Hi all - first post to this forum.

Well, I'm about to take the plunge, but I don't want to make a decision now that I'll regret for years to come. Here are my thoughts - any advice would be much appreciated.

I have been a photographer for about 30 years, both with 35mm (currently a Nikon F100 along with standard zoom) and medium format (Kowa Super 66 and a range of primes). I take mainly landscapes, but also some reportage (for a local newspaper).

So what should I go for? I know that each side will have its champions but let's hear those opinions! I'm looking to buy a mid range DSLR, and have been looking at the Canon EOS 20D (soon to be replaced I believe - 21 February?), the Nikon D200 and also the Fuji S3 Pro. I'd love to go for the EOS 5D but it's just too expensive as I have to buy a lens too.

Also lenses - until I decide on a system I'm bewildered by the range of lenses out there and also by the varying reviews some favourable, some not. What I'd like (and I suppose wouldn't we all...) is a general purpose zoom in the 35mm equivalent of 28 - 100 with reasonably good optics, with most of the use probably being at the wider end.

Total budget is around £1,600 and I have to try to include a 1gb memory card in that as well.

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated.

I just bought a D200 as my first digital body 2 weeks ago & it is a very easy migration from the F100. (My film body as well) The D200 is thicker than the F100, so it may seem a bit big when you first take hold of it. I became accustomed to the new feel quickly. You will appreciate how similar the control layout is to the F100. Plus your lenses will mount!

I am pleased so far -- I was shooting in a bar last week using all existing light & a 50/1.4 - very happy with how the camera responds in low light. Auto-focus is lightning fast & image quality is excellent. I haven't done a lot of outdoor shooting yet, but I am heading out on vacation next week, so we will see.

Please let me know if you would like some image samples -- I will send them to you offline.

Happy shooting!

-JMK

Hi Frere Jacques, and thanks for that. I'd be delighted to hear more once you've tried a landscape or two, and a sample pic would be great in due course. Did you do a lot of research before you decided? Maybe you already had several Nikon lenses? I only have the one lens for the Nikon so I'm not that worried about changing to Canon if that would be for the best.

Image quality is more important to me than bells and whistles - for most of my work I'll probably use the camera in manual mode anyway, and I'm usually not in a hurry.

Since you already have Nikon lens, it's easy to recommend that you stay with the Nikon lens mount when selecting a DSLR body. As to the choice between the D200 and the Fuji S3, especially for your reportage uses, that's easy too. Go with the D200. We have used the S2 for years, and tried upgrading to the S3, but abandoned it quickly. Frame rate and buffer size are severely limiting for such shooting, especially when you start using the largest photos. Compare the frame rate and buffer with the D200, and you will sell yourself on the difference.

Is the nikon lens is one that you care about keeping?

If not I would wait for the 20D replacement next week. See what that is about before making any decisions.

The upshot of the 20D (presumably after next week) is that you should be able to get one VERY cheap.

(The D200 is also very nice. Certainly the best camera under $2000.)

Given what you want, I'd recommend one of the following lenses if you choose the D200:

Nikon's 18-70mm DX (equiv. to 27-105mm), at $300 US (sorry, I don't know the price in the UK); it's very-good-to-excellent quality, a real bargain (because the reduced-frame DX lenses are cheaper to produce than full-frame lenses).

If you have more money and want to splurge for something better, Nikon's new 18-200mm DX VR (equiv. to 27-300 mm). About the same quality as the previous lens, but longer zoom range and vibration reduction to boot. It's about $700 in the US, however.

Either will be lighter and more compact than their Canon equivalents, too, since they're reduced-frame, so they can be smaller.

I have both.

Lisa

Thanks all for your excellent replies. I think I'm going to hang on to see what Canon reveal next week as the successor to the 20D and then decide on that or the Nikon D200. Once I've decided on one or the other, maybe I could come back to you to talk lenses again...

LOL! Did I ever do reasearch! I bugged my girlfriend for about a year and a half before I finally bought a camera. (At one point she ws actually encouraging me to by the D2X, I think just to get me to shut up!!!) I was very seriously considering a D2X, but in the end I just could not justify the expense. I looked at the 20D when it came out, but I really did not like the way it felt in my hand. Ditto for the D70. Both are just too small for me. I only had 2 Nikkor lenses (24-85/3.5-4.5 & 50/1.4) -- I was not heavily invested in Nikon, so I kept my options open. I was really, REALLY tempted by the 5D when it hit. The only negatives in the press seem to be the lack of weather sealing & prehaps a bit of 'under-build' for the price Canon is asking. I held that one too. It was better than the 20D, but it still felt wrong on my hand. Shortly after that, the rumors of the D200 started to swirl, so I decided to wait. I handled the D200 shortly after it was released and knew the feel was right -- very like the F100, very 'Nikon'. The European press has been very enthusiastic about the camera, so I made the plunge. NOW, I am heavily invested in Nikon -- I picked up the 17-35 at Christmas when I was back in the States & will probably replace the 24-85 this year with something with a constant aperture & and IF. And I am hoping Nikon will bring out a 35mm DX...I like that focal length & it would be nice to have a new, inconspicuous wide angle for street shooting.

The S3 was never in the running -- the press on it was not very good -- nor was the Canon 350D. All of the Sony shooters I know are looking to move up to Canon or Nikon, so they were out. Unfortunately, I know nothing about Pentax, Minolta or Olympus cameras and don't have the time to learn. What struck me as odd about the Canon world are the lenses, or perhaps the lack of lenses for their full-frame DSLR -- people seem to be buying Leica, Zeiss and Nikon glass to put on these cameras. I am surprised Canon has not stepped up here and I am sure they will correct this in the near future.

In your budget range & your previous shooting experience, I think the D200 would be an excellent choice. You should be able to pick up the body for about 1100 quid (they are about 1800 euros on the continent), leaving you 500 to play around with for a lens. I would bet that the D200 kits with the 17-55 are around 1800 or 1900 pounds. (FYI, kits seems to be more readily available than the body only.) The 5D will probably 1600 to 1700 for the body.

Final point, at this level of camera, you will not make a bad choice either way you go. The D200 & the 5D both produce outstanding images, which in the end is all that really matters.

Good luck and please post additional questions if you have them!

Great post - thanks! Wish my good lady would encourage ME to buy the D2X just to get me to shut up!!!

I read about some issue with 'striping' of images with the D200 which Nikon were addressing - is that all ancient history now?

Look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021101...d200banding.asp

Hopefully it is taken care of now!

Yes, the D200 is supposed to has serious banding issues. Don't know if it's been fixed by now or not, if so that's one dang appealing camera.

By all accounts the issue is way overblown. Not that many cameras and nikon is fixing those that do have an issue.

That's good to hear, I'm not a Nikon fan, but I would hate to see such a product shelved because of soemthing like that.

I'm not going to let the banding issue worry me too much - I'm leaning towards the D200 unless Canon reveal something really special next week. The weather sealing on the D200 is a significant advantage where I live (Highlands of Scotland) - seems to me the Canon 5D should have weather sealing too given the price. Let's see what Canon come up with as a replacement for the 20D.

Now this might get some people upset but I heard from a pro photographer friend of mine that Canon lenses are/were better than Nikon lenses generally (I'm going to take cover now!). Any truth in this? Or maybe that was just his bias?

there are others who are far better suited to answer than I, but Nikon is usually reputed to have nicer wide angles and canon is reputed to have better long telephotos.

Both Canon & Nikon have a wide range of lenses, from crap to stellar. (And my impression from what I've read about lenses echoes macgyver's comment, but keep in mind that these are generalities.) Just choose your particular lenses carefully, and you won't go wrong with either.

Lisa

Don't worry, this aien't DPreview, no "go away troll" here...

The only objective source of information I know of for lenses are the scientific tests done by the french magazine Chasseur d'Image.

Based on what I saw there, I'd say that Canon and Nikon are overall very close.

Canon has overall the lead in terms of features since they have a bit more IS lenses as well as a better line up for T/S lenses.

As far as quality goes:

On digital bodies, it seems that the DX wide nikkors zooms behave better than the wide canons on the FF sensors.

Canon L transtandards (24-70 or 28-70) appear to be better than their Nikon counterparts, but their offering is a bit weak for small sensors.

As far as long lenses are concerned, the recent Nikkor VR long lenses (Nikkors 200 f2.0, new 300 f2.8 and 200-400f4) appear to be best in class, while Canon has a slight edge for the other big guns. Either way, I wonder if those tiny differences really show in images...

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm upset. Very very upset. I can see that this relationship is not going to work if you carry on like that. Humph.

Anyway, now that we've got that over with, I'm sure each manufacturer has gems that the other lacks.

Anyway, whichever side you pick, the grass on the other side will always appear greener. But remember, it's greener because there's more manure.

You're forgetting Photodo, with the caveat that it's several years since the last lens tests there.

Basing judgments largely on lens options makes a lot of sense to me: at similar prices, lens options seem to vary far more than the performance of DSLR bodies themselves.

If you have Nikon lenses at longer focal lengths that you would like to keep in use, it would seem mostly to be a matter of choosing between DX mount options. If you would like the speed of the 17-55 f/2.8 DX but not the price, there are some third party options that might be worth looking at, like the newly announced Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2006/news0215.html
and a Sigma 17-50/2.8 that has been around for a while.
Those third party lenses also fill a speed gap for Canon EF-S mount bodies, where Canon's own standard zooms limit you to f/4-5.6 (but with stabilization in the 17-85).

One possible downside to all these "17-55" type lenses is that no-one yet offers a comparably good and fast telephoto zoom that carries on from 50 or 55mm: the choices so far are either slow entry level f/4.5-6 zooms, or ones that start at 70mm.

My personal favorite "digital format standard zoom lens" is none of the above: the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 in 4/3 format, which is a 25-100mm FOV equivalent for me, because I mostly use print shapes like 8"x10" and 8 1/2"x11" and for those, the "4/3 to 35mm format factor" is 1.8x, not 2x. And there is a nice 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 telephoto zoom to go with it. However, if you seek performance like more than 3fps or more than 8MP, Olympus offers nothing yet.

Given your interest in the wide angle end of the standard zoom, do your needs go wider too, and if so, have you compared options like the 12-24mm f/4 DX and Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? (Or even the Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5?)

Well, for better or worse, I made my choice! I've ordered a Nikon D200 with the new 18-200 lens. Only thing is the waiting time is 6 - 8 weeks

Good choice! I just received my D200 a couple of weeks ago (ordered mid-December), put my new 18-200 on it, and have been loving it!

Lisa

P.S. No banding problems as of yet...

Nikon, Canon, Leica, Mamiya, Pentax....... whatever!

Go to the largest camera store near you and ask if they rent gear. Rent it, both, or all and take it, both or them out and shoot the stuff! In these forums, a thousand people will give you their opinions about everything under the sun.... and in the end, only one matters. It's your eyes... let them decide.

Then go buy a D200... (HUGE FREAKIN' SMIRK!!! Sorry just couldn't resist!)

What about a bridge ?
There's several offers with 28-200 lenses, 8 to 10 Mpix.
There are more compact than a DSLR with optic and lighter, far cheaper, some come with an efficient stabilizer, you dont't have to worry about dust inside (when in a Kenyan safari, or at the beach..).
The problem of bridges are quite often: More noise than with a bigger lens, and flash range is limited, but for a dayly use, they are perfect.