Was out using the D200 today and I am a Canon user. I'd have no
trouble getting used to it although it has some aspects that irritate
- the procedure for zooming the LCD image is clever but not
convenient, for instance. Walt is correct - it's what you learn to
love and when you've spent a couple of thousand, you tend to love
what you've got. I like the build quality and the way it 'hooks' on
to my hand.
My cousin who is far more critical than I has shot it against the 5D
in the last fortnight. He is a Nikon user of long standing. He says
that the Nikon is slightly better resolution than the Canon at
100-200 ISO but not much in it and more a question of 'feel' - as I
said, I liked the skin tones I got with the D200. However, the Canon
is still better than the Nikon at 400+ ISO in resolution and noise
performance.
So - it comes down to what you want to do and what you like. The D200
will certainly outperform the 20D except in price - but that's unfair
comparison..
AndrewF
On 14/03/2006, at 11:04 AM, Bernard Frangoulis wrote:
>> Nah. I think the D200 is a significantly better camera than either
>> one of them and there is very little difference in the resolution.
>> Check the review at dpreview of the D200.
>>
> Yes, I did, and I'm very interested in the D200 (couldn't handle
> one in a shop yet, though). This is why I was surprised at Tom
> saying that today he would choose a 20D or 5D. The 5D, I can
> understand. The 20D over the D200 is more surprising to me. But I
> am still very uncertain about all this... The only thing I know is
> that I am very skeptical at the direction Oly seems to be taking ;-)
>
> Bernard
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|