Sooner or later someone will ask this queastion. I know the 5D has a somewhat larger sensor than the D200 and there are some differences, But is the quality difference worth 1500 more. I have read that in reality the sensor difference is not enough to justify the price for the Canon 5D. Here is what I think Canon will do They will come out with a upgrade model from the 20D to compete with the D200. Now tell me what you all think. In all honesty many people will be looking at the price difference to justify the purchase. I know the Canon 5D has a full frame sensor and the D200 does not so that may make the difference, but my guess is Nikon sales on the D200 will succeed solely because of the price vs the higher price of the 5D. I think it will be interesting to see what happens here. One other factor of course is many already have a set of Canon lens. Monte Johnson.
I think you are asking the wrong questions. I have pretty well decided to shell out three grand for a 5D. My reasons for favoring it are quite simple. First of all I have a collection of Canon EF mount lenses that originally cost in total several times more than the price of the 5D, and those lenses function as they were designed originally for 35mm film, just the same used with the 5D's full frame sensor. But the clincher is after using quite a number of different makes of digital SLR's with the smaller sensor size from the earliest Kodak/Nikon hybrids to the Nikon D-100, Canon 20D, Minolta D7, Sigma SD-10, Epson RD-1, even the Olympus E-20 which was a great design, the 5D has a far superior viewfinder system, brighter, easier to see the corners of the image, and I am able to use it effectively with a macro with manual focus, Etc., Etc., Etc!!!! For me its as much or more what I can do with the camera well, than what the camera does once the shutter is released. My only hesitation is the question will I have enough free, fun time to go out and shoot with it to justify the investment.
I think that is a good answer to this question. Not using either Nikon or Canon I have nothing from experience to add. I know myself when looking at a purchase many factors need be considered for the value of your dollar spent. crop factor of the lens is a important one. As far as finding time to enjoy your investment, well life is short so you better get to it. Thanks for your informative comment on this subject. Monte Johnson.
I've already enjoyed my allotted 3 score and 10, so am on borrowed time<S>.
The sensor size of the Nikon D200 is a major cost advantage. Nikon has said that they will not introduce full-size sensor dSLRs in the near future because of cost. The theoretical technical advantages of full-size sensors may be too small for most people, including professionals, to notice; Nikon very clearly thinks so. The D200 sets a new price-performance point for dSLRs. As for which camera is a better buy, it depends. Right now I would expect that for many people who do not own Nikon or Canon cameras and lenses the large difference in price between the two cameras to be a big issue. Of course there are many with personal preferences for a particular brand and/or have lenses to go with only one brand.
It is very encouraging to see how prices drop and performance increases for dSLRs. Regardless of brand preference, this is good news for photographers.
For a long time I lost interest in digital. In the last year I see hope. I feel the D200 is a step in the right direction for common folks who do not shoot professionaly but want a good camera. From what I read I think you will see a market for it. In the next couple years I believe the density range for digital will be closer to film. Thats what I am waiting for. Might be by then I will have enough money to invest in one. I love film but when the price and quality is there I will change. Monte Johnson.