d200 or canon 5d
Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:09 AM
Trying to get the most bang for my buck. I was shooting with a C-8080 and want to upgrade to a dslr.
thoughts? recommendations? previous suggestions between the olympus e50 and d200 appreciated
Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:21 AM
If it is bang for the buck that you want, at half the price, I say the D200 is the better choice. The resolution will be very similar, and the D200's body is better than the 5D in many ways, although many that are not very important for those that shoot mostly underwater.
Now, if you want excellent (as opposed to only good) high ISO performance and the other advantages the 5D's full frame sensor brings, then the 5D is a better choice.
Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:26 AM
IMO (although I have shot neither) the 5D is a better camera than the D200. While it is more expensive**, the difference in cost is smaller than it seems when you consider the whole system. For UW shooting both have a good selection of lenses. If you can afford it, I would suggest you go with the 5D (but only if the more expensive body did not mean compromising on housing quality).
(**One of the best guides to how good a particular camera is is its price!)
Overall I think new users can get too worried about the relative abilities of different cameras - scared to commit to a camera in the fear of making a wrong choice.
It is easy to be misled by forums, where people (like me!) debate and magnify small differences between cameras. In the end there are very few lemons in the major brands, and even cameras that many consider obsolete are producing excellent images that stand up at the highest level (e.g. Canon D60 and Nikon D100).
As I say periodically on Wetpixel, the quality of any photographers images will improve much faster by buying a camera, getting it underwater and shooting. Than sitting on the fence and worrying. There is far more variation in photographer skill and technique than there is between the major DSLRs.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 06:54 AM
Given that both cameras will be good, try handling both them and their housing when available. You won't be disappointed with either.
Posted 20 December 2005 - 05:06 PM
Now that i have deside that i need a better camera that the Nikon d70 i have naturaly thinking the next step is the D200
but for the last days i have read a lot about the canon 5D and what i can say.. its look really a great camera... in the papers..
Low noice in high isos
ful frame sensor, a 15mm sigma will give 180 degress ..
Resolution that is higher that the d2X prints bigger that A3 not a problem att all.
but on real world UW photography does it matter??
The only thing that i dont know is the Autofocus quality of the 5D iff you compare it with the d200 or d2X
The camera is very small (Hope the new housings to) the design is not as good as Nikon, very old but if you use the camera underwater its dosent matter how the camera look..
General i say I love the quality off the photos. I still not belive how a photo that is 1600 iSO have almost Zero noice...
on the other side is Nikon d200 a product that have hiden qualitys..
as a Nikon user and fan I dont like to write more ;-)
You can read a nice comparion at
and one more
Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:06 PM
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org
Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:18 PM
About the D200 vs. 5D, if you want high ISO there is no question about it. The 5D (or even the 20D) is far better than any Nikon. Now, based on Alex' and some of my observations, I know that Nikon's AF (even the D70) usually performs better than Canon's in low light, but all my comparisons were with the 10D and 20D. When I was in Belize a friend of mine had a 20D in an Ikelite housing and he couldn't take a single picture of the hamlets spawning because the camera wouldn't focus and he had no focus light. I photographed the entire spawning and usually kept taking pictures for 10-15 minutes after it, also without focus light.
But again, I think the problem you are facing with freedivers is the lack of contrast, not low light, so I guess the only way to really test it is by using the camera. Hey, a ticket from Europe to Florida is only about 500 euros in low season. Come visit Ryan (or William - acroporas) and rent (or borrow) a 5D and some free divers...
Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.
Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:21 PM
Don't be confused by the techno writers.....just do it
Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:32 PM
I eally love to visit florida and especialy if I can borrow soem freedivers any better :-)
I think its time that we make a trip all together..... it will be a hell of a trip.
about canon versus nikon- it is really hard to compare those so different products. The philosophy behind the companies anre so different that is almost imposible to do it..
AF system is for me the nikon beter its just work .
Low isos and low noice is canon the king..
Resolution i think its dosent matter we are on the limit anyway...
the DX facror versus full frame .. man its big but i like the dx factor of nikon. small lenses, great optics and sharp to the corners..Canon have some isues with it...
then is the price... 1600 euros to 3000 euros its almost the double her in Sweden.
Its a long discussion and we will never find the aswer.
Its like BMW versus Mercedes, Katlolics versus Orhtodoxs, Kapitalismus vs. Kommunismus.... endless dicsussions...
Posted 20 December 2005 - 08:12 PM
I am not confused :-) maybe my english is not that good.
i wa always a nikon user and i just feel confortable with Nikon. I have my lenses that I have used and are O.k. and i will stay with nikon
I just see that canon have some great funtions that i miss on my nikons but that is not the reason enough to go with it.
you newer live you wife only becauce you have se one day a woman with great legs...:-) and please dont comment this....
Posted 20 December 2005 - 08:39 PM
The 5D is an awesome camera. I don't see the D200 besting the 5D in any category. But it will be very close in every category and at half of the price the IMO the D200 is a much better deal.
But then, you have not been using your D70 for all that long. Are you sure you need to upgrade at all so soon?
Canon 5D Ikelite Housing and strobes
15FE | 24/2.8 | 35/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 150/2.8 macro
Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:03 PM
Anyway, I ended up with the 5D due in large part to my investment in EF lenses (I avoided purchasing EF-S lenses with the assuption I would go FF eventually). I don't regret the purchase at all.
I am envious of the D200's weather sealing and ergonomics. However, even if I was to start over, I would still go with the 5D based on image quality alone.
Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:44 PM
For a free diver like you, I think good high ISO performance is a big deal since you are shooting without strobes. If you stack two of Alex's magic filters and shoot at 25m depth at ISO 1600, you'll get much better results with the 5D than you would with a D200.
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro
Posted 20 December 2005 - 11:35 PM
I played with D200 quite a bit over the past month and I also had a chance to play a bit with 5D in the same setting ( my Nikon source believed in "knowing all your enemies well" ) and I have to say that if I am starting from scratch, I would go with D200 only because of the price. D200 body is better and for me, shooting mostly at iso100-200, I don't think I would notice significant difference in image quality. However if I know I am going to shoot iso800-1600 a lot, I would think the extra cost of the 5D is worthwhile.
I am not particularly concerned about cropped vs FF. If Alex thinks that 10.5mm DX is better than Nikkor 16mm fisheye lens then I am in a wide angle happy camper with DX cropped sensor and don't miss or care much about FF one way or another.
Posted 21 December 2005 - 02:04 AM
When making a choice between the 5D and D200 you can actually think in terms of 35mm vs 645 (medium format). The more I use the FF Canons, the more I realise that they have more in common with a 645 camera - in terms of the depth of field issues and stunning bokeh of some lenses - than 35mm. Whilst the MPixels are similar, the overall image quality is slightly different. I personally now prefer the Canon as it has opened up new avenues to explore in terms of image creation. To my mind the Nikon's very effectively mimick 35mm and have all the advantages that this brings, but do not produce the smoothness of backgrounds that the Canon is capable of. Costing any system should always be done based on the whole system not just a camera body as 'peripherals' can immensely increase costs!
Posted 21 December 2005 - 03:17 AM
I think noise is becoming as much of an obsession as MP have been. Truth is, I add noise more often than I remove it these days!
Paul's point is well taken in that there are other differences between FF and DX that must be taken into consideration.
Sea & Sea strobes
Posted 21 December 2005 - 03:40 AM
I have not played with the D200. But on paper I think it would be a better UW camera choice than the D2X. The D200 AF is good, and the viewfinder too. The image quality is very close to the D2X 10 vs 12MP is very similar. And it costs many thousands $$$ less to flood. Plus housings are smaller and will almost certainly be cheaper too. Also many of the D2X features such as build quality, HSC, vertical grip and shutter aren't any use underwater.
Regarding the 5D vs the D200 - I think that neither are ideal starter cameras and therefore what you already own will be the main decision point between them. If you don't already own a Canon or Nikon for UW photography, then I think you are more likely to be deciding between a 350D and D70s.
Posted 21 December 2005 - 05:20 AM
The choice of a camera is very personal and have to do with the way you are taking photos.
I use my camera only for UW photos.. Landphotos are not my think..
anf therefore features that improve the shooting over water are not intresting for me.
William ask me... you have not been using your D70 for all that long. Are you sure you need to upgrade at all so soon
William you are right. Off cource I dont need to upgrade at all so soon.
but I need a second camera body and I dont like to spend my monay to a new D70s
But i know the limits of my D70s.
The d70s is not for freediving photography the perfect camera.
its the noice and ISOS that i compination with filterphotography and White balance can be a problem.
The D200 have something very intresting for me and my way to take photos.
If you take photos with A priority you can set you camera to increase the Iso automaticly if the shutter is going slower that say 1/125.
In a swedish forum they have dome some test and i just show you the results
Resultat is that the d200 control better the highlights. (I thing it is like the d2X , they just clip the highlights.)
The color is diferent i think that the d200 have they same way to process the colors like the D2X .
then you have less chromatic abberation, soemthing that i have offen in my photos
and some more photos
D200 + DX 17-55mm
D200 + DX VR2 18-200mm
D2X + DX VR2 18-200mm
D2X + DX 17-55mm
If i would use the camera both on Land and in Water I would not think the same way...
Posted 21 December 2005 - 07:08 AM
I usually use the DPReview noise comparisons to check on how cameras behave at various ISOs. The differences in detail retention can be dramatic.
Everyone is correct though... you really can't go wrong with either camera. If I had a D100 I would jump on the D200 in a heartbeat. If I had a D70... well the decision would be a bit tougher. The D70 is already a pretty good camera.