Canon 40D or Nikon D200 for Wildlife?

[nigel_b]

I'm shooting a Sony but cant get a decent lens I want to invest in. The closest is a Sigma 50-500 but I dont really want to invest big money in this particular lens in a Sony fit.

So I'm left with the inevitable choice, Nikon or Canon.

To be honest, I'd love a Nikon. Don't ask me why but I've just always fancied one.

The lens range is similar, 400mm prime for the Canon and 300mm prime plus 1.4 TC for the Nikon. Neither are stabilised as far as I know.

If we assume the lens performance is near enough the same, and I've handled both bodies and don't have a particular preference, which of the bodies do you think would be best for wildlife photography, the Canon 40D or Nikon D200, and why!?

Not much to ask!

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by nigel_b

I'm shooting a Sony but cant get a decent lens I want to invest in.

I thought lenses were a strong point with Sony because basically they're Minolta, which always had a good reputation.

Jim

[Roddy]

Historically, I was Nikon and now I'm Canon (via Minolta before going digital). I don't reckon you're going to see much difference in lens quality - although I feel the Canon lenses take some beating. My reason for change was ergonomics - try the feel of each body in your hands. If it feels right and everything seems to be instinctively in the right place, then that's probably the camera for you - don't let brand sway you. It could mean the difference between catching or missing the shot of a lifetime.

[djeyewater]

The 40D is a newer model than the D200, and I'm pretty sure it will have better high ISO performance than the D200. I'm not sure how autofocus compares though.

Generally a bare lens will have better performance than a lens with a teleconverter, so I would imagine that the Canon 400/5.6 would beat a Nikon 300/4 plus TC. But the Nikon option would have the benefit that it can be used with or without the TC. You may also want to consider the Canon 300/4 IS with a TC, the same as the Nikon option but you also get image stabilization in Canon's 300/4 lens.

In the future, if you want to upgrade to a longer lens, the Canon 500/4 IS and 600/4 IS are much cheaper 2nd hand than the Nikon equivalents.

The other thing to consider is what other lenses you might want (or will you be keeping your Sony for non-telephoto photography)?

Dave

[Geoff F]

I have a friend who insists that his old 3MP Nikon is far better than my Canon 40D - just because it is a Nikon!

A few years ago, Canon was regarded as the poor man's Nikon but there is little between them now. Although, as Dave mentioned, Nikon is generally a little bit more expensive secondhand.

I would certainly recommend the Canon 40D (the current version is the 50D). But if you are making a comparison, look at the similar specification semi pro Nikon range instead of just comparing prices.

If you fancy a Nikon, get a Nikon; you might initially pay slightly more but there won't be much difference when spread over the life of the camera.

Any particular reason why you are considering a prime lens? For birds, etc, a prime lens gives excellent quality at a reasonable price but would you miss the versatility of a zoom?

If handholding, would you find a stabilised lens to your advantage (IS lenses, etc) or are you always going to be using a tripod?

If you are on a budget, also consider the top range of third party lenses like Sigma, etc.

[nigel_b]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I have a friend who insists that his old 3MP Nikon is far better than my Canon 40D - just because it is a Nikon!

A few years ago, Canon was regarded as the poor man's Nikon but there is little between them now. Although, as Dave mentioned, Nikon is generally a little bit more expensive secondhand.

I would certainly recommend the Canon 40D (the current version is the 50D). But if you are making a comparison, look at the similar specification semi pro Nikon range instead of just comparing prices.

If you fancy a Nikon, get a Nikon; you might initially pay slightly more but there won't be much difference when spread over the life of the camera.

Any particular reason why you are considering a prime lens? For birds, etc, a prime lens gives excellent quality at a reasonable price but would you miss the versatility of a zoom?

If handholding, would you find a stabilised lens to your advantage (IS lenses, etc) or are you always going to be using a tripod?

If you are on a budget, also consider the top range of third party lenses like Sigma, etc.

Thanks for all the replies. I'll be keeping the Sony with the 70-210mm Minolta beercan.

Why prime? Image quality, image quality and image quality. I've had a Sony 500mm reflex and while its a good lens, it was too much like hard work for what I want which is killer image quality.

No, I'm not always going to be using a tripod by any means and I think this may be the deciding factor.

I've had a Sigma bigma on the front of the Sony and while is was OK, it was £900 secondhand and I think that's stretching it a bit. I've seen the Canon 400mm prime secondhand for less than that recently and given the importance I'm placing on IQ that decision seems a no-brainer to me. However, the Canon 400mm prime isnt IS and having tried the bigma handheld with the Sony its rubbish without the SteadyShot on. That's because I shake the camera too much by the way, not because the lens is rubbish. Actually the bigma is very, very good, I just dont want to spend £900 on one. £600 yes, but not £900.

Thanks for your thoughts this is clarifying things for me.

[Brian Snail]

I use the Canon 40D with the Canon 100-400mm zoom, this is the most versatile, well built, sharp and contrasty zoom out there, with IS, that will get you to 400mm (640mm equivalent on the 40D and be portable). Add a 12mm extension tube and down to taking butterflies. The 3rd party alternatives just do not work the same.

Unfortunately there are bad copies of this lens about but a good one is a keeper for good.

[Gaza]

Originally Posted by Brian Snail

I use the Canon 40D with the Canon 100-400mm zoom, this is the most versatile, well built, sharp and contrasty zoom out there, with IS, that will get you to 400mm (640mm equivalent on the 40D and be portable). Add a 12mm extension tube and down to taking butterflies. The 3rd party alternatives just do not work the same.

Unfortunately there are bad copies of this lens about but a good one is a keeper for good.

Hi Brian.

When you say, that the 3rd party alternatives just do not work the same.
What exactly are you referring to ? Quality ? or Adding a 12mm tube ?

When referring to bad copies of this lens. What copies are you referring to ?

[squishy]

Originally Posted by Gaza

What copies are you referring to ?

presumably just any 100-400 that isn't quite as sharp as it should be.

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by nigel_b

I'm shooting a Sony but cant get a decent lens I want to invest in. The closest is a Sigma 50-500 but I dont really want to invest big money in this particular lens in a Sony fit.

So I'm left with the inevitable choice, Nikon or Canon.

To be honest, I'd love a Nikon. Don't ask me why but I've just always fancied one.

The lens range is similar, 400mm prime for the Canon and 300mm prime plus 1.4 TC for the Nikon. Neither are stabilised as far as I know.

If we assume the lens performance is near enough the same, and I've handled both bodies and don't have a particular preference, which of the bodies do you think would be best for wildlife photography, the Canon 40D or Nikon D200, and why!?

Not much to ask!

I have the D80, (a cheap D200) it is excellent, the D200 even better if you like Nikon go for it!