 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006D80 versus 20D (no contest?)
A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for the D80? This isn't really a plastic-metal thing (though that is part of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? The answer is so obvious it is not worth commenting upon. They are both excellent cameras, one should be proud to be the owner, and user, of either model. > The answer is so obvious it is not worth commenting upon. > A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less > than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for > the D80? This isn't really a plastic-metal thing (though that is part > of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature > the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? Why would anyone want the D80 over the 20D? Easy answer ... the D80 won't make you think of Annika each time you use it. ;) > A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less > than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for > the D80? This isn't really a plastic-metal thing (though that is part > of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature > the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? Large Viewfinder Nikkor Mount Nikon Flash System Smaller Size [for those that appreciate this ... I don't] Larger LCD [2.5"] 10.1MP over 8.3MP [the difference is quite small] Tracking moving subjects ... excellent [supposedly] Of course, the 20D has its advantages as well, but that wasn't the question.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course, the 20D has its advantages as well, but that wasn't the > question. I would have thought the non-availability of Spot Metering in the Canon would be one of the biggest points in favour of the Nikon D80. However, I guess that depends on your approach to proper metering/exposure. Bob >>> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >>> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > would be one of the biggest points in favour of the Nikon D80. > However, I guess that depends on your approach to proper metering/exposure. I would have put it in there, but I wasn't aware that the 20D did not have a spot meter ;-) I can't believe Canon left that fundamental feature out for so long. I just don't trust matrix metering with complex, high dynamic range scenes very well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >>>> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > long. I just don't trust matrix metering with complex, high dynamic range > scenes very well. What amazes me is that it is inconceivable that it was a decision of "we have to leave it out to keep cost down" as the cost to include spot metering would have been almost nothing. It's unlikely that they just forgot to include it, so then they must have decided not to include it for marketing reasons. Perhaps you can't fault Canon marketing - as they dominate dslr sales - but decisions like that one suck. At least they have fixed that in the 30d. >>>>> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >>>>> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > dominate dslr sales - but decisions like that one suck. At least they > have fixed that in the 30d. To excuse Canon marketing for their decision to not include spot metering and to justify it with "they dominate dslr sales" is perhaps the single best example one could ever find of "Lemming Marketing" (you know "lets jump off the cliff here, Harry, everyone's doing it ---- oh, OK George whe-e-e-e-e-e SPLAT"). The saddest part is Canon get rewarded for their idiocy (by some of us)!!! Bob >>>>>>A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >>>>>>than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > The saddest part is Canon get rewarded for their idiocy (by some of us)!!! > Bob I don't understand the beef about spot metering with digital cameras. The canons have center weighted metering, which is reasonably tight, and you can always take a test images and check the histogram. This sounds like a red herring to me. I personally think other things are more important, like noise, dynamic range, frames per second, instant on time, AF accuracy. I don't know how the two cameras stack up in these regards (except noise and dynamic range), and I would rank the above higher than 8 versus 10 megapixels. Roger "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > I personally think other things are more important, like > noise, dynamic range, frames per second, instant on time, > AF accuracy. I don't know how the two cameras stack up > in these regards (except noise and dynamic range), > and I would rank the above higher than 8 versus 10 megapixels. We all have our pet concerns, I suppose. Spot metering doesn't really seem like a bigge to me, but a camera without mirror-lockup would not even enter consideration for me, and I know several canon models don't offer this (to me) necessity. Not sure about Nikon. I'm sure there are other relatively obscure features that are going to be deal-breakers to others. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other relatively obscure features that are going to be deal-breakers to > others. Spot metering is very useful with digital as it was with transparency. It's in Canon pro bodies and most other bodies from entry level up. Yep - centre weighted gets part way there, but the other cameras have that as well. AFAIK the D80 doesn't have a MLU mode, but has a shutter release delay mode - achieving the same in most (but not all) situations. IMO that's nikon doing exactly the same as canon - withholding a feature that would cost nothing to implement - for marketing reasons. Anyway, IMO the D80 is a nice camera - but over-priced for the market against the 400d / K10d / a100. Prices will continue to fall. >AFAIK the D80 doesn't have a MLU mode, but has a shutter release delay >mode - achieving the same in most (but not all) situations. IMO that's >nikon doing exactly the same as canon - withholding a feature that would >cost nothing to implement - for marketing reasons. The D1 doesn't have MLU either. I can only assume that Nikon thought it to be to much trouble to implement. In what situation do you use MLU where a shutter release delay does not work? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In what situation do you use MLU where a shutter release delay does not > work? When you are waiting for an event. Lock the mirror up, then wait. At the right moment, trip the shutter. I would not buy a camera without this feature. Roger >When you are waiting for an event. Lock the mirror up, then >wait. At the right moment, trip the shutter. >I would not buy a camera without this feature. So, you have an event that does not require framing (or do you use and external view finder?), that requires a slow enough shutter that MLU is required, and the subject moves slow enough that the additional sharpness provided by MLU will be there. Of course, a professional camera should simply offer MLU, but I never tried MLU on moving subjects, so it is hard to figure out what the gain would be. Or is there a reason to trip shutter at a precise moment with non-moving subjects? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Of course, a professional camera should simply offer MLU, but I never > tried MLU on moving subjects, so it is hard to figure out what the gain > would be. Or is there a reason to trip shutter at a precise moment with > non-moving subjects? The sun, moon and stars are all moving subjects that may require waiting for the right time to shoot ... and would greatly benefit by MLU, depending upon the shutter speed. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >The sun, moon and stars are all moving subjects that may require waiting for >the right time to shoot ... and would greatly benefit by MLU, depending upon >the shutter speed. And you are saying that they are moving fast enough that the .5 second delay makes you miss them? Wow, what kind of lenses do you use? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>The sun, moon and stars are all moving subjects that may require waiting for >>the right time to shoot ... and would greatly benefit by MLU, depending upon >>the shutter speed. > > And you are saying that they are moving fast enough that the .5 second > delay makes you miss them? Wow, what kind of lenses do you use? No, I am not saying that at all. However, if one wanted to do continuous shooting in this scenario [for whatever reason], then that would reduce the gap between frames by 1/2 second by just leaving the mirror up. Let me ask you this. With true mirror lockup, is there a drain on the battery while the mirror is up? How about with the 1/2 second shutter delay? I suspect the answer is no with mirror lockup and yes with the 1/2 second shutter delay. Depending upon what you are doing, it may just matter, eh? I am just taking the devils advocate on this one, as the vast majority, of not all, of my photography done at the shutter speed affected by mirror slap, would all benefit equally from a 1/2 second delay versus using mirror lockup. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>The sun, moon and stars are all moving subjects that may require waiting for >>>the right time to shoot ... and would greatly benefit by MLU, depending upon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all, of my photography done at the shutter speed affected by mirror slap, > would all benefit equally from a 1/2 second delay versus using mirror lockup. Here is an example: The mother bird was sunning herself in an unusual way for about 20 minutes, changing poses slightly, then the chicks did their thing. The pointing and framing is static, so one can lock the tripod head and raise the mirror, then watch for the right pose. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/great.blue.heron.mother.c0 3.06.2006.jz3f8744.d-750.html This is much like in a portrait studio: the photographer does not stare through the viewfinder, but engages the subject. When the pose is right, the shutter is tripped. MLU could be used in that situation. Roger >>>>The sun, moon and stars are all moving subjects that may require waiting >>>>for [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Roger Roger, just curious as to whether you could tell the difference in that photo of the Herons whether or not MLU was used at 1/1600 sec.? I would think at that shutter speed, with proper support & technique there would be no visible difference. It is certainly well outside the problematic range we normally encounter, unless I've missed something. Bob > Roger, just curious as to whether you could tell the difference in that > photo of the Herons whether or not MLU was used at 1/1600 sec.? > I would think at that shutter speed, with proper support & technique there > would be no visible difference. > It is certainly well outside the problematic range we normally encounter, > unless I've missed something. Clearly mirror slap vibration only affects somewher roughly between 1/8 second and 1 second (probably on the slow end). So, 1/1600s shouldn't be affected one way or the other. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>Roger, just curious as to whether you could tell the difference in that >>photo of the Herons whether or not MLU was used at 1/1600 sec.? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and 1 second (probably on the slow end). So, 1/1600s shouldn't be affected > one way or the other. Do you have data that CLEARLY proves your assertion? Have you ever felt the recoil of the mirror on a 1D Mark II? I showed that image as an example of situations where mirror lockup would be an asset. If the scene occurred in better (i.e. low sun) exposure times would have been much longer, so the issue for this thread is not whether this particular image needed MLU or not. The image in question has a plate scale of only 2.4 arc-seconds/pixel. Sharpness is impacted with movement of only 1/2 arc-second. At this extreme magnification, MLU can't hurt. Roger > Do you have data that CLEARLY proves your assertion? > Have you ever felt the recoil of the mirror on a 1D Mark II? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with movement of only 1/2 arc-second. At this extreme > magnification, MLU can't hurt. I have started doing tests on mirror slap now that I have a cable release. So far I only have one data point, with a 200mm lens on my 350D and a shutter speed of 1/2 there was no difference with and without mirror lock up. I need to test the 20D next as it has a lot more slap. I also need to test some different shutter speeds, as it seems to me that the slower shutter speeds might not be the worst case. There was a huge difference between pushing the shutter by hand and using the cable release. But what I really need is a 1D Mark II to test, how about sending it out here for a few months for testing :) Scott >>>Roger, just curious as to whether you could tell the difference in that >>>photo of the Herons whether or not MLU was used at 1/1600 sec.? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Roger Roger, you CLEARLY don't like your photographic MO being questioned as I CLEARLY don't have data to prove any assertion, and as to my familiarity with the mirror recoil on the Canon 1D Mk. II, I must bow to your obviously greater knowledge. I would submit that, in your example photo, whether or not MLU was needed is exactly the point as you pointed to it as being illustrative of excellence through the use of MLU. Your further illustrative example of using the minutiae quoted to illustrate your point of "MLU can't hurt" is precisely my point. However, after the BS is out of the way here the question of whether or not the improvement can be seen at the shutter speed you used is still unanswered and I simply believe it would not be, notwithstanding what would happen if the light levels were to be different. Bob >>>>Roger, just curious as to whether you could tell the difference in that >>>>photo of the Herons whether or not MLU was used at 1/1600 sec.? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > happen if the light levels were to be different. > Bob Bob, I was reacting to the statement that "Clearly mirror slap vibration only affects somewhere roughly between 1/8 second and 1 second" It is rare that situations are black and white, and MLU is yet another one, just like so many things in photography and all of life. So I object when people are so adamant. Certainly MLU at fast shutter speeds is not the same issue as at lower speeds. No I did not take images both ways to test which was better in that situation. I have in other situations, and when the opportunity arises, I use MLU. I use MLU most when I do telephoto work and almost always with astrophotos. What shutter speeds are most affected by shutter slap is dependent on the mass of the camera and lens, the rigidity of the tripod and head, and the focal length in use. Some other examples at longer exposure times where MLU is helpful and where timing is important: when the animal's head moves into the right position and has the best catch light: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.12.2003.img_4084.b-600.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/grizzly.bear.c07.03.2003.I MG_5682.b-600.html and here is an example where timing is not critical (so MLU with an automatic delay works): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c -5x-700.html I have tested lunar images with and without mirror lockup in the 1/125 to 1/250 second range and MLU is critical for getting sharp images. IS also works well at those exposure times too, but there is a higher percentage of sharp images with MLU and no IS, at least with my system (500 mm f/4 + TCs on a Gitzo 1348 carbon fiber tripod and full Wimberly head). So the assertion that MLU affects between 1/8 and 1 second is clearly incomplete. Roger > Bob, > I was reacting to the statement that "Clearly mirror slap [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is yet another one, just like so many things in photography > and all of life. So I object when people are so adamant. Plus, I was a little grouchy having just learned I couldn't get on an earlier flight home after 3 weeks of travel. Sorry. I'm home and happy now ;-) Time to go Christmas shopping.... Roger > > Bob, > > I was reacting to the statement that "Clearly mirror slap [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Roger Yes, I agree those Black & White situations are like hen's teeth (rare indeed). Since I didn't make the assertion about the shutter speeds (I think if you follow the attributes back, you will find that was Thomas' comment), I was a little surprised that you jumped so hard. So be it. Christmas is a good time to be happy and I can definitely relate to the travel situation as after years of doing it continually, it has grown into one of my pet peeves. Have a good one! Bob > Certainly MLU at fast shutter speeds is not the same issue > as at lower speeds. No I did not take images both [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So the assertion that MLU affects between 1/8 and 1 second > is clearly incomplete. For less specialized shooting and a lighter rig, e.g., a portrait lens, but on a sturdy tripod, wouldn't the results be far less discernable at the 1/125 level? Would not a steady hand on the camera act as a dampener against mirror jar? SignatureJohn Mcwilliams >> Certainly MLU at fast shutter speeds is not the same issue >> as at lower speeds. No I did not take images both [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > but on a sturdy tripod, wouldn't the results be far less discernable at > the 1/125 level? Perhaps. There are many variables. For examples, aluminum tripod legs vibrate more and at a different frequency than carbon fiber legs. The frequency varies if the legs are extended or not. Yet another frequency if the center column is raised. All that then the head and the weight of the head, camera, and lenses all factor in. The problem becomes most troublesome at the resonant frequency, and that maximum varies with all the above conditions. > Would not a steady hand on the camera act as a dampener against mirror jar? Again, it depends on magnification. At high magnification, e.g. macro shot or super telephoto, the vibrations from your hand could reduce the impact of the mirror movement, but add movement during the exposure, blurring the shot. Again, there are many variables. Roger > I am just taking the devils advocate on this one, as the vast majority, of not > all, of my photography done at the shutter speed affected by mirror slap, > would all benefit equally from a 1/2 second delay versus using mirror lockup. I haven't got a remote yet for my D200, it's unfortunate that the delay is only 1/2 second because for extreme macro work that's probably just enough time to set the tripod swaying, not to settle down. >> I am just taking the devils advocate on this one, as the vast majority, >> of not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > only 1/2 second because for extreme macro work that's probably just enough > time to set the tripod swaying, not to settle down. Paul, maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't you be best served by using the "Mirror Up" position on the Mode Dial of the D200 (P26 of the owner's manual). In that position, first press lifts the mirror, second press fires the shutter. If you don't give the second press it will fire on its own after 30 seconds. Your delay can be from instant to 30 seconds. That's the process I use for macro work, and it does a fine job. Bob > Paul Furman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's the process I use for macro work, and it does a fine job. > Bob Nice! I didn't know that, thanks. > Nice! I didn't know that, thanks. You can get one of these ADIDT (brand name) chinese remotes for the D200. I have one and it does its job perfectly. Cheaper than the Nikon one, too. > No, I am not saying that at all. However, if one wanted to do > continuous > shooting in this scenario [for whatever reason], then that would > reduce the > gap between frames by 1/2 second by just leaving the mirror up. The problem with that is most cameras do not use a true mirror lockup, they only raise the mirror up for one shot, then it returns to its normal position (a temporary lockup). So you have to press the button to raise it again, wait a few moments for vibrations to subside, then trip the shutter again. Repeating as often as needed to get the shots. The half second delay means you don't have to think about it, just fire the delayed shot and it's done. Repeating as often as you need. > Let me ask you this. With true mirror lockup, is there a drain on > the battery [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shutter delay. Depending upon what you are doing, it may just > matter, eh? Mirrors are raised in all DSLR cameras with an electromagnetic solenoid which requires power to be applied to maintain the raised position. Once power is cut from the solenoid, the spring-loaded mirror returns to its normal position. If the wait time is excessive and the battery is low, the battery will run down and fail while waiting for the shot. In older designs with true mirror lockup where the mirror is raised and locked in place, there would be no extra battery drain while waiting for the shot because a mechanical lock is used to hold the mirror up, and the mirror does not return after the shot. > I am just taking the devils advocate on this one, as the vast > majority, of not > all, of my photography done at the shutter speed affected by mirror > slap, > would all benefit equally from a 1/2 second delay versus using > mirror lockup. I agree...my previous camera had MLU and my current D80 has delayed lockup. The only time I can see mirror lockup being practically useful is in Rogers example where he's waiting for an opportunity on a long telephoto lense and MLU is used to reduce the chance of vibration affecting the shot. SignatureHappy Holidays! > I don't understand the beef about spot metering with digital > cameras. The canons have center weighted metering, which is > reasonably tight, and you can always take a test images and > check the histogram. This sounds like a red herring to me. Spot metering is tighter [obviously] and I would rather not have to take additional test photos if I don't need to. Granted, shooting RAW I tend to take a test photo for purposes of viewing the histogram, but only in cases where I have the time to setup the shot without fear of missing my subject. The spot meter makes life really easy ... expose on a valid spot in the picture [i.e. medium blue, bright white, green leaves], compensate, recompose and shoot. It can be very quick. So no ... I don't consider it a red herring ... especially for JPEG shooters. > I personally think other things are more important, like > noise, dynamic range, frames per second, instant on time, > AF accuracy. I don't know how the two cameras stack up > in these regards (except noise and dynamic range), > and I would rank the above higher than 8 versus 10 megapixels. Agreed. Spot metering is a single additional point that I am happy to have had in all my Nikon cameras [N80, F100, D70 and now the D200]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > >>> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less > >>> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > long. I just don't trust matrix metering with complex, high dynamic range > scenes very well. The new Rebel XTi doesn't have a spot meter either. >>> Large Viewfinder >>> Nikkor Mount [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > range > scenes very well. The above listed reasons are why I chose to switch from Canon to Nikon. I had the Canon XT and was considering the 20D (30D was too pricey), but opted to go for the Nikon D80 when I had a chance to sell all of my Canon gear at once. The big things for me were the viewfinder, ergonomics, and features like spot metering, a brighter menu, a programmable control button, etc. Also, this is a personal thing, but I find the D80 feels better than the Canon in my hands because my index finger falls naturally on the shutter button, and I don't like the indent on the Canon grips. An annoying thing is my nose hits the Canon rear dial since I use my left eye for the viewfinder (oddly enough I aim firearms with my right eye). The Nikon dials and controls also seem to be better placed. Someone mentioned mirror lockup, and the D80 uses about a half second shutter delay when set. A regular lockup would have been nice, but since the purpose of MLU is to reduce mirror slap vibration, the delay does the same thing. I guess Nikon didn't want to put all of the D200 features in the D80. :-) -- Happy Holidays! > >>> Large Viewfinder > >>> Nikkor Mount [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > does the same thing. I guess Nikon didn't want to put all of the D200 > features in the D80. My Olympus has a feature that allows you to set mirror lock up in seconds before the shutter fires. To prevent vibration under certain circumstances. Or, you can just lock it up manually. > I would have thought the non-availability of Spot Metering in the Canon > would be one of the biggest points in favour of the Nikon D80. > However, I guess that depends on your approach to proper metering/exposure. > Bob Exactly. Without spot metering I wouldn't have been able to get shots like these: http://nikongear.com/alb/displayimage.php?pos=-24 http://nikongear.com/alb/displayimage.php?pos=-307 The correct use of a spot meter in tricky lighting situations is indispensible. One of the features that I really like on the D80 is its custom button (which is found just below the DOF preview button). Program it to select spot metering when pressed and you don't even have to remove your eye from the finder. > http://nikongear.com/alb/displayimage.php?pos=-24 > > http://nikongear.com/alb/displayimage.php?pos=-307 The second picture ... VERY NICE. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 I'm a D70s owner and I would say that the 20D is where it's at. The smaller size and greater automation is what would make the D80 more attractive to maybe not those folks who frequent this newsgroup but to, say, the soccer-mom types who are just looking for a step up from their P&S for getting shots of their kids. Kevin > A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less > than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for > the D80? This isn't really a plastic-metal thing (though that is part > of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature > the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? Or for the smaller size am I thinking of the D40? Kevin > I'm a D70s owner and I would say that the 20D is where it's at. The > smaller size and greater automation is what would make the D80 more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature > > the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? > I'm a D70s owner and I would say that the 20D is where it's at. The > smaller size and greater automation is what would make the D80 more > attractive to maybe not those folks who frequent this newsgroup but to, > say, the soccer-mom types who are just looking for a step up from their > P&S for getting shots of their kids. Um.... You're referring to the brand new D40 I assume. The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. > The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. I don't believe this to be true at all. In fact, in some ways, I would say it is even further from pro than the D70. The D80 camera body is SMALL. In all honesty, they are in the same league as each other; the D80 is simply the next generation of the D70 and fills essentially the same nitch. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. > > I don't believe this to be true at all. In fact, in some ways, I would say it > is even further from pro than the D70. The D80 camera body is SMALL. In all > honesty, they are in the same league as each other; the D80 is simply the next > generation of the D70 and fills essentially the same nitch. With most of the same technology... and many of the same features.... as the D200. A pro camera. > > > The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as the D200. > A pro camera. The D200 is light-years beyond the D80 if only because of it's full-sized, sealed, magnesium body. Plus a whole lot more. The Pentax K10D is closer to the D200 than the D80 is. >> > The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. >> >> I don't believe this to be true at all. In fact, in some ways, I >> would say it >> is even further from pro than the D70. The D80 camera body is >> SMALL. The overall body size is smaller, but the important parts are almost the same size, such as the grip. The grip is a little smaller, but just the right fit for my hands. > In all >> honesty, they are in the same league as each other; the D80 is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as the D200. > A pro camera. I'd say my D80 is an amateur (or semi-pro, prosumer, enthusiast) camera. It's more advanced than a beginners model, but not as advanced as a pro body. SignatureHappy Holidays! > >> > The D80 is more of a "pro" camera than your D70. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera. It's more advanced than a beginners model, but not as advanced > as a pro body. Agreed.... but the original statement still stands. I chose the D80 for "feel"....larger viewfinder.... more affordale lenses....spot metering abilities.... more exposure compensation.... larger LCD.... higher Pixel count....the great CLS Flash system....lighter weight.... and a tad smaller. So you're correct.... no contest. > A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less > than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for > the D80? This isn't really a plastic-metal thing (though that is part > of it) but comparing them with each other, what is the major feature > the Nikon has that would make it more atttractive? Well, if you want to compare, then it's 30D vs D80 ... or 20D vs. D70s However, I personally think it makes more sense to compare the entire Canon system vs. the Nikon/ Nikkor system ... and that is mainly the lens line-up. I see more bang-for-the-buck in Canon's mid-quality and F4 L lenses (28-135 IS USM, 70-200 F4, 17-40 F4, ...), therefore I went with Canon. Of cause both manufacturers make great products! There is nothing comparable like the Nikkor 18-200 VRII for Canon. You might want to have a look here: http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/ >> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, if you want to compare, then it's 30D vs D80 ... or 20D vs. D70s Well really then it is D200 v 30D. 20D is old model and should not be considered. D80 v 400D. > However, I personally think it makes more sense to compare the entire > Canon system vs. the Nikon/ Nikkor system ... and that is mainly the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You might want to have a look here: http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/ >>> A Nikon D80 body is nearly $900.00. The Canon 20D body is now less >>> than $800.00. Why (apart from owning Nikon glass) would someone go for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well really then it is D200 v 30D. 20D is old model and should not be > considered. D80 v 400D. Correct, except that you might compare the D200 to the 5D as well [obviously they are different sensor format]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Well, if you want to compare, then it's 30D vs D80 ... or 20D vs. >> D70s > > Well really then it is D200 v 30D. 20D is old model and should not > be considered. D80 v 400D. Comparisons between models are usually based on similarities. What are your criteria for comparison? The D200 v 30D doesn't seem right since the D200 is sealed and has more user features. The D80 v 400D doesn't seem right since the D80 is more advanced and has more user features. The D80 v 30D doesn't seem right since the 30D has a metal body. If you base it on megapixels, the models are still not equal in features and price. In several months all this may change as new models are released, so again the playing field will not be level. The only way to make comparisons across models that are not very similar, is on personal preferences and price ranges. The models mentioned here are not really on the same levels, some models have leap-frogged over competitors models, and features do not always compare. This is on purpose, so it makes direct side-by-side comparisons somewhat harder to do, and you have to weigh the merits of each cameras features on personal needs. SignatureHappy Holidays! >>> Well, if you want to compare, then it's 30D vs D80 ... or 20D vs. D70s >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > harder to do, and you have to weigh the merits of each cameras features on > personal needs. Yes. Merry Christmas. Required reading for all those that endlessly torture themselves, and anyone who's within earshot, comparing the specifications of one piece of equipment to another: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml The real bottom line is that BOTH of those cameras will take excellent photographs that can easily meet professional standards. I was a Canonite for years, but recently switched over to Nikon. I tried a D80 for a week prior to upgrading to a D200. I just wanted the feature set and overall build of the D200, but that's not to slight the capabilities of the D80. For the typical serious amateur and even backup professional they work just fine. I do feel that overall Nikon's reputation for superior metering on their DSLR's is their strength. While there is plenty of ballyhooing about the high ISO performance of the Canon's (been there done that) it is a bit overplayed as frankly, I can count the number of times I shoot above ISO400 on ONE hand. YMMV to be sure so you have to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The performance of the Nikons up to ISO1600 is fine, and as long as you're exposing correctly you'll find them just fine up to a 13x19 print with no issues. A touch of Noiseware or Noise Ninja and you're pretty much unlimited. Post processing is a must for ALL DSLR's anyway so it is NO big deal. It's just part of the workflow........I am not as hung up on this whole Canon vs. Nikon thing. Indeed they both have some advantages in design and execution. As far as the "end result" it's way more important to have a competent photographer behind the camera than a high performance camera in incompetent hands. This isn't rocket science, but from what I see on the various forums, it is full of folks that are buying high end gear that have little to no experience with photography, and are obsessed with technical specs and not with needed technique (which can typically ONLY be learned through use and experience.....not just reading or talking about it.....I say just go out and shoot.................enjoy........and share........... > The real bottom line is that BOTH of those cameras will take excellent > photographs that can easily meet professional standards. I was a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > experience.....not just reading or talking about it.....I say just go > out and shoot.................enjoy........and share........... Finally, a sensible, reasoned, sane view of this endless Nikon/Canon argument..... As I see it, it's a matter of personal preference - both brands are high quality producdts capable of superior performance in the hands of a skilled photographer...... PC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.