D200 vs. 30D - A Review

[lordarka]

Glad digital came along. Apparently with film, you'd have to turn the lights on, or use a decent flash. Yikes.

I don't see how comparisons with film have any bearing on the merits of modern digital cameras with strong high ISO performance. Yes, we had to suffer with a lot of things in film that we don't have to suffer with in digital. But if, for example, a camera manufacturer decided to not give you an accurate histogram or proper image review on your digital camera, would you all happily embrace it under the mantra of 'well, we didn't have it in film, so why should we complain about it now that we are shooting digitally?'

I am one of the supposed 10% or fewer photographers who demand clean high ISO performance from their cameras (weddings and stage events). Having processed numerous images from Nikon D70's and D2H's, I can say with some confidence that the Canons deliver at least a stop or better ISO 'cleanliness.' For a lot of people, this sort of advantage is decisive, but for just about anyone, it's undoubtebly useful. While film grain may have never allowed for clean images at this sort of sensitivity, should I carry over the limitations of an medium into a digital medium? Do I need to adapt my strategy to film when I'm shooting digital? Should I start carrying multiple digital cameras, each at a different ISO, for indoor and outdoor event photography? Of course not! So, just because you could do some things with film doesn't mean that you can't do things even more easily with digital. Had there been a 1600ISO film that rendered images as clean as current Canon digital cameras, would you not have used it??

Are you always going to carry multiple flashguns? What if you're traveling, and you find yourself in a darkened space like a museum or a cathedral? I'm not saying that high ISO performance should be a deciding parameter for everyone, but surely you can see how it makes a camera an even more versatile imaging instrument? All other things being equal, I would choose the camera that had the high ISO performance over one that did not.

That said, all things certainly are not equal on either side of the Canon-Nikon divide. However, just as Nikon people like to talk up their ergonomic and flash system advantages, is it so wrong to extol the Canon virtues of clean high ISO's? I hardly think that all who value this wonderful capability are 'techie brats' who couldn't photograph a 'Marrying Sam Two Dollar Wedding.'

Arka C.

[hartcons]

I shot indoor basketball the other day (with a d70) and was at ISO 1600 and f1.8 to stop most motion. So I now understand the value of high-ISO cleanliness. Maybe they're just under-sharpened but I've seen some surprisingly soft onscreen images from the d200. Personally, I like images I see from the D2HS.

[Gbee]

High ISO noise, or lack thereof can be the deal maker. I’m shooting all Canon now and ISO 800 is my standard.

I’m not afraid to use ISO 3200 when the need arises but I know of a couple of Nikon shooters who will change to faster lenses, rather than raise the ISO above 800 on their D2h cameras because they think the noise is too much.

However, noise debate is littered with minefields as Canon use an aggressive noise reduction process and Nikon does not so it’s arguable that if the photographer is also an accomplished Photoshop user he can gleam sharper files from the Nikon.

Then again, on suitable subjects I can see little or no difference between a 350D Raw convert and my 1DMKIIn, and I know some posters say the same between the Canon & Nikon cameras in the review.

The big thing is the interface, Canon need to tighten up on this, I love the one button zoom on my 350D for instance ~ but I know one Nikon D100 shooter who did not realise his camera had a playback zoom and he having owned the camera for six months ~~

One can sort of chase one’s tail a bit, methinks.

[Sidebyte]

In 1954 I was shooting military basketball games with a 4 X 5 Speed Graphic, Kalart large flash gun with press 40 bulbs. I couldn't get enough light out of one bulb at a distance over 50 ft. so I hand held two additional flash bulbs touching the center bulb in the gun. It would fire all three at once and light up the gym. This rig weighed about 20 lbs and was about the size of a small refrigerator. I got some decent shots but high ISO digi is FAR BETTER IDEA! Isn't progress marvelous?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

In 1954 I was shooting military basketball games with a 4 X 5 Speed Graphic, Kalart large flash gun with press 40 bulbs. I couldn't get enough light out of one bulb at a distance over 50 ft. so I hand held two additional flash bulbs touching the center bulb in the gun. It would fire all three at once and light up the gym. This rig weighed about 20 lbs and was about the size of a small refrigerator. I got some decent shots but high ISO digi is FAR BETTER IDEA! Isn't progress marvelous?

Your old setup reminds me of O. Winston Link and his incredible flash setup. I'm sure many know of his work. I think his work is almost genius in its quality and craftsmanship. There is a fascinating (and sad) documentary about his painful later years. Worth seeking out if you haven't seen it.