Who cares about equipment? It’s the photographer not the camera right?  I agree with that of course – but only partly.

But anyway I’m not debating that issue here… The reason for this post is because through 2006, I was reasonably well known on Pbase for being a Nikon shooter (D200 in particular). Then right at the end of the year I sold up all my gear and lenses (save for a D70 which I still keep) and got a Canon 5D. Since then I’ve been asked by many the reasons why, how the transition has been, would I still recommend the D200, etc. So here’s my summary of the whole C vs N thing.

It’s never easy comparing Nikon and Canon. The two camera companies almost appear to make a deliberate attempt to not compete directly in the various price / feature ranges by staggering each other with adjacent models. I would create the list as follows (in increasing order with respect to both price and capabilities):

-    Nikon D50 / D70s (Entry)
-    Canon 400D (Entry)
-    Nikon D80 ((Entry – Mid)
-    Canon 30D (Mid)
-    Nikon D200 (Mid – Semi Pro)
-    Canon 5D (Pro)
-    Nikon D2Xs (Pro)
-    Canon 1Ds (Pro)

You could divide this into two categories, Entry -> Mid and Mid -> Pro.

Very simply, my take is that I prefer Nikon at the Entry -> Mid range and Canon at the Mid -> Pro range. Nikon typically has better ergonomics (it’s a subjective matter but there are specific things such as ISO levels being displayed in the viewfinder, an integrated on / off button combined with the shutter) and definitely better build quality. Again the latter is partly subjective (I personally find the 400D too small / awkward) but there is plastic feel that Canon cameras have at that range also that is hard to deny.

In terms of image quality, although Canon definitely still holds the low noise / high ISO advantage at the low -> mid range, the gap is starting to become eroded by the D50 and now D80. Beyond that, one of main reasons I still favour Nikon at this level is the consumer lenses they’re building. The 18-135 VR and 18-200 VR are lenses that are so useful for general shooters (travel, walkaround, etc) and there is no equivalent that Canon users can put in their bag.

It’s a close call at that low – mid range, but I’d give the edge to Nikon.

As it gets into the very top end, the edge is clearly with Canon. The (v expensive) 1Ds simply has no comparison in the Nikon range if high end studio work is required. It’s not so much Canon being just better, but more that Nikon can’t even compete head to head. Of course, the 1Ds carries a significant price tag with it also so it’s unfair to compare directly with the D2X. Having said that, the D2X does hold itself very well against the sports shooting 1D – and as many people argue it’s dual mode gives them the megapixels for studio work and a high speed crop for fast moving subjects. If a photographer has a need for sometimes of either, it’s a hard camera to beat.

However, the most interesting comparison in my view is the D200 vs 5D. I’ve shot a few thousand shots with the 5D now and love it. The D200 still holds some advantages though:

-    Lower price
-    Better build quality with environmental sealing
-    Better ergonomics (subjective but there are some definite advantages like permanent ISO display in the viewfinder and more accurate colours / brightness in the LCD)
-    Faster (more fps, faster startup, etc)
-    More accurate metering in difficult lighting situations
-    Faster AF and AF lamp
-    1.5x crop for sports / wildlife / etc
-    Built in flash

So quite a few items still. And it’s unsurprising too when you think about it – the Nikon D200 is probably the most decorated camera of 2006.

However, in favour of the 5D is:
-    At least a stop advantage in terms of noise levels at high ISO. Quite honestly, I’ve been amazed at how good the 5D is in this regards. It’s not just the level of noise that’s lower but also the dynamic range and colour that is better retained in high ISO images on the 5D. Images I could only print to A4 on the D20 which I can print to A3.
-    Shallower DOF at the same aperture (so F/4 on the 5D appears to be equivalent to about F/2.8 on the D200 which gives v nice subject isolation)
-    Better lens choice .The quality of glass in Nikon and Canon is in my opinion, about the same. However, it’s the choice available to Canon users that is so good. For example the 24-105 F/4 IS L is a phenomenal lens that I expect to use for 90% + of my shots. There is nothing in the Nikon range that has the same pro-level quality in such a useful focal range. Also Canon has a much wider selection of prime lenses. 35 f/1.4, 24 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2, etc – these are all faster than the equivalent Nikon’s
-    Full Frame… This provides (in theory) some of the low noise benefits but the main benefit is getting primes at the lengths they were intended. So a $400 50/1.4 is exactly that on the 5D – 50mm at a v fast ISO. There is no choice for the D200 at this focal length (the 35 f/2 is the closest as this is about 50mm when you take into account the crop factor but it’s slower and doesn’t have anywhere near as shallow DOF).
-    Although only 2MP difference, a clear difference in resolving power

So ultimately, I think the comparison between Nikon D200 and Canon 5D depends on a) budget available and b) the subjects you’ll be shooting.

When shooting certain types of subjects at ISO 400 or under, there’s not that much difference in the final result.

However I do almost no wildlife / sports / street these days and so the extra AF ability, speed, 1.5x crop and build quality of the D200 doesn’t benefit me as much. Instead I’m doing much more portrait / planned / studio type work and all the benefits of the 5D fall exactly into what I’m after. Above ISO 800, I think there’s no comparison between the two.

So, it’s not unsurprising it’s hard to compare them head to head as they’ve been designed to fill different needs in the market.

I still wholeheartedly recommend and rate the D200, and also think that Canon is giving me a dimension I’ve never had before. Ultimately, it’s me that’s changed rather than the camera’s capabilities and that ultimately is the advice I have – choosing the system which most effectively suits your needs.