The notion that Canon is somehow just catching up to Nikon now is silly, they have been out in front of Nikon for some time. The Nikon 200D, and Canon 40D are not direct competitors, I believe the 200D, and 40D list for $1800 & $1300 respectively. In fact the Nikon D80 would be a closer match, not to mention that the 40D has better image quality then the D200 to boot.
picmax
· 2 years ago
Bruce,
Thanks for commenting.
I think it is very clear from the post that Canon 40D was in catch up mode for many features compared to D200. The Nikon D200 and Canon 40D were the best in DX format before D300 came out so it is very natural to compare them. In fact, I got tons of search hits from people who are comparing them.
Many people think image quality is the ultimate gauge of a camera. However this really depends on what people are using the camera for and how they are going to use it. I think Nikon excel at making cameras a better tool to help users to get the shots. This probably is the result of Nikon's deeper root in film photography.
The image quality from D200 is also very respectable by all means and the difference is minuscule. Most noted the high iso noise performance. However ISO noise performance is not equal to image quality because people use the camera at all kinds of situations. If you consider the better white balance and better flash photography from Nikon, which has been the case traditionally, the image qualify from D200 is not always worse than 40D.
Thanks.
Max
Bruce Campbell
· 2 years ago
Ok,I would say we're talking personal preference now, so I don't really disagree on that account.
Lothario
· 2 years ago
The Canon 40D and the Nikon D200 are now selling within $100 of each other. Although the D200 is two years older I would still prefer it over the 40D due to its superior flash system and ergonomics. I rarely make make prints larger than 8x11 so the minuscule difference in photo quality is of little use for my needs. Everyone has their own preferences. You can't go wrong with either system.
ben
· 1 year ago
D200 is no doubt a bit superior camera to Canon 40D when it comes to overall picture quality. Canon 40D still comes with preset dials for newbies to turn and play with, as with D200 it is aimed at Pro photographers with manual setting presets only. Being used both cameras, I have to say if you rant about picture quality, that means you don't know what you are talking about. Any good lense and any good photographer will produce outstanding results. At the end of the day, its not the cameras you'd be collecting but the line of lenses. So focus on who makes better lenses for what you'd be doing, not who makes better ISO.
Johnny
· 1 year ago
The two cameras are not even close, every serious photographer agrees the 40D far outperforms the D200. NExt time you go to a sporting event, compare the number of white (canon) lenses to black lenses.
picmax
· 1 year ago
Johnny,
People at the sporting events with white lenses are probably not using the 40D but the professional models such as 1D Mark II N, or Mark III, etc. Nikon recently released the D3 and many high caliber lenses with AFS-VR. Even through they are still black, I am sure they can compete with Canon's.
Max
weli
· 1 year ago
The Nikon 200D, and Canon 40D are not direct competitors,frankly speaking ,i think either is ok if you want to buy .bith of them are brand .we can believe their quality.
Albert
· 1 year ago
Personally I still to this day use my dads Kodac Brownie and people are happy with my images captured.
Nelster
· 1 year ago
I recently changed my camera system from Nikon to Canon. I believe the Nikon-Canon debate will carry on forever. You have to realize that a camera is a tool to capture images therefore image quality for me is very important. I am no proffesional but as a amateur I found the Nikon to handle very well and had great ergonomics. Then I wanted to upgrade lenses. IMO Canon offers a wider range "proffesional" lenses (L-series) than proffesional Nikon glass. Nikon lenses are (very)pricy and difficult to get(in South Africa) wheras I found the Canon range to suit the needs of every style and level of photography at a reasonable price. I am happy with my change. I had to get used to handeling my new equipment but I am very happy with the performance and quality of the L-glass. Camera systems is a personal thing and debate is good. If I had an unlimited budget I would probably have stayed with my Nikon system. Good shooting everybody! (Canon 40D with EF 70-200 f4 L IS, 30D with EF-S 17-85 IS)
Mike
· 1 year ago
Bloody hell a camera is a camera. If your a good photographer you'll make something out of a disposable kodak point and shooter that is found at your local dollar store. Nikon and Canon will always rival each other and will be always trying to build a camera that outperforms one another. The D3 and the D300 are the "most powerful" right now, and without a doubt canon will come up with something that will crush the current D3 reign. And then Nikon will do the same. And on and on. Its inevitable, thats how it works; its human history. I personally know my Nikon inside and out and would go for the d200 because thats what I'm used to, not to mention the lenses and accessories I have, that would need to be replaced if I'd get a Canon. Go out, rent both of em and play around with them. Whatever feels good is my conclusion.
Nick
· 1 year ago
To compare the D200 or D300 to a 40D is ludicrous... They are priced $500 apart... I don't buy the argument "well, they're both the top-of-the-line APS-C sensors" because Canon changed the game and brought on the 5D... Why not compare a 5D to a D200... Its not even close... The 5D wipes the floor on a D200 and bests even the D300 and its brand spankin' new... Lets try and compare apples to oranges... Whats next, comparing a rebel XSi to a D3???
MIke
· 1 year ago
The 40D is light years beyond the D200 in virtually every area. There is no way in hell I would buy the ancient, lagging D200 when I could get the 40D. I like how "High ISO NR" is included in the list of catch up features. All of Canon's SLR's have blown away the D200, and even Nikons flagship pro cameras for years when it comes to ISO performance. This is a joke.
"Blinking highlight alert and focus point display in playback"?! Are you kidding me? That's been around since the 20D.
It's pretty obvious the writer is biased to Nikon and clueless when it comes to Canon. And bottom line the IQ of the 40D leaves the D200 in the dust (can you say usuable ISO's over 400 and 14 bit imaging?)
MIke
· 1 year ago
Oh, and the old "better ergonomics" argument gets old quick. I've tried a D200, didn't like the feel, the backward focus ring and EC, and severe button clutter (patented by Nikon) ;)
RB-digital
· 1 year ago
today a lady walked in with a 40d into my work and i told her politley that i had the comperable nikon a d200..anbd she laughed and said "thats not what my teacher said" ..so i googled to comparison even tho i beat it to death when i purchased the camera just to look at what her "teacher" could have been talkin about...so a 4od wont power a wireless flash unles u buy a remote/controller? that flat sucks..i bought a sb800 flash and this has been so fun experimenting.no extras need the 400 dollar flash is tough enough.so if somebody wanted to trade a 40d for my d200..thats a major issue..to me photagraphy is lighting..and if i cant produce light the way i want for the same money than it is insuffecient..i got no beef with cannon..just seems like there customers are snoooody..but hey ..try tellin a mexican a chevy sucks and see what happens?a fat man once told me something prolific.."people buy what they like..and they like what they buy"..so find one person who has switched to nikon who regrets it..or visa versa..its very tough
All Comments
Thanks for commenting.
I think it is very clear from the post that Canon 40D was in catch up mode for many features compared to D200. The Nikon D200 and Canon 40D were the best in DX format before D300 came out so it is very natural to compare them. In fact, I got tons of search hits from people who are comparing them.
Many people think image quality is the ultimate gauge of a camera. However this really depends on what people are using the camera for and how they are going to use it. I think Nikon excel at making cameras a better tool to help users to get the shots. This probably is the result of Nikon's deeper root in film photography.
The image quality from D200 is also very respectable by all means and the difference is minuscule. Most noted the high iso noise performance. However ISO noise performance is not equal to image quality because people use the camera at all kinds of situations. If you consider the better white balance and better flash photography from Nikon, which has been the case traditionally, the image qualify from D200 is not always worse than 40D.
Thanks.
Max
People at the sporting events with white lenses are probably not using the 40D but the professional models such as 1D Mark II N, or Mark III, etc. Nikon recently released the D3 and many high caliber lenses with AFS-VR. Even through they are still black, I am sure they can compete with Canon's.
Max
Good shooting everybody!
(Canon 40D with EF 70-200 f4 L IS, 30D with EF-S 17-85 IS)
There is no way in hell I would buy the ancient, lagging D200 when I could get the 40D. I like how "High ISO NR" is included in the list of catch up features. All of Canon's SLR's have blown away the D200, and even Nikons flagship pro cameras for years when it comes to ISO performance. This is a joke.
"Blinking highlight alert and focus point display in playback"?! Are you kidding me? That's been around since the 20D.
It's pretty obvious the writer is biased to Nikon and clueless when it comes to Canon. And bottom line the IQ of the 40D leaves the D200 in the dust (can you say usuable ISO's over 400 and 14 bit imaging?)
http://digital-photographyblog.blogspot.com/200...