I have yet to decide whether the  Canon's low light capability, lens availability, and slightly cheaper price would offset the Nikons full environmental seals, feel, continuous shooting buffer, and superb camera layout.

I like both, and don't feel like either camera would be too light for me in the long run.  Right now I am leaning towards the Nikon.  I have no Canon or Nikon DSLR compatible lenses at this time.  I am upgrading from a Canon AE-1.

I was previously attracted to the D80, but I think the D200 has eclipsed that option.

Discuss...

I would get the Nikon. Its a superior camera with superior lenses available. But then I'm biased.

Quoted: Quoted: I would get the Nikon. Its a superior camera with superior lenses available. But then I'm biast. Maybe even biased.  I agree that the 200 is a better camera, but for lenses, few say that nikon glass is superior to canon glass.  The kit glass is MUCH better, but it should be for twice the price.

Ouch. The spelling nazi corrected.

Nikon is what I have been using for the past several years, currently the D200.  It does have better glass available and they do cost you a fair amount.  With that said Cannon does have full frame sensors available and Nikon does not.  I have not shot with Cannon other than a shoot for a new book recently.  We shot a 5D and my D200 and the images are very comparable to each other.  Yes a true critic may see some differences, but for most of us it will not be an issue.

A lot depends on whether you already have a lot of money invested in glass or not.  If you do, you may want to lean toward the Cannon still.  If not and you want the best glass available the Nikon will serve you well.  I would personally go with the D200 with the recent price drop it is a good deal.  The D80 is much cheaper feeling and will not be as sturdy.

Wait till February.  The likelihood is that Canon will release a replacement for the 30D around the PMAs, most likely in February...the odds are good that it will have the 10MP self-cleaning sensor of the XTi as well as the DIGIC III processor and maybe a couple other features.  That will be a better competitor for the D200.

Quoted: Quoted: Wait till February.  The likelihood is that Canon will release a replacement for the 30D around the PMAs, most likely in February...the odds are good that it will have the 10MP self-cleaning sensor of the XTi as well as the DIGIC III processor and maybe a couple other features.  That will be a better competitor for the D200. Where are you hearing that? Since I am about to pull the trigger on the 30D.  Why would they release a new one with the 30D less than a year old?  Wouldn't they have milked the 20D rather than work a new release? Wife will have my ass if I buy the 30D and then a better replacement comes out.

It's all over the photography forums.  And it makes sense.  The Rebel XTi is biting into 30D sales but it's not pulling anything away from the D200.  It makes no sense to have a better sensor and better technology in your entry level camera than in your prosumer body.

Quoted: Quoted: Wait till February.  The likelihood is that Canon will release a replacement for the 30D around the PMAs, most likely in February...the odds are good that it will have the 10MP self-cleaning sensor of the XTi as well as the DIGIC III processor and maybe a couple other features.  That will be a better competitor for the D200. Where are you hearing that? Since I am about to pull the trigger on the 30D.  Why would they release a new one with the 30D less than a year old?  Wouldn't they have milked the 20D rather than work a new release? Wife will have my ass if I buy the 30D and then a better replacement comes out.

As was posted earlier, the cameras are going the technology route. More camera bodies released with each one having better processing.

A new camera every year would not surprise me. 35mm was 35mm. You could release a new body every few YEARS. Digital technology does not move that slow.

Av.

 go   5D   or   30D  

Quoted: I agree it makes sense.  The 5 FPS and magnesium body were really the only reasons I wanted the 30D over the XTi.  10MP doesn't mean a whole lot to me, but the dust cleaning would be nice. Curious if they will go body based IS (doubt it, they are making a lot of cash on IS lenses) Now I wait and debate lenses some more. Bleh. If it isn't that much nicer, it will drive the price of the 30D down.  Which is 1050 body only from the reputable stores.

Word on the street is the dust-cleaning technology is more of a gimmick than anything. From what I've read on the dpreview forums, people aren't happy with it. It only gets rid of the tiniest specks of dust.

I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.  With some of the third party noise reduction software, you can improve the Nikon images with control over how much.  The other question is what size prints do you intend to make with your high-iso images?  If you aren't going for huge print sizes from your high-iso images, I don't know that you would even notice.  Many people think the D200 vs. Canon noise issue is a non-issue.  For me it's a non-issue.  

The main thing is to hold each one and try them.  See which works best for you.  You can find images of both on the web to see what each is capable of.  Anymore, I think they are all so good that it's rarely the equipment that is the limiting factor.

The 5fps on the D200 is pretty sweet and I love having a reasonable buffer vs. what I had on my D100, especially when shooting RAW.

Quoted: I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.

Actually I don't believe that's the case.  I believe the reason has more to do with the sensors used in the respective cameras.  

Quoted: OK, all that being known. I do not have a camera right now (my P & S broke). would you buy the 30D (yes, 30D, don't try to talk me out of it) now or wait? Keep in mind the double rebates going on.

Unless there's a pressing need for a camera between now and February, I would wait.  But if you simply HAVE to have a camera between now and then, go ahead and get the 30D---it's a great camera.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.   Actually I don't believe that's the case.  I believe the reason has more to do with the sensors used in the respective cameras.

I think that is part of it, to be sure.  Maybe a large part of it, but I also see a certain smoothness to some Canon high-iso images which look just like the results I can get fro Noise Ninja if I go a little too far.  You haven't ever noticed any of that somewhat plastic look?

Another vote here for the D200. Nikon has built in "backward compatibility" into their current digital camera systems, and virtually every Nikon lens manufactured since 1977 will function with the D200. I have "prime" Nikon glass ranging from 18mm - 500mm and for me it made sense to buy a D200.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.   Actually I don't believe that's the case.  I believe the reason has more to do with the sensors used in the respective cameras.   I think that is part of it, to be sure.  Maybe a large part of it, but I also see a certain smoothness to some Canon high-iso images which look just like the results I can get fro Noise Ninja if I go a little too far.  You haven't ever noticed any of that somewhat plastic look?

After having done extensive review of the comparison images at imagingresource.com and at kenrockwell.com (yes, Ken is a big D200 fan), I would agree with this.  Canon images definately lose detail over the Nikon images, but Nikon's images are grainier...  I am not sure if Canon allows the user to adjust the amount of in-camera noise reduction, but the D200 has a few different settings for it.  The more aggressive settings resemble Canon images, and the more conservative settings yield a little more detail amongst the increased noise.

When photographing night skies, it is paramount that the camera doesn't supress the noise at the expense of detail, and it doesn't take much to squelch 10th magnitude stars with NR.  Averaging/Combining images in Photoshop is most effective at reducing noise in these types of shots anyway.

Thanks for all the insight guys.  I am still learning a lot, but I finally decided to go with the Nikon D200.  Honestly I liked the feel of both cameras.  Nikon's control features are more to my liking however.  Now I have moved on to lens selection.  When the 18-200 becomes available, I'll buy it, and I also want to buy a fast (f/1.8 or larger) 50mm fixed, like was recommended in another thread.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.   Actually I don't believe that's the case.  I believe the reason has more to do with the sensors used in the respective cameras.   I think that is part of it, to be sure.  Maybe a large part of it, but I also see a certain smoothness to some Canon high-iso images which look just like the results I can get fro Noise Ninja if I go a little too far.  You haven't ever noticed any of that somewhat plastic look? After having done extensive review of the comparison images at imagingresource.com and at kenrockwell.com (yes, Ken is a big D200 fan), I would agree with this.  Canon images definately lose detail over the Nikon images, but Nikon's images are grainier...  I am not sure if Canon allows the user to adjust the amount of in-camera noise reduction, but the D200 has a few different settings for it.  The more aggressive settings resemble Canon images, and the more conservative settings yield a little more detail amongst the increased noise. When photographing night skies, it is paramount that the camera doesn't supress the noise at the expense of detail, and it doesn't take much to squelch 10th magnitude stars with NR.  Averaging/Combining images in Photoshop is most effective at reducing noise in these types of shots anyway. Thanks for all the insight guys.  I am still learning a lot, but I finally decided to go with the Nikon D200.  Honestly I liked the feel of both cameras.  Nikon's control features are more to my liking however.  Now I have moved on to lens selection.  When the 18-200 becomes available, I'll buy it, and I also want to buy a fast (f/1.8 or larger) 50mm fixed, like was recommended in another thread.

I actually don't put too much weight in Ken Rockwell, he has made too many outlandish statements for me to take him seriously.  Not to mention his habit of "reviewing" cameras and lenses he has never used.  But some of his info is interesting.  

Yes, a 50mm is a great lens to have.  The 1.8 at $100 is a great lens.  I have it and use it quite a bit.  I do a lot of indoor shooting now with a new baby, so I am thinking about the 1.4.  The 18-200 sounds nice for the size/weight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a D200 and love it.  From what I have gathered, the Canon's do have better low light performance, but it's party due to more aggressive noise reduction in camera.   Actually I don't believe that's the case.  I believe the reason has more to do with the sensors used in the respective cameras.   I think that is part of it, to be sure.  Maybe a large part of it, but I also see a certain smoothness to some Canon high-iso images which look just like the results I can get fro Noise Ninja if I go a little too far.  You haven't ever noticed any of that somewhat plastic look? After having done extensive review of the comparison images at imagingresource.com and at kenrockwell.com (yes, Ken is a big D200 fan), I would agree with this.  Canon images definately lose detail over the Nikon images, but Nikon's images are grainier...  I am not sure if Canon allows the user to adjust the amount of in-camera noise reduction, but the D200 has a few different settings for it.  The more aggressive settings resemble Canon images, and the more conservative settings yield a little more detail amongst the increased noise. When photographing night skies, it is paramount that the camera doesn't supress the noise at the expense of detail, and it doesn't take much to squelch 10th magnitude stars with NR.  Averaging/Combining images in Photoshop is most effective at reducing noise in these types of shots anyway. Thanks for all the insight guys.  I am still learning a lot, but I finally decided to go with the Nikon D200.  Honestly I liked the feel of both cameras.  Nikon's control features are more to my liking however.  Now I have moved on to lens selection.  When the 18-200 becomes available, I'll buy it, and I also want to buy a fast (f/1.8 or larger) 50mm fixed, like was recommended in another thread. I actually don't put too much weight in Ken Rockwell, he has made too many outlandish statements for me to take him seriously.  Not to mention his habit of "reviewing" cameras and lenses he has never used.  But some of his info is interesting.   Yes, a 50mm is a great lens to have.  The 1.8 at $100 is a great lens.  I have it and use it quite a bit.  I do a lot of indoor shooting now with a new baby, so I am thinking about the 1.4.  The 18-200 sounds nice for the size/weight.

I agree about Ken.  I take his opinions with a grain of salt.  His reviews of the 50mm D lenses are a good example.  The f/1.4 is crap, but the f/1.8 which he did not have, was sure to be great...  

He does do good image comparisons though and his results mirror the results from imagingresource.