Does anyone shoot with a Nikon D200? Does anyone have any insight they would like to share about the D200? I currently own a Rebel XT and had been considering a Canon 5D. Since I am not a pro, as many of you are, the cost and features of the D200 are more attractive to me. It has more fingertip available controls and still retains the "dummy" (auto) modes for those such as myself as well as an on camera flash unit. But the 5D is an awesome camera. I'm not a pro, so spending the money on that type of camera seems a little over the top for me.
Michael, I don't think your camera choice should depend on whether or not you are a pro. In my view most people that own "pro-grade" gear are not full time professionals. Avid amateurs have the same, and often even more demanding, requirements as any professional.
I also feel that sticking to "auto" modes pretty much takes away much of the value of any camera that offers more manual control, whether a pro model or otherwise. Perhaps a better understanding of the reasons you are unhappy with the XT or what it is you want from a more advanced camera will help this discussion.
I just purchased the D200 and love it so far, although I have had limited time to really try it out. As far as the auto modes, it does not have portrait, night portrait, sports, etc. etc. that some cameras have. It does have a regular "auto" mode I think. But I never used those modes anyway, and don't understand the value of them unless you are not familiar with how to set your apereture and shutter speed. I don't know anything about the 5D but it was definitely out of my price range! The D200 was almost out of it but I gave in anyway! I selected the D200 because of the price, the 10.2 megapixels, the mirror up feature, and the 100 ISO capability. My D70 did not have those features. I don't remember what website I found it on, but there was a great write up on the D200 that compared it to the 5D and others and rated the D200 right up there. The website is by a guy that seems to spend all his time reviewing equipment.....can't remember the name, but I'm sure someone here will think of it and tell you.
Thanks, Guy. Here are my incentives of moving up from the Rebel XT (which I still think is a really good camera): more rugged body, better weather protection (both are just in case factors), higher resolution (8.2MP to 10.2MP or 12.8MP), more advanced flash capabilities (I have people asking for "leisure" children's photos). I rarely use the auto settings on the XT, but thought it advantageous to me to be able to fall back on the auto modes since I am still learning much about photography. Also adding into the mix is my given nature to want to upgrade to what's new and better (I am a computer technician). It's kind of like having the 2WD 285hp truck with power windows, locks and cruise control but having your eye on the 4WD 325hp one - it gets you through mud too. (I know that's not exactly comparable.) But, I don't think that anyone would not say that the 5D is a superior camera to the XT.
Expense is the only reason that I haven't already gone out and purchased the 5D. The camera+flash+lens+memory comes in about $1400 more than the D200 and the features are very comparable. You lose 2.6MP from the 5D to the D200, but the $$ difference makes me consider the D200. If the 5D were $300 more than the D200 and had a built-in flash, I'd probably already have one.
I could just be crazy from the heat down here in Alabama this time of year. And August is just around the corner and a lot hotter.
Thanks, Alice and John. The DPReview and Ken Rockwell articels are two that I had read. I have read several over the last couple of days. The $$ is the only thing keeping me from the 5D. Thanks, John, the sq. inch comment makes some sense of a couple of things that I read but didn't actually soak in.
If Mp per square inch were important, we would all be shooting with point and shoots. All things being equal, the bigger sensor will produce the better image with less noise. The bigger sensor with more MP will produce even a better image.
The drawback to a large sensor it that they are much more expensive to manufacture. This is a big reason the 5D and other full frame sensor bodies are so expensive.
One thing no one has mentioned yet is the "crop" effect of the smaller sensor; something that can be important to wildlife photographers. Your 300 mm lens on the Nikon is effectively 450 mm, while on the Canon 5D it is 300 mm. It gives you a little extra apparent reach.
I may be thinking backwards again (like that ever stops) but I have in mind a kit of glass that I either own or want to own, and buy the body that fits. I'm particularly enamoured with Canon's long primary glass with image stabilization, so I shoot Canon bodies. If you reach the conclusion that a Canon EF 600 f/4 L IS is the cat's meow (ask Juza!), then buy a body that fits. I think which body is far less important than which glass, where all your money will be spent.
Why have you written off the Canon 30D? It's a significant upgrade from the XT in many respects and the price will leave you with some lens money.
I'm with Michael on the possibilities of the 30D, and that the glass is more important than the camera. With my 20D, shooting RAW, I make prints to 20x30 simply using Photoshop CS's own interpolation feature, and those prints are beautifully sharp and with subtle color. Using Genuine Fractals, which I'll do when I get a client who wants a bigger print, I'll be able to go quite a bit larger and maintain excellent quality.
So I say getting the 30D (nearly the same sensor as the XT but with a LOT of other better, faster options included) is a great possibility. It's not weather sealed, but neither are the two other bodies you mentioned, and unless you're shooting wide angle, you don't necessarily need to pursue the ff sensor of the 5D. Plus, the 30D has a max burst rate of 5 fps to the 5D's 3 fps. Don't know what the D200 does. Add the optional battery grip to the 30D to double your battery power and add vertical touch controls and you've got an excellent tool.
With the money saved by buying the 30D over the 5D, for example, you can pick up an excellent sharp piece of Canon telephoto "L" series glass.
Kelly, thanks for the insight. I currently only have one lens, so I am not "branded" just yet. I haven't really considered the 30D because I would be staying at the same MP. I know, it's not ALL about MP, but in my mind, I can't see spending more money and not getting more resolution out of the upgrade.
Steve, as you pointed out, the 30D does have the same 5 fps rating as the Nikon 200D. That is worth studying more. And about batteries, the Nikon beats the Canon on battery life - according to the reviews I've read. Several articles also mention (good or bad?) that the 30D is just a 20D with upgraded software. ??
The money factor is looming very large in the hunt. I plan on taking a look at the 30D but I'm still hung up on the MP for the $$. I did hold a D200 this weekend and liked it very much. I like the focusing system and the layout of the controls - on the body and not in menus. Since I am still in the learning stages, I find that I forget to go into the menu system to turn some things off or on and wind up messing up a good picture.
I have to ask why you need more than 8 megapixels? I am looking at a 24 x 30 print of a plumbego blossom that I had printed from an 8 megapixel file that is tack sharp. The lab that printed it has posters on display that were printed from 6 and 8 megapixel files that are outstanding. What are your expectations for the extra megapixels? How are you going to publish your pictures?
Yes, I agree with Kelly on the megapixel thing. And I've stated my own direct experience with the 8.2 Mp Canon sensor. More important in the comparison between D200 and 30D than megapixel count is speed and buffer. Both offer 5 fps max burst rates. The 30D offers a max of nine or eleven RAW images per burst (depending on burst speed setting) before the buffer fills, while the D200 offers 22. My 20D only allows six before writing to the card. That's one of the ways Canon allowed consumers to save a few hundred dollars. It's all give and take. If money is the big issue, you may find yourself with the 30D, with some money left over to go with prime glass.
As far as who is more efficient on battery life, if you're shooting top glass with image stabilization or vibration reduction (the former Canon, the latter Nikon), your batteries will go faster no matter which brand you use. I use the battery grip for the two batteries it offers instead of the one without it, and because the vertical fingertip controls make vertical shooting much steadier and less awkward. I don't see any battery grip offered for the D200, so, if that's true that a pro accessory option like that isn't available for the D200 and you end up with it, battery life could be an issue. And I long since have quit using my Canon batteries, except for backup. I've gone to SterlinkTek.com batteries. They are 1800 mAh batteries, and when used in tandem in the grip last me a LONG, LONG time, even when using IS. And they only cost about $30 PER PAIR, including shipping. I have two pairs now, with two pairs of Canons, and I haven't needed to take out the Canons for a year and a half.
And megapixel obsession is acknowledged as a big deal for DSLR marketers. Once you hit about 8 Mp (well, that's an arbitrary number on my part; I've got stunning 24x36 RAW prints from the Canon 6.3 Mp sensor of a few years ago), there's simply so many things you can do to make beautiful large prints that there's little reason to choose between 8 and 10 Mp as a factor in purchasing the camera. Some glossy mag photo editors demand images from 10 or 12 Mp cameras or higher, but I'm told by a few other shooters I know who regularly sell to such mags that it's because a lot of the people working for those mags don't know how to get good results with smaller images, and that some other photo editors use that guideline as a way to keep from getting and having to look through more and more photo submissions when they already have a stable of shooters that satisfies them.
At any rate, whether you choose the D200 or the 30D, you are getting great gear, so have fun once you plunk down the $.
Kelly, I guess "cropability" would be the main reason for wanting (not really needing) more MP. I, myself, have printed (and sold) some nice 20x30 prints from my old 6.3MP D-Rebel. I also have a nice 11x24 and 10x30 from the Rebel XT.
Steve, what about the weatherproofing of the 30D? I haven't been able to find out much information on that. The D200 seems to have pretty good weatherproofing, from what I've been reading. I have been caught out in the rain a couple of times with my XT.
I've also been reading that the D200 is little sharper than the 30D due to some specs of the focusing system. Can it really be significantly better?
I guess the "need" for detail is really a subjective preference. There are 3 potential bottlenecks in the process - the resolution of the lens, the resolution of the sensor, and the resolution of the printer.
If you're using good glass and want to print large then the sensor is the logical place to upgrade. At 20x30 most any printer can render a lot more detail than what's in a 6 or 8 megapixel file. Just do the math: at 300dpi, the printer can accommodate additional detail up to 54MP (6,000x9,000 pixels). This is way more than any lens can resolve on a 35mm-size frame (certainly a lot more than an APS-size frame) so at some point upgrading the sensor will become moot and you'll hit against the lens resolution bottleneck. From there you're looking at medium and large format to gain more detail.
Whether you "need" or want extra detail is really up to you. All other things being equal, why would you not want more detail?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether you "need" or want extra detail is really up to you. All other things being equal, why would you not want more detail?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget. The great equalizer. I would buy the lesser camera (or keep the XT) and put my money in the lens. Better resolution of a lesser image makes no sense to me. Now, if Michael can afford the D200 and a nice long VR prime lens, go for it!
Yes, I'd take a 1Ds MarkII in a hearbeat if I had the budget for it. But I don't. So for me, like many, it is budget that limits me.
Micheal, I don't believe the 30D had any upgraded weather sealing from the 20D, and the 20D is not truly weather sealed. Now, I've had it out in some pretty inclement weather, from blizzards to rainstorms with no problems, but I use a weatherproof sleeve I designed that fastens over the lens hood and extends back to encompass the whole camera but still allow you to stick your face in there to photograph. I don't know enough about the D200 to compare its weather sealing with the 30D, nor to compare this possible difference in sharpness you mentioned. I'd thought sharpness was essentially a glass issue, and perhaps a sensor issue.
With Canon, it's not truly weatherproofed unless it's a "1" series. While lower-priced Canon bodies have some degrees of weather resistance. I don't know about Nikon's level of weatherproofing. That being said, a shooter should always have some type of rain/snow protection for the body/lens, unless it's fully waterproof. My waterproof sleeve sits rolled up in my bag unless it's in use. Since It's not likely I'll be able to afford a 1 series body anytime soon, though I do shoot weatherproofed L lenses, I've just gotten in the habit of never leaving home without the slipover sleeve.
Actually I wasn't trying to sway the discussion to any specific brand/model (I've seen enough of these discussions to know they're usually an exercise in futility), just trying to inject some perspective into the subjective statements of what looks "good" at a given print size.
Yes, obviously cost is a huge factor. Note my qualification of all other things being equal. When things are not equal the conclusion is obviously not as straightforward.
I read an article today at completedigitalphotography.com that showed an overlay of the difference in the sizes of the two images (8.2 vs.10.2) and I have to say that it is not much. Now, 8.2 and 12.8 is huge!
OK, just suppose that I have ruled out the Nikon . . . Is there any logical reason for me to spend the money on a 30D as opposed to keeping the XT? Would the 30D, in time (as my skills progress - hopefully), afford me anything that would improve my photography? I know that there are many true professionals that use the 20D and now the 30D.
Guy, I'd dearly love to get that 5D, but unless I have a rich old uncle who has me listed in his will for one of them, I'll just have to wait.
For image quality, there's effectively no difference between the XT and 30D sensor, IMO. The 30D offers more options and nearly twice the burst speed capacity, but unless you're shooting fast action, the burst rate may not be that important to you.
I don't think we know yet what type of glass you're shooting with, nor exactly what type of nature photography you prefer, and those are considerations. All that being said, if you don't have top glass, a nice long piece of prime L glass will make a much bigger difference in IQ than upgrading to a 30D, D200 or 5D.
You need to meet the work of Daniella T., an avid professional nature photographer and something of a legend on the Internet photography boards. Daniella shoots nice L glass on a Rebel XT (300) and gets the results you see here: http://www.pbase.com/zylen . The size of her recording sensor doesn't seem to be holding her back. It's her lens and her eye that make these photographs as good as they are. If I had $3000 disposable dollars I would run out and buy a EF 300 f/2/8L IS for my XT, and maybe a 1.4 and 2.0 converter. Now you're in the nature photography business!
Weather seals are not all they're cracked up to be. I've taken both a 20D and a 1DMkIIN on offshore fishing trips where they've both been sprayed down heavily with salt water backing down on sailfish on a windy day. The less well sealed 20D did just fine. The "sealed" 1DMkIIN went back to the mother ship for an AF PCB replacement. They're both in the rain from time to time and when it gets heavy I'll stick them under a rain parka or just seek shelter for a brief period.
If you go out and buy prime glass in the 300+ range, you have definitely drawn a line in the sand as to which system you're going to use for the forseeable future. I personally feel you get a lot more bang for your buck spending it on quality glass as opposed to camera body.
Sorry, Steve, I keep leaving that out for some reason. I only have one lens right now - Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3 XR Di II. That's why I said I wasn't "branded" yet. The majority of my subject matter at present is landscape. Considering that I have a full time job, I just don't have enough time to do much wildlife shooting - at least the way it needs to be approached. I have recently started working on photographing aging structures and historically significant architecture around where I live.
It would probably be in my best interest (at least for the time being) to spend my money on one or two really good lenses or maybe, as you suggested, Kelly, a lens and teleconverter. And just keep myself out of the rain!
I'll just have to start a savings account for that 5D! Thanks everyone!!
Knowing your prime focus in nature photography definitely shapes the discussion.
Now, while I shoot some landscape work, it is not my prime interest, so take that under consideration, as well as the fact that what follows is just all just IMO, and people who specialize in landscape work but also use DSLRs to do it may have different and more seasoned opinions.
But sounds to me that, if you do mostly landscape work, you might be better off keeping the XT (landscape doesn't make the demands on burst rate and buffer size that wildlife/bird shooting does) and investing in a prime L wide angle or L zoom like the 17-40L, along with another L zoom that gets you a bit of magnification, like the 24-105L. Primes are sharper than zooms in general, but these two zooms would give you a nice field of flexibility for focal length, and if you pick up the 1.4 TC, that 24-105 with the XT 1.6 crop factor would reach out enough to compress and stack up certain overlapping landscape elements.
But those two lenses alone, if bought new, will set you back nearly $2,000.
A prime L telephoto of 300mm or larger, on the other hand, would indicate you want to do more wildlife/bird photography.
Posted by Joseph Smith on September 16, 2006 at 8:58 PM
Michael, I use the D 200 and really like it. It is my first digital camera. I bought it mainly because I have 40+years invested in Nikon lenses I wanted to use on a DSLR with a good viewfinder that would meter with both AF and AIS lenses. Personally, I think 90% of what it takes to take a good image rests with the photographer and only 10% with the equipment. If you were starting from scratch, get either a Canon or Nikon and learn how to use it. Get the model that best meets your needs. Buy the best lenses you can afford and practice, practice and practice. Only you can determine which brand best meets your needs. Joe Smith
f you do mostly landscape work, you might be better off keeping the XT >>>
If you mean compared to 20D or 30D, yes. But not against 5D. Images are nice upto A4, after that all you see are the "fuzzy" squares. My 645 slides scanned with 1000ppi film scanner look better (atleast details pov, for landscapes that is important I guess). In short if I had 2000€, I will buy a 5D.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on September 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM
I own both D200 & 5D. Ultimately I think the price difference is a reasonable reflection of the performance. I prefer the smooth low noise pictures of the 5D. Not to say the D200 camera is a dud, at the price it is a great buy, the build quality better than the 5D. I also prefer the glass that can be used with it, the 12-24mm DX Nikkor.
Update: Santa came early!! My new 30D (go figure) arrived late yesterday - along with 2 extra Sterlingtek batteries (thanks to Steve and they are 2000mAh now). Not much to shoot today - only 38 images while burning a vacation day from my job. A tornado hit our town last night and we lost a big pile of our colorful leaves. Our annual Christmas on the River event tomorrow should provide some good practice work.
I looked at the 400D (10MP, auto sensor "shake" for cleaning = nice) when it came out, but the 5fps, high ISO performance (400D good also) and the healthy feel (held and shot with one at Circuit City) steered me to the 30D - plus the fact that the price has dropped significantly since I started this thread. Coupled with the 580EX flash I bought recently, I will be getting $230 back from Canon as soon as I ink those rebate coupons. Anyway, I had read many other forums, reviews, etc. on the 30D and thought it would be the best fit for me financially and for my growing scope of work.
My exhibit (28 framed prints) at a local hospital has generated lots of questions and interest in my work. I've even had a couple of people ask me about doing their weddings, a few more who want pet portraits and one graduation request. With all that considered, I thought the 30D would be the best performer.
I know I bounced all over the board with this decision, but I would like to thank everyone who took the time to offer both advice and opinion. Proceeds from the sale of the old XT will go toward a good long lens for wildlife and sports shooting.
Discussion
28 repliesAny suggestions?
Thanks!!
I also feel that sticking to "auto" modes pretty much takes away much of the value of any camera that offers more manual control, whether a pro model or otherwise. Perhaps a better understanding of the reasons you are unhappy with the XT or what it is you want from a more advanced camera will help this discussion.
Guy
Expense is the only reason that I haven't already gone out and purchased the 5D. The camera+flash+lens+memory comes in about $1400 more than the D200 and the features are very comparable. You lose 2.6MP from the 5D to the D200, but the $$ difference makes me consider the D200. If the 5D were $300 more than the D200 and had a built-in flash, I'd probably already have one.
I could just be crazy from the heat down here in Alabama this time of year. And August is just around the corner and a lot hotter.
Thanks!!
The drawback to a large sensor it that they are much more expensive to manufacture. This is a big reason the 5D and other full frame sensor bodies are so expensive.
One thing no one has mentioned yet is the "crop" effect of the smaller sensor; something that can be important to wildlife photographers. Your 300 mm lens on the Nikon is effectively 450 mm, while on the Canon 5D it is 300 mm. It gives you a little extra apparent reach.
I may be thinking backwards again (like that ever stops) but I have in mind a kit of glass that I either own or want to own, and buy the body that fits. I'm particularly enamoured with Canon's long primary glass with image stabilization, so I shoot Canon bodies. If you reach the conclusion that a Canon EF 600 f/4 L IS is the cat's meow (ask Juza!), then buy a body that fits. I think which body is far less important than which glass, where all your money will be spent.
Why have you written off the Canon 30D? It's a significant upgrade from the XT in many respects and the price will leave you with some lens money.
It's gettin' hot here in Florida too...
So I say getting the 30D (nearly the same sensor as the XT but with a LOT of other better, faster options included) is a great possibility. It's not weather sealed, but neither are the two other bodies you mentioned, and unless you're shooting wide angle, you don't necessarily need to pursue the ff sensor of the 5D. Plus, the 30D has a max burst rate of 5 fps to the 5D's 3 fps. Don't know what the D200 does. Add the optional battery grip to the 30D to double your battery power and add vertical touch controls and you've got an excellent tool.
With the money saved by buying the 30D over the 5D, for example, you can pick up an excellent sharp piece of Canon telephoto "L" series glass.
Steve, as you pointed out, the 30D does have the same 5 fps rating as the Nikon 200D. That is worth studying more. And about batteries, the Nikon beats the Canon on battery life - according to the reviews I've read. Several articles also mention (good or bad?) that the 30D is just a 20D with upgraded software. ??
The money factor is looming very large in the hunt. I plan on taking a look at the 30D but I'm still hung up on the MP for the $$. I did hold a D200 this weekend and liked it very much. I like the focusing system and the layout of the controls - on the body and not in menus. Since I am still in the learning stages, I find that I forget to go into the menu system to turn some things off or on and wind up messing up a good picture.
Thanks to everyone who has shared so far.
I have to ask why you need more than 8 megapixels? I am looking at a 24 x 30 print of a plumbego blossom that I had printed from an 8 megapixel file that is tack sharp. The lab that printed it has posters on display that were printed from 6 and 8 megapixel files that are outstanding. What are your expectations for the extra megapixels? How are you going to publish your pictures?
Just food for thought...
As far as who is more efficient on battery life, if you're shooting top glass with image stabilization or vibration reduction (the former Canon, the latter Nikon), your batteries will go faster no matter which brand you use. I use the battery grip for the two batteries it offers instead of the one without it, and because the vertical fingertip controls make vertical shooting much steadier and less awkward. I don't see any battery grip offered for the D200, so, if that's true that a pro accessory option like that isn't available for the D200 and you end up with it, battery life could be an issue. And I long since have quit using my Canon batteries, except for backup. I've gone to SterlinkTek.com batteries. They are 1800 mAh batteries, and when used in tandem in the grip last me a LONG, LONG time, even when using IS. And they only cost about $30 PER PAIR, including shipping. I have two pairs now, with two pairs of Canons, and I haven't needed to take out the Canons for a year and a half.
And megapixel obsession is acknowledged as a big deal for DSLR marketers. Once you hit about 8 Mp (well, that's an arbitrary number on my part; I've got stunning 24x36 RAW prints from the Canon 6.3 Mp sensor of a few years ago), there's simply so many things you can do to make beautiful large prints that there's little reason to choose between 8 and 10 Mp as a factor in purchasing the camera. Some glossy mag photo editors demand images from 10 or 12 Mp cameras or higher, but I'm told by a few other shooters I know who regularly sell to such mags that it's because a lot of the people working for those mags don't know how to get good results with smaller images, and that some other photo editors use that guideline as a way to keep from getting and having to look through more and more photo submissions when they already have a stable of shooters that satisfies them.
At any rate, whether you choose the D200 or the 30D, you are getting great gear, so have fun once you plunk down the $.
Steve, what about the weatherproofing of the 30D? I haven't been able to find out much information on that. The D200 seems to have pretty good weatherproofing, from what I've been reading. I have been caught out in the rain a couple of times with my XT.
I've also been reading that the D200 is little sharper than the 30D due to some specs of the focusing system. Can it really be significantly better?
If you're using good glass and want to print large then the sensor is the logical place to upgrade. At 20x30 most any printer can render a lot more detail than what's in a 6 or 8 megapixel file. Just do the math: at 300dpi, the printer can accommodate additional detail up to 54MP (6,000x9,000 pixels). This is way more than any lens can resolve on a 35mm-size frame (certainly a lot more than an APS-size frame) so at some point upgrading the sensor will become moot and you'll hit against the lens resolution bottleneck. From there you're looking at medium and large format to gain more detail.
Whether you "need" or want extra detail is really up to you. All other things being equal, why would you not want more detail?
Guy
Whether you "need" or want extra detail is really up to you. All other things being equal, why would you not want more detail?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget. The great equalizer. I would buy the lesser camera (or keep the XT) and put my money in the lens. Better resolution of a lesser image makes no sense to me. Now, if Michael can afford the D200 and a nice long VR prime lens, go for it!
Micheal, I don't believe the 30D had any upgraded weather sealing from the 20D, and the 20D is not truly weather sealed. Now, I've had it out in some pretty inclement weather, from blizzards to rainstorms with no problems, but I use a weatherproof sleeve I designed that fastens over the lens hood and extends back to encompass the whole camera but still allow you to stick your face in there to photograph. I don't know enough about the D200 to compare its weather sealing with the 30D, nor to compare this possible difference in sharpness you mentioned. I'd thought sharpness was essentially a glass issue, and perhaps a sensor issue.
With Canon, it's not truly weatherproofed unless it's a "1" series. While lower-priced Canon bodies have some degrees of weather resistance. I don't know about Nikon's level of weatherproofing. That being said, a shooter should always have some type of rain/snow protection for the body/lens, unless it's fully waterproof. My waterproof sleeve sits rolled up in my bag unless it's in use. Since It's not likely I'll be able to afford a 1 series body anytime soon, though I do shoot weatherproofed L lenses, I've just gotten in the habit of never leaving home without the slipover sleeve.
Yes, obviously cost is a huge factor. Note my qualification of all other things being equal. When things are not equal the conclusion is obviously not as straightforward.
Guy
OK, just suppose that I have ruled out the Nikon . . . Is there any logical reason for me to spend the money on a 30D as opposed to keeping the XT? Would the 30D, in time (as my skills progress - hopefully), afford me anything that would improve my photography? I know that there are many true professionals that use the 20D and now the 30D.
Guy, I'd dearly love to get that 5D, but unless I have a rich old uncle who has me listed in his will for one of them, I'll just have to wait.
Thank you ALL for your valuable insights !!!
I don't think we know yet what type of glass you're shooting with, nor exactly what type of nature photography you prefer, and those are considerations. All that being said, if you don't have top glass, a nice long piece of prime L glass will make a much bigger difference in IQ than upgrading to a 30D, D200 or 5D.
You need to meet the work of Daniella T., an avid professional nature photographer and something of a legend on the Internet photography boards. Daniella shoots nice L glass on a Rebel XT (300) and gets the results you see here: http://www.pbase.com/zylen . The size of her recording sensor doesn't seem to be holding her back. It's her lens and her eye that make these photographs as good as they are. If I had $3000 disposable dollars I would run out and buy a EF 300 f/2/8L IS for my XT, and maybe a 1.4 and 2.0 converter. Now you're in the nature photography business!
Weather seals are not all they're cracked up to be. I've taken both a 20D and a 1DMkIIN on offshore fishing trips where they've both been sprayed down heavily with salt water backing down on sailfish on a windy day. The less well sealed 20D did just fine. The "sealed" 1DMkIIN went back to the mother ship for an AF PCB replacement. They're both in the rain from time to time and when it gets heavy I'll stick them under a rain parka or just seek shelter for a brief period.
If you go out and buy prime glass in the 300+ range, you have definitely drawn a line in the sand as to which system you're going to use for the forseeable future. I personally feel you get a lot more bang for your buck spending it on quality glass as opposed to camera body.
It would probably be in my best interest (at least for the time being) to spend my money on one or two really good lenses or maybe, as you suggested, Kelly, a lens and teleconverter. And just keep myself out of the rain!
I'll just have to start a savings account for that 5D! Thanks everyone!!
Knowing your prime focus in nature photography definitely shapes the discussion.
Now, while I shoot some landscape work, it is not my prime interest, so take that under consideration, as well as the fact that what follows is just all just IMO, and people who specialize in landscape work but also use DSLRs to do it may have different and more seasoned opinions.
But sounds to me that, if you do mostly landscape work, you might be better off keeping the XT (landscape doesn't make the demands on burst rate and buffer size that wildlife/bird shooting does) and investing in a prime L wide angle or L zoom like the 17-40L, along with another L zoom that gets you a bit of magnification, like the 24-105L. Primes are sharper than zooms in general, but these two zooms would give you a nice field of flexibility for focal length, and if you pick up the 1.4 TC, that 24-105 with the XT 1.6 crop factor would reach out enough to compress and stack up certain overlapping landscape elements.
But those two lenses alone, if bought new, will set you back nearly $2,000.
A prime L telephoto of 300mm or larger, on the other hand, would indicate you want to do more wildlife/bird photography.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_30D_compared.html
If you mean compared to 20D or 30D, yes. But not against 5D. Images are nice upto A4, after that all you see are the "fuzzy" squares. My 645 slides scanned with 1000ppi film scanner look better (atleast details pov, for landscapes that is important I guess). In short if I had 2000€, I will buy a 5D.
I looked at the 400D (10MP, auto sensor "shake" for cleaning = nice) when it came out, but the 5fps, high ISO performance (400D good also) and the healthy feel (held and shot with one at Circuit City) steered me to the 30D - plus the fact that the price has dropped significantly since I started this thread. Coupled with the 580EX flash I bought recently, I will be getting $230 back from Canon as soon as I ink those rebate coupons. Anyway, I had read many other forums, reviews, etc. on the 30D and thought it would be the best fit for me financially and for my growing scope of work.
My exhibit (28 framed prints) at a local hospital has generated lots of questions and interest in my work. I've even had a couple of people ask me about doing their weddings, a few more who want pet portraits and one graduation request. With all that considered, I thought the 30D would be the best performer.
I know I bounced all over the board with this decision, but I would like to thank everyone who took the time to offer both advice and opinion. Proceeds from the sale of the old XT will go toward a good long lens for wildlife and sports shooting.
Guy