I'm way on the bottom - Canon 20D or Nikon D200, Canon L lenses or Nikkor ED lenses?!

[kbfwa]

I am about to spend a few thousand hard-earned dollars on a DSLR and pro lenses. I am having trouble choosing between Canon and Nikon.

What I like about Canon DSLRs:
- Low noise on higher ISOs
- Good technology on prosumer models
- Good resolution, ISO range, etc.
- Moving toward full-frame sensors

Things I like about Nikon
- Good ergonomics
- Good reputation for optics
- D200 just came out
- Underwater photography is dominated by Nikon

What I want to shoot:
- Nature: Landscapes, low-light/night, coastal, wildlife
- MACRO!!!
- Black and white (PhotoShop time required, I know)
- People/family snapshots
- Travel (i.e. European architecture)
- Studio (people, animals)

I am looking at the Canon 20D, a 16-35 f/2.8L lens, and 24-70 f/2.8L lens, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, 100 f/2.8 or 180mm macro, 580EX flash, etc.

*OR*
Nikon D200, 17-35 f/2.8ED lens, 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens, etc. (I know more about Canon products at this point.)

WHAT SHOULD I GET?!!! What are the positives and negatives with either system? I also plan on getting a used pro film body.

[timmciglobal]

Why not considering the 24-105 F4L IS if canon?

Either system is good, I think it'll come down to personal preferance and which system you plan to follow. In the last 10 years canon has lead the way in dSLR but I'm very impressed with the D200. Both are excelent cameras far exceeding the requirments needed to take excelent photographs.

Tim

[ReF]

with the lenses you listed, i don't think there is much difference in either brand/system.

the d200 is a better camera but will cost a lot more, plus the 20d replacement is around the corner (sort of). affordable canon FF also seems to be on the horizon.

the canon 70-200 IS has weather sealing but i think the nikon version does not (might want to double check this), while the d200 is sealed and the 20d isn't.

the cool thing about some large nikon lenses is that you have a choice of getting a black or light grey finish, while with canon you are stuck with white.

canon has a much better selection of IS tele-primes if you get into that area eventually, and nikon has a 200-400 f4 VR zoom that canon does not.

if you get into primes:
many (but not all) low-cost, short-med FL canon primes have only 5 aperture blades which = ugly bokeh, but i've heard that many low-cost nikon primes have 6 or more blades which fixes the problem (you'll have to look into that as well. for some reason nikonusa.com only lists the # of aperture blades for some of their lenes. i'm a canon owner so i don't spend a lot of time researching details of nikon products, but i do take a look now and then).

[TheObiJuan]

It comes down to you wanting to start shooting now or hold out for the D200.

[Rex914]

You might want to look into the thread I just posted about my final decision. It bring to light the many issues you are struggling with. In the end, it's a game of compromise. See where you lie and pick the system that better caters to your needs.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13847

By the way, you would be better off getting the 17-55 DX lens. Same image quality, cheaper by several hundred, smaller, and optimized for the Nikon digital cameras. Plus Nikon hasn't developed a FF digital body yet so...

With regards to weather sealing, as Phil A. elegantly says it, the sealing will only as effective as the weakest link. If any part is unsealed (usually the lens), then that is the weak point. For effective sealing, BOTH parts need to be sealed.