d200 or canon 5d
Posted 21 December 2005 - 07:04 PM
Aquatica will have the 5D housing by the end of January and the D200 housing by end of March.
Both will have many new features found in the flagship D2x housing and will be state of the art, small and very affordable.
I dont think that housing release dates will affect the decision on getting either one of these high end cameras unless you are a professional and have a real pressing deadline requirement.
Either camera/housing will be a good tool.
I continue to be a strong advocate of learning photography, lighting, aperture, speed, composition multiple light sources and other wonderful things that truly make up creative image making.
Get either camera (spend more or spend less) , then go out there and make some images.
Take a workshop (hint hint) and seize the day!
To all at wetpixel
Have a great Christmas!
Photo Workshops & expeditions/ Housing Sales & Support
Posted 23 December 2005 - 09:20 AM
When I looked at the pictures taken by the 5D and the D2X in the link posted by the Q, I'm a bit in shock as far as image quality is concerned, the D2X does not look good compare to the 5D. Is just the size of the image, the lens used or else? Can someone enlighten me?
Posted 23 December 2005 - 11:04 AM
The same lens is used on the ISO 100 as the higher ISO shots. The image degrades at higher ISO due to noise reduction processing by the camera.
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro
Posted 23 December 2005 - 01:34 PM
if you compare at the same ISO, let's say 200 or 400. The canon pictures look better to me, more "finesse" of details. I understand that the canon is better than the nikon at high ISO but at low ISO I thought the image quality was similar between canon and nikon, but it does not look like it in that test. The lens is 50mm for all but different brands, that is why I was wondering if it could be that the 50mm canon is better than the 50 mm Nikon, just a though or something else or may be it is my eyes, LOL !!!
Posted 23 December 2005 - 01:45 PM
Offen sylvie you will se that point and shoot cameras photos are have more vivid colors and are sharper
The if you see my Nikon DSLR for the first time you think that the photos are not sharp att all.
But that say nothing....
Then dont forget that you compare 2 different cameras. Difernet on price and company philosophy...
I to think that canon have better quality when I look at dpreview. maybe becauce of the full sensor
that make the pixels not so compact ( i cant describe it somebody help)
You dont buy a UW camera just becauce she is better in Quality.. many other aspects are to important...
Posted 23 December 2005 - 04:20 PM
Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.
Posted 23 December 2005 - 07:35 PM
Posted 24 December 2005 - 05:56 AM
Canon 5D Ikelite Housing and strobes
15FE | 24/2.8 | 35/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 150/2.8 macro
Posted 24 December 2005 - 06:08 AM
Canon EOS 5D vs. EOS-1Ds Mark II vs. Nikon D2X
* Canon EOS 5D: Canon 50 mm F1.4 lens, Aperture Priority, Manual WB,
Default Parameters (Standard), JPEG Large / Fine
* Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II: Canon 50 mm F1.4 lens, Aperture Priority, Manual WB,
Sharpness 1, JPEG Large / Fine
* Nikon D2X: Nikkor 50 mm F1.4 lens, Aperture Priority, Manual WB,
Default Parameters, High ISO Noise Reduction 'Normal', JPEG Large / Fine
Same focal length. Default sharpness on the 5D and Sharpness 1 on the 1Ds are stronger than "Normal" sharpness on the D2x. It doesn's say if he achived the same magnification by changing camera-to-subject distance (further on the D2x) or by resizing, both of which would affect reproduction of fine detail.
Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.
Posted 24 December 2005 - 06:26 AM
on her majesty's face comparison, D2X was set at normal sharpening which would make the D2X a bit softer. I also think that D1S MKII and 5D was shown at higher magnification as the D2X picture has more dead space in front and more hair in the back of the face, more vertical space so to be fair, I think they should have shown the picture at exactly the same scale with equavalent sharpening level.
Canon picture also does look a bit brighter but that's also because the true ISO level on Canon is about 25% higher according to the chart (I assume that is the case, dpreview only listed 1/200s at iso 200, both camera in aparture priority so presumably same aparture and shutterspeed was used for the same camera iso setting).
I also thought that the conclusion as far as resolution is concerned is that they were all pretty much similar, give or take a bit here and there.
I think as far as sensor goes, I would be very happy with any of these cameras.
Posted 24 December 2005 - 07:23 AM
Posted 24 December 2005 - 09:24 AM
The real differences lie in the perception of the photographer towards the cameras and how they will fulfill his/her requirements. Underwater this may still be a bit academic as it is the housing which dictates usability, but nevertheless such variations between manufacturer's products, such as lens type and availablity may well be more important here. I have said before (and no doubt will do again) that I like the Canon 1DS because it fulfills my requirements - not because it is better than as D2X, D200 or 5D.
One of my real irritations with the web is the plethora of comparisons and 'which is best' comments. Whilst these can be valid, often they are not and are simply gassing off. As Alex aptly pointed out neither the 5D nor D200 is an ideal starter camera - both are like a sports car and not ideal for an inexperienced driver.
Posted 02 January 2006 - 08:20 AM
I am following the discussion 5D vs. D200 with great interest and will hopefully be able to purchase one of the two next year
One of the reasons I waited for so long buying into dSLR was the crop-factor and the lack of real wide angle lenses. This, of course, is not a real problem nowadays with Nikon's really nice 10.5mm lenses and the upcome of designated crop-factor lenses. On the other hand it makes the decision somewhat harder for me (my reasoning was to wait for a full frame sensor to be able to use the wide end to its full potential). I was tending towards the 5D (the FF was always such a lure for me) but the D200 is also a very nice alternative. Since I don't have any investement in exisiting lenses, I am "free" to decide what I want (bummer). Unfortunately, I am also not a believer in "brand loyalty" and usually go instead by with what's best at the time. This really doesn't help in deciding for one system or the other.
As many others have already stated, there are now more important factors than just the sensor - and that's where I would really appreciate some good advice.
I will use the camera mostly for underwater and that's where the other points come into consideration:
-- viewfinder: I always thought that FF would be the best for UW because of the size of the VF and cropped sensor cameras really lack in this respect. The D200 seems to be very close in terms of dimensions and I don't know if there is really so much difference left.
-- ergonomics: which system is better suited for UW? In terms of button placements, direct access to essential functions etc. Which camera will have more/better features?
-- 2nd curtain sync (something I would love to toy with)
-- compatibility to strobes (I especially like the Inon strobes and would love to keep my Z220. If the camera would support the focus laser - now that would be something).
-- TTL compatibility: I know a lot of people will do manual, but I think that it shouldn;t be such a problem to support the protocols properly. Which camera system is more likely to be supported (either natively or via adapter)?
-- picture quality and details
-- Autofocus and focus tracking. Which of the two systems would be better suited for, say the famous coming right at you or the seal zipping in and out?
-- dynamic range: I thought that the FF sensor would give a real boos in DR, but from looking at some tests, it doesn't seem to be that much better. It'd be really nice to get these sunballs without the need of additional tricks and tweaks.
-- reliability: I expect both cameras to hold up a number of years. But there might be something to general build quality and handling that's inherent to the respective system.
-- finally price and investment: The 5D is more than twice as expensive as the D200. However, I am considering this as a long time investment (I don't think I will be able to make a huge amount of money from my pictures but I LOVE being under water and taking them. I also really like my daytime job (ha - who can say that??) and don't want to give it up either) and am willing to put alot of time and effort into learning how to handle and use the system (I am not easily put off by failure and since this will be my first dSLR - NOT my first UW system - I fully expect to have a long and hard learning experience ). If I decide for the 5D and it means the lenses are more expensive (housing and ports of course as well), then I will just slowly get into it, learning how to use each lens properly, find it's limits and generally wait a year or so until I can convince myself to get another one. Of course if I can afford several lenses with the D200 from start, I would not complain and just have to get into the water more often
So what it boils down to is what camera would be the better UW system? Which camera will take the better pictures (I know that 90% of the picture will be in my hands, but it certainly helps if the camera provides the last 10%) in terms of color, clarity, detail, etc?
Or does it really not matter that much and the housing and its support are much more cucial?
This has been a rather long post, but for someone like me who's sitting on the fence trying to make up his mind which system to get (no matter what, it'll be a real chunk of money I have to part from) it's rather painful to decide and getting some sound advice would really help.
Thanks and happy new year to all of you!