After months of
teasing, sifting through tons of officially unofficial
deets, finally getting some
good pics of the camera itself, and being envious of all those
previewers who got their grubby hands on this beauty before anyone else, the dust has begun to settle and the verdicts are out. It probably doesn't come as a surprise that the
Nikon D80 DSLR is essentially everything we hoped for, and the bottom line seems to be that this digicam borrows a myriad of features from the wallet-abusing D200, but won't force you to refinance your home (well, hopefully not) in order to own one. For the Nikon faithful, this one's a no-brainer, but for those without any particular allegiance, it probably wouldn't hurt to give
Sony's Alpha A100 a once over, considering its noteworthy bonuses -- such as the Super SteadyShot and anti-dust features that you won't find on the D80 -- before pulling the trigger. Nevertheless, reviewers are (practically) unanimous in giving their recommendations to this camera, especially at the sub-$1,000 (sans lens kit) price, but comb these reviews with your own discerning eyes before jumping on (or off) the D80 bandwagon yourself.
Read - HardwareZone
Read - Imaging Resource
Read - CNET
Read - ePhotoZine
Read - Nikonians
posted August 19th 2006 9:30PM
Can someone tell me if this is better than the Canon 30d?
Is it better than the Canon 30D? The real investment in an SLR/DSLR is in the lenses. You buy cheap lenses, you might as well go back to a Point & Shoot. Buy good lenses, and you won't be able to tell the difference between 8x10 prints from either camera.
If you want a wider selection of lenses, Canon has Nikon beat. There's a reason you see 99% of the sports shooters using those big white lenses.
If you still can't decide, then maybe this might help. Canon has led the way with the cleanest images and widest ISO range. Nikon has been playing catchup. Sony is busy trying to patch together a failing SLR company and establish a presence. Again, the lenses will far outlast the body you buy today. Switching brands will be an expensive proposition. If you have better Nikon support, or own Nikon lenses, buy the D80. If you have better Canon support in your area, or own Canon lenses, buy the 30D. If you think you want to risk proprietary hardware with little or no support, a limited selection of lenses, and feel like paying for that Sony name, by all means, try the Sony, and see what happens.
Good luck.
Another great review at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/ . 11 pages of very detailed info.
just so ya'll know, nikon makes the best lenses for close up detail work(macro and micro). that from personal experience working at a pro photolab. canon's are good though. you get mor MP per image with the D80 than with the 30D, but thats not really important with sensors with that many pixels.
I think the lens argument is more dependent on the low end when you're talking a camera like this - if you're buying a sub-$1,000 SLR, you're probably not the kind of person that spends $4,000 on an L-series lens anyway (the "white" lenses mentioned above).
Canon still has a better selection of cheap, good lenses than Nikon, though. Nikon is a more expensive system overall, not so much in the bodies anymore but still in the glass. Lots of people equate Nikon/Canon with Mac/PC - I'm not sure if that's totally true, but it's true of the price. That said, Nikon's lenses tend to be better built in the low end, but not better optically - Canon cuts corners in construction materials in their low-end lenses, but not in optics. The result is really cheap glass that's really good optically, but may not feel as good to hold. The pictures are all that matters, though.
I've always been a Canon guy and have never really regretted it. I don't really think I could afford to be a Nikon guy. The body is really just the first expense of many when you're talking SLR's, and I like that Canon has several price points and feature sets for pretty much every focal range you could think of, with the low-end stuff being *really* cheap (like, even sub-$100 for a lot of the non-specialty lenses).
I think it's really kind of dumb to buy an SLR based on the feature set of the body. You can always upgrade the body and manufacturers will always leapfrog each other every six months. But lenses are semi-permanent and you don't want to buy a whole bunch of them and have to replace them all the time. You've got to buy based on the whole system.
Well, I already bought a D200, and for me the extra cost has already paid for itself. :D
I used to be a Nikon guy in the film world but switched to Canon in the DSLR world. Mostly at first because they offered the least expensive DSLR's, as well as good prices for used DSLR's like the D30 and D60 on ebay. Nikon hasn't offered alot fo DSLR's so they haven't trickled down as fast.
I've never been one of those guys who has bought alot of expensive lenses. And while it is good to spend money on nice glass, there is still a benefit to shooting with a DSLR even if you can't afford to spend more then $200 on a lens. Greater ISO range, more control and depth of field are the features that stand out the most over a point and shoot camera.
Nikon has been horrible with legacy support for thier old manual focus lenses on all but their top end camera(s). And that really turns me off about buying one. You can get alot of nice cheap prime lenses for Nikon but they go to waste on anything but total manual mode without metering. I can do the same with on my canon with a lens mount adapter, and I do. So you don't need to buy a Nikon to use old Nikon lenses in full manual mode.
Plus I like the fact that if I ever want to or need to buy really nice glass and move up to a full frame sensor I can with Canon. Nikon doesn't seem to care to support this feature in their line.
i'm tiring of everyone continually stating canon's got nikon beat in the noise catagory. the d50 has excellent noise characteristics - lower than what canon's entry-level xt shows. tsk tsk, i'm going to wait to see a full review of this...
Canon / Nikon is a lot like Mac / PC (large cost of moving from one to another including learning curve and lenses, strobes, etc.), and also a lot like AMD / Intel (they both make absolutely excellent products, but Canon is a much larger company with deeper IP assets).
And it's even a better thing that the DSLR world is evolving beyond the duopoly of just Canon and Nikon.
My suggestion based on a LOT of experience: ask yourself honestly how much you're willing to invest, and then look to spend ~50% on lenses/strobes and ~50% on a body.
Then on alternating years either buy a new body (this is the Nikon camp's year to buy a D200 or D80) or a new lens or two (us Canon folks who own 20D's or Rebel 350's should keep their wallets closed until the next generation comes out).
And, finally, it's easy to see what's coming: these darned things are paper-launched; you generally won't be able to actually buy one until 3-6 months after launch.
The d50 might have solved their noise problems, but Dpreview shows a nicer image when compaired to the Digital Rebel (Not even the XT.)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page22.asp
I could have worded that clearer, couldn't I?
Does anyone know what Nikon's plans are regarding updating the D50?
I know that a lot of sports shooters are shooting Canon, but a lot are sticking through it with Nikon as well.
I was just at a very large sporting event, and honestly I didn't see one big white lens. Saw a few people in the crowds with both Canons and Nikons, but I actually didn't see a single pro with Canon. Not saying they aren't out there, or even that they aren't winning against Nikon, I'm just saying, it's not 99% like the person above said.
Please stop saying "deets" sometime soon? It's so immature. And so annoying. Thanks.
It is true that most professional sports are covered with Canon bodies/lenses. However, that is simply not true for the rest of the market. Wedding photographers, for example. Same with photojournalists and paparazzis who demand rugged bodies with well performing wide angle lenses (It is well known that Nikon has Canon beat in terms of the quality of wide angle lenses).
I think the camera's a great addition to th Nikon lineup. It's got a ton of features that are in the higher-end bodies, and with less noise in the shadows, it's going to be a hit.
John
"It's well known that Nikon beats Canon in wide angle lenses."
Since when? I'll put my 24-70 f2.8 L against anything Nikon has.
And how about the 17-40 f4 L? And the 16-35 f.28 L? And the 14mm f2.8? And the 17-50 f2.8 IS? And the 15mm f2.8 fisheye?
Nikon might have some that measure up, but not beat Canon. Making an absurd claim like that is just that... absurd. Canon has a broad lineup and I've not even mentioned the other primes under 50mm in Canon's lineup, or the rest of the plain-jane lenses.
As for someone's comment about the D50 noise... I'm curious how long it took Nikon? The Digital Rebel was out 3 years ago. When was the D50 actually available? Last November? That's 2 years, and it STILL doesn't have ISO 100. I can't shoot wide open with an f2.8 lens in broad daylight because of the ISO 200 limitation. If I want narrow depth of field with a fast prime or an f2.8 zoom, I have to go buy neutral density filters with Nikon bodies. The D70 came out 14 months after the 10D, and still suffered from ISO limitations and more noise.
Nikon is slow to market. If you feel like waiting, more power to ya.
I think the Nikon faithful deserve the D80. However, I read a lot of people who had complaints about the D200. I wonder what will happen when production D80's make it into people's hands... So far, the only cameras seen are those sent to a magazine or website for review. I am positive that Nikon tweaked and calibrated those camera bodies to ensure glowing reviews.
I always enjoy reading all of angry energy that goes into some posts in the nikon/canon, mac/pc, camaro/mustang, et cetera. It battles methat you see it in so many different posts or blogs. It seems odd to get so involved in defending products that we only/just purchased!, not designed or built. Shouldn't the designers of these objects be the ones to get so emotionally attached. It's real simple folks, do some research, see what you like, get some GOOD opinions when you can and finally, spend your money on what you think is best. Then go out and do what designers really want you to....use and enjoy their products and leave petty fights to others! There just cameras, and not the last camera that your ever going to buy anyway! For what it is worth, I am a Nikon guy, yet I think Canon makes a great product as well, just prefer Nikon here but love looking and seeing differences between the brands here.
the lowly sigma 24-70 2.8 beats the canon L version. just google fstopjojo. And the 17-40L isn't that great either, actually. I had one when I was still a canon user. And besides, those lenses aren't real "wide angle" lenses for those on EF-S mount. Does Canon even offer a wide zoom lens for the EF-S users?
I can shoot f/2.8 in broad daylight, my lowly D70 offers 1/8000 shutter speed, which is the same thing as a ISO 100 with 1/4000.
And besides, I don't feel the need to switch bodies every 6 months just because something better comes out. I don't buy cameras to measurebate. I use it as a tool to take photographs. And that's it. It seems an awful lot of photographers (in general, not just Canon users, but Nikon users as well) like to have the newest biggest camera as a status symbol, to make themselves feel more important when going to your kid's school play to take photographs of them. Yeah, I'm not one of those people.
Hey guys...check this website...
After I read this article about Nikon vs. Canon, it helped me to understand about their background and what makes them are so good in consumer's hand....
Hey guys...check this website...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
After I read this article about Nikon vs. Canon, it helped me to understand about their background and what makes them are so good in consumer's hand....
Just a few words on lenses for those of you looking to buy a sub $1000 DSLR: Nikkor 18-200 VR
If you don't believe me, read this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
Nikon is always an amazing product. As a professional wedding photographer Long Island for 28 years, I can state this with confidence.
Click Here to see my work shot exclusvely with Nikon equipment.
- Michael O'Neill
Michael O'Neill Fine Art
Northport, New York
Fine Art Wedding Photography
"Nikon has been horrible with legacy support for thier old manual focus lenses on all but their top end camera(s). And that really turns me off about buying one. You can get alot of nice cheap prime lenses for Nikon but they go to waste on anything but total manual mode without metering. I can do the same with on my canon with a lens mount adapter, and I do. So you don't need to buy a Nikon to use old Nikon lenses in full manual mode.
Plus I like the fact that if I ever want to or need to buy really nice glass and move up to a full frame sensor I can with Canon. Nikon doesn't seem to care to support this feature in their line.
Posted at 3:21AM on Aug 20th 2006 by Michael"
Uh. Lets see. Canon changed their mounts how many times? My Nikon lenses made before I was born still work on the newest Nikon bodies whereas Canon makes the users change their whole arsenal of lenses every decade or two.
Nikon's D2X is very competitive to Canon's 1Ds MK2 in terms of picture quality, robustness. And in ergonomics, it is well known that Nikon trumps Canon in that area as well.
Speaking of canon users wanting to upgrade to FF. What happens to all the investment on EF-S lenses for those people. Their 18-55 kit lens or 17-55 IS USM becomes useless on a 5D. On a Nikon, you can use a 17-55 f/2.8 or a 18-70mm kit lens on a D50 or a D2X, or anything in between.
From initial image samples released on the internet, the Nikon D80 seems to trump the Sony Alpha A100 for image quality, and even competes convincingly against the Canon 30D in ISO1600 and ISO3200 test shots. It'll be interesting to see how the just-announced Canon Rebel XTi performs in the high-ISO department with the increase in megapixels to 10. A summary of Nikon D80 image samples available so far can be found at http://www.nikond80links.com/nikon-d80-reviews/
I am sick of people telling me that if I have Canon lenses, that I should stick with Canon. I have a 28-135mmISusm, a 50mm, a 100-300mmusm an 85mmusm and a100mm macro, all Canon but if Ibuy any of Canon's affordable digital slrs, I have to factor these lenses by 1.6x. I will end up with some pretty odd lens combinations.
I really feel that if Nikon have a better camera, in the D80 than Canon's Rebel xti, then I should make the jump.
The D80 comes with an excellent 18-135mm kit lens as an option, while Canon continue to provide cheaply made kit lenses. In short, what suited me for my 35mm SLR, won't suit for digital.
I am completely torn about which camera to get as my first SLR. Originally I was looking at the Olympus Evolt 500 in comparison to the Rebel XT. Now I am completely thrown off base with the new XTI and Nikon D80 released. But I am also looking into the Sony A100 now, because of its image stabalizing system, which Canon and Nikon do not provide. But since it's Sony's first SLR, I don't know if I can trust it. I also heard that the Nikon has an ISO of up to 3200 with a boost. But I am not sure what this "boost" means or why it's necessary to have at all. I need help. Also, the Nikon doesn't have a dust cleanser, which I think is appealing considering that these cameras are so similar. To me, the Canon seems like a trustworthy product especially with its lower price. But I hear a lot of complaints about the way it feels. Will somebody please tell me the pros versus cons of these tempting SLRs. I can't take it anymore! Which one do I buy?! ... Also, what's the difference between a CCD and CMOS sensor, is one better than the other? Somebody please help!
i know! im also buying my first DSLR... and i am going with the D80, but its so competitive! people stab me for mentioning nikon if they are a canon-ite. people look at me like i slapped thier face if i utter xTi and they shoot nikons. i know that people shoot one brand or the other, and i shoot olympus, and now nikon as well, and ill admit, i am swayed, and i have never picked up a canon i liked, but that doesnt mean i cant admit that the xTi has some nice features! come on people!
Can someone tell me if there is a differance between A slr And A dslr Thanks
I'm coming in to this a bit late, but I'm preparing to buy a D80 and wanted to make sure it was the right one for me. I used to shoot 35mm with an N50, but burned out the CPU (yeah, I have a LOT of pictures). Digital has come to the point now that as much as I shoot, it would be a waste of money not to make the switch now. My three or four lenses are a variety of tech (1, 2, or 4 generations old), but I like them and would not consider giving them up (especially my 180mm/2.8 ED) even though I don't get the latest in metering with any of them. Basically, Nikon's metering back in the 1990s was so good anyway, I simply can't see that the new tech has improved it that much. The only down side is that I have to make sure I get a body with AF motor because my lenses don't have their own.
I worked in a photo shop for many years, and from the cameras we tested and the photos I saw our pros shoot, I gotta tell ya, Nikon's metering is top any day, especially in conjunction with flash. Canon is certainly more user friendly - especially on the point and shoot line - and Leica simply has the best glass I've (or anyone, I'd bet) has ever seen, but since I couldn't (and still can't) pour tens of thousands of dollars into my equip, and metering is better left to a CPU than me, Nikon was the obvious choice.
And they feel substantial. I don't see the appeal of taking pictures with something that feels like a toy or a credit card. Tools should feel like tools - capable of doing the heavy lifting, regardless of the job.
And, Anthony - SLR = Single Lens Reflex, DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflex - whether someone actually uses a D in conjunction with the SLR when talking about digital cameras is probably just a function of their familiarity with the tech and/or their age.
Guys don't argue on them...i want any of them...if u get bored of ur camera SLR or DSLR..send it to me:))))Kisses
I have yet to see the PORES in peoples skin in any photos taken with a "Canon"... I see that sharpness of detail all the time in NIKON photos... Nikon also seems to have better color saturation... though you can get that with any camera if you use a polarizing filter.
But those pores... Canon ain't getten'em.
If I were to go with the Rebel Xti - anyone have any suggestions for a decent (well priced) Canon zoom?