Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2006, 2:06 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105

Just thought of sharing something i read today


not a troll..so please forgive if this hurts anyones sentiments. It was an interessting read and just wanted to share

nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 14, 2006, 3:09 AM   #2
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

Why would that hurt anyone's feelings?

It's a pretty obvious conclusion, the Nikon is the better camera, the 5D has the better image quality. If you deduct the cost of the sensor from the two cameras you're paying quite a lot more for the D200, so that makes sense.

The only thing that strikes me as odd is how much emphasis they seem to place on the 5fps v 3fps as a 'major' advantage for the D200.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 10:57 AM   #3
Senior Member
AlpineMan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357

Well...as Andre Agassi has said, "Image is everything". :blah:
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 11:22 AM   #4
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529


I agree with your assessment. But with regards to frame rate - it depends on what you shoot. I've shot sports with a 3fps camera and a 5fps camera - the extra fps are indeed a huge bonus for me as a sports shooter. The 8.3 fps of the 1 series would be even better. it's not so much needing to capture 20 shots as it is needing to capture 2-3 shots with shorter lag time in between.

But, for people not interested in action photography I would agree - it's not a bid deal.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 2:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

And the 5D is absolutely *not* a camera aimed at the "action" market.

I haven't read the comparison yet but I think they really should compare the 30D to the D200... they seem like they're really targeted at the same market.

But if they do a good job covering the features then its still worth reading - even with an odd pair of cameras to compare.


ps. Just noticed that they thought about this issue and had the same thought I did. That the guts of the 30D are really the same as the 20D... which makes it older tech (over a year.) Is it really fare to compare an older Canon body against the latest Nikon? Probably not.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:21 AM.