The Canon 5D versus the Nikon D200. I know, I know. These cameras aren't intended to compete head-to-head in the marketplace. And yet this is how it seems to break down for me.
I'm looking for a good DSLR. I probably can't go wrong with either one.
I want sharp photography at a high resolution. I also think I'm going to be combining my photography with photorealistic 3D CG (probably from the Maxwell Renderer), so I think that as much as I like the look of shallow depth-of-field, I will, in practice, need deeper DOF. The smaller sensor of the Nikon lends itself to deeper DOF.
But I want to take some moody photographs in baroque, theatrical lighting conditions and combine them with 3D. For that reason, I like the low noise at high ISO characteristics of the Canon 5D.
But the Nikon D200 is half the price.
But the Canon shoots at over 12 megapixels, which is over the magic number (for me) of 4096 pixels wide. Why do I care about 4096 pixels? It's probably just a fetish, but when I used to create 8x10 transparencies of computer graphics for print, 4096 pixels was always the recommended resolution for the 10" dimension. 4096 pixels is also a minimum width for some large movie formats. As a visual effects practitioner I'm sometimes called upon to produce large format work, so for texture maps or backgrounds I like the megapixels.
But at 10.2 MP the Nikon d200 is pretty high resolution, too, and it's half the price. Plus it's got a sturdy build and better weather sealing from what I understand.
But the Canon 5D shoots full frame. Canon has great lenses, and Canon is a monster company on the rise. If they are pushing FF, it probably has a future. Plus the weather sealing is plenty good enough.
But the Nikon D200 has lighter lenses, and the smaller sensor uses the sweet spot of the lens, cropping off the dark, blurry corners.
But the Canon L glass is good, and Photoshop can correct the darkish corners of some pictures that will arise with some lenses at some apertures.
But the Nikon d200 has great lenses too, and more in development. And did I mention the D200 body is half the price?
But the Canon 5D is on shelves now.
But the Nikon D200 soon will be.
ADDITIONAL LINKS
Nikon D200 Review Roundup from Digital Camera Tracker
Canon EOS 5D Review Roundup from Digital Camera Tracker
Nikonians.org thread comparing the two (Nikon-oriented, of course)
Japanese site with similar (virtually side-by-side) photos taken first from the Nikon D200 and then the Canon 5D. It looks like the Canon performs with lower noise at high ISO's. Commentary on this comparison from a Nikon perspective here.
UPDATE 12/25/05
. . . and we have a winner.
UPDATE 1/15/2006
Nikon D200 Digital Camera Reviewed by Bjørn Rørslett
UPDATE 2/11/2006
Rumors are starting to emerge that the next Canon camera is the Canon EOS 35D
UPDATE 10/9/2006
The original math I did was this: Canon 5D at $3300? Or Nikon D200 at $1700? - 85% of the camera for half the price. The real question to ask - once you've spent a bunch on lenses and lights - is, "Do I want to spend $10000 on photography or $11700 on photography?"
A winner! I'm working on convincing my wife I 'need' a D200 this year. In 2005/2004/2003 it might have been the Canon flavor of the week, but the D200 really closed the gap. Now get yourself one of Nikon's fantastic 18-200 zooms...
Man, I KNOW what you are going through.
I have been a Nikon user since 1976, and though I only have two Nikon lenses worth using on a digital camera, (I own a Fuji S2 now), I have been CRAVING a FF D-SLR because i love fast Wide lenses.
The Nikon 12-24 is nice.... but certainly NOT fast.
Plus, when i travel for my workshops, i lovoe to shoot indoors and in dark churches, so noise has been a huge issue.
I pray that DpReview does an "in-depth" on the D200 so i can really make a good comparison.
I can handle the cost difference if the 5D is a sure bet winner, but that corner/sweet-spot issue has some merit. yeah, and Canon certainly does have an edge for the future but i sure love the Nikon VR glass more than the rented IS Canons I have tried.
Gawd, why does life have to be so full of decisions?
Thanks for stopping by, David.
Your web site http://www.davidjulian.com/ looks interesting.
Thanks for the lens recommendation, Mark. What do you make of this Nikon D200 banding issue?
I'm experienceing some.
I had the same dilemma. Ended up with the D200 because I liked the feel and the flash system (and price) better. I do think that the Canon takes slightly better pictures - especially at high magnifications and low light. But, it is a lot more pricey and, frankly, I don't think I'll ever see the (resolution) differences in print (except possibly if I take lots of high school basketball pictures in a poorly lit gym). Bottom line - I don't think you can go wrong with either one.
Hi. I'm quite late on board this dicsussion, and by now, surely most of you have made your choices between the D2 and the 5D. In short, I've had exactly the same dilemma, only by mid 2006 there are hundreds more blogs and reviews through which I've surfed. Buying in South Africa (where I live) makes for an even more difficult decision (exchange rates!).
So what was my choice after all said and done: Canon 5D with the 24-105 USM IS L-series kit lens. And of course a range of accessories to sweeten the deal. Satisfied? Most definitely.
I'd swop a built-in flash for f/f sensor and high speed wide-angle lenses any day. The digital workflow on the camera is superb. Not the highest frame rate on continuous shooting, so action photographers take care. I could go on...
To agree with Joseph however, I doubt you'll shed any tears with either of these DSLRs.