Porche.

Purchase the one you enjoy using instead of comparing each other's ePenis.

[bluebus @ Mar 28th 2006 7:20AM]

The issue is less a question of which is better, but more why are we talking about the two cameras in the first place. The tabloid end of the photographic press appears to be awash with comparisons of the two cameras and (as a number of comments here have already suggested) the two appear to be like comparing chalk and cheese. I susect that some clever marketting is going on here, only by who?

[Manatee @ Mar 28th 2006 7:43AM]

Why such passion over which of the two major brands is _better_? Don't they both make excellent products? Their product will never be identical. Who would want them to be? Any given model, if well-engineered, will have its relative benefits and deficiencies, regardless of which company made it.

[miguel @ Mar 28th 2006 9:40AM]

Two amazing cameras - $4,900

Lenses - $15,000

Tripod, flash, memory, etc. - $4,000

The talent required to take pictures any better than what you'd get with a point-and-shoot - Priceless

Unless you're a professional (and even for 99.5% of professionals) the choice comes down to personal preference. They both have capabilites that are far beyond the abilites of probably anyone weighting in on this thread (including me and my D200).

[matt @ Mar 28th 2006 10:08AM]

As a full-time professional photographer, I can honestly say that Nikon (at the pro level) has been dying a slow death with 2nd place technology and lousy build quality for awhile now. Listen to any Nikon shooter and you'll hear phrases like "...but Nikon says its an easy fix." or "I'll get it back from repair any day now." That's why even (notoriously cheap) newspapers have dumped their Nikon gear for Canon. Durability. But I suppose the D200 might be sufficent for someone like my mom. That seems to be Nikon's market these days.

[kuwan @ Mar 28th 2006 10:36AM]

A better comparison would be the Nikon D200 ($1700) against the Canon 20D ($1250) or even the new 30D ($1450). This is a much better comparison because all of the cameras are in almost the same price point. Comparing the D200 to the Canon 5D, which costs almost twice as much, really isn't a good comparison.

Perhaps the reason they chose the D200 vs. 5D is because the D200 blows away both the 20D & the new 30D in almost every category. If you're looking to get a DSLR in the $1500 - $1700 price range then the D200 is the best camera you can buy for your money.

[Pork Chop Flavored Cupcake @ Mar 28th 2006 12:40PM]

-
Post #40, dood, you seriously couldn't be further from the truth.
At the professional level, both the D2Hs, D2X, and the D200, particularly the D200 are the most highly sought after cameras on the market. Most notably for their advanced DX sensor/lens technology and MOST IMPORTANTLY, build quality and ergonomics. If you're a pro as you claim to be, then certainly you must read DPReview?
If you've actually read any of their unrivaled reviews and heated forum discussions, you'd understand that Nikon in all classes has held a significant edge in the build quality of their cameras.
I think you've also neglected to acknowledge how buggy many of the Canons have been over the past few years, requiring a monthly firmware upgrade to patch some corner they cut to rush to market.
Now, Nikon still has issues, no doubt.
What camera manufacturer doesn't?
Both of these cameras represent significant innovation, and generally set out to serve different professional purposes for DIFFERENT professional users.
Different horses for different courses.
Sheesh, if you're a real pro and your claims of Canon superiority kept you so content then you really shouldn't even concern yourself with what Nikon's up to.

[Spaz-o-Matic @ Mar 28th 2006 1:14PM]

The last time I looked closely at shots from a D2X and D70 they were quite noisy (grainy). Has this improved with the D200? Is Sony still making the sensors for Nikon? That said the ergonomics and the quality of lens for the price from Nikon are unbeatable. Noise wise though, Canon sensor and noise reduction tech is ahead of the game.

[Jamie @ Mar 28th 2006 1:39PM]

From what i've used (not much, but hey) I prefer Nikon compacts and Canon DSLRs. Just my opinion.

Though everyone saying 1.5x magnification because of the smaller CCD - isn't it 4/3ds? Or is that just Canon?

Jamie

[Pork Chop Flavored Cupcake @ Mar 28th 2006 4:22PM]

-
#44
4/3ds sensor technology originated with Olympus and is now being adapted by Panasonic in their first DSLR.
Size of sensors from smallest to largest in DSLRs.
4/3(Olympus/Panasonic) -> APS 1.6(Canon) -> APS 1.5(Nikon) -> APS 1.3(Canon) -> Full Frame(Canon/Kodak)

[Afroloop @ Mar 28th 2006 4:59PM]

5D is my next camera!

[Brian Puccio @ Mar 28th 2006 5:30PM]

First, once you buy into a brand you usually don't switch because you've built up a collection of $4k or more worth of lenses.

Second, they mention that Nikon has better white balance accuracy. Sorry, if you shoot RAW, you should be picking this out yourself, so this is a non-issue.

[Dan @ Mar 28th 2006 8:10PM]

If you make a decision based on a particular camera body (Nikon D200 vs. Canon 5D vs. whatever else), the way you might decide between TV sets or something, then you're a fool. The real decision is more akin to deciding between PC vs. Mac. Over the years, you'll upgrade and replace different pieces and parts, so what matters is not how good any particular piece is, but rather which *system* best suits your needs.

The Canon *system* has a wider variety of extreme technology lenses (notably all the image stabilized lenses), although Nikon is catching up in this regard. The Nikon system has radically better flash exposure metering and has all kind of specialized lenses that you can't find for Canon, including occasional good deals on older manual-focus lenses, whereas Canon's old manual-focus lenses are incompatible with their newer autofocus bodies.

This business about sensor size or maximum print size is beyond stupid. I've made 12x18" prints from my tiny-sensored 4 megapixel Canon G2 and they look fantastic. Unless you're making poster-sized prints, then resolution is completely irrelevant.

Simply, if you're starting from scratch and have no idea what you want, then go play with the cameras in person. Hold them in your hand. Even better, rent one for a weekend and go do some serious shooting with it. Then rent the other. Then ask yourself long and hard what you're really going to use the thing for. Even if you can afford a Canon 5D, you may be much better off with a Rebel XT and better lenses.

[Tim @ Mar 28th 2006 10:25PM]

The D200 has the ability to natively tag GPS info into the Exif of the JPEGs. A must for next gen geeks?!

See it in action through digg
http://www.digg.com/technology/Camera_GPS_Google_Maps_=_Kick_Ass

Seriously though, I have a lot of friends that went Canon, but after weighing all the angles I got the D200. To boot, the D200, a 18-200 nikkor VR (vibration reduction) lens , and GPS gear was a basic 5D would have cost!

Ken Rockwell sizes up the d200 vs canon
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-vs-canon.htm

so does photo.net
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FSCR&tag=

In fact now (just a few weeks after buying my D200, a google search for 5d vs d200 has a LOT more results. YMMV

[Rick Deez @ Mar 29th 2006 8:21PM]

This comparison is utterly RIDICULOUS and I give no credence to articles that compare the two. I am so sick of it.
they are two completely different cameras that serve different purposes. The most glaring difference is the APS vs. full size sensor. a more worthwhile comparison would be d200 vs. the new canon d30. (as someone else pointed out already)
the 5d is in a whole different ballpark.
as for the whole nikon or canon debate. i learned on a nikon, went to medium format and now i shoot with a 5d. Nikon does have good ergonomics , great glass, but as far as the future it definitely goes to canon. the R&D $ they have is staggering. that is why they are producing their own CMOS sensors and nikon has to outsource their sensors.
canon makes great pro gear, nikon makes great gear for prosumers and hobbyists.
also, whomever made the comment about professionals reading dpreview.com, i hope you are joking.

[Arun Seetharam @ Mar 31st 2006 1:50PM]

I once met a renowned Nature and Wildlife photographer while hiking in the Alps. I didnt know who he was even after we had been talking for long. Then I happened to see his mesmerising pictures which looked like Art Wolf or Steve McCurry. I asked him the secret of these pictures and hinted what camera would help me make these. He said "Just a shoe box and a good lens". I was justified about my choice of Nikon. I know Canon has the best electronics and features. So all the action and the sports photographers choose it. But their optics is far behind Nikon. As the Germans call it, Nikon is a poor man's Leica. Thats why Leica is Leica. The glass, nothing else. If I were shooting base ball or tennis Canon is justifiable. However I still would go for Nikon.