 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / May 2008Buying Nikon D80 any comments welcome
So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could post some pics shot with it, that would be nice. You will probably see me here more often once I get it. Should arrive by next weekend I hope. Thanks in advance ROphantom ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ROphantom If you haven't had any invest on Nikon system then you may want to take a look at Canon system. Point your browser to www.dpreview.com and go from there. You may want to take a look at the Canon 40D which should be lot better than Nikon D80, or many people compare it with the Nikon D300. And I read that comparing to all older series the Nikon D300 is the good model. > You may want to take a look at the Canon 40D which should be lot better > than Nikon D80, or many people compare it with the Nikon D300. And I read > that comparing to all older series the Nikon D300 is the good model. A Canon 40D compares to a Nikon D300? You are joking of course. The D300 knocks spots of the 40D. Yes it's a very good camera, but its not in the same ballpark at all. PDM. > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could > post some pics shot with it, that would be nice. You will probably see me > here more often once I get it. Should arrive by next weekend I hope. a 28-80mm lens on a nikon d80 is equivalent to a 42-120mm lens, which is not very wide at all. that may not matter to you, but it would to me! the 70-300 is equivalent to a 105-450mm, and if you enjoy telephoto, that will be ideal. as for the camera, the d80 is excellent, especially at the prices it's been lately. dpreview has a very thorough review, with numerous sample photos: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/> > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ROphantom Canon 40D mate. >> So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon >> lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Canon 40D mate. I hear ya! :) 40D - Way to go! J > >> So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > >> lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > J best way to take variable exposure photos... > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- The D80 is a great camera. And being it's a name brand body you'll be able to grow with it by adding Pro Series Nikon lenses. I purchased the D80 for my College Classes that I teach and have found it to be a great system. It has all the manual functions that you'll eventually learn if you take the time to do so. If you take an online photo course such as the one I offer you'll learn to use all the functions in all modes. It is really a good investment. Jeff Roush / photography instructor http://www.roushphotoonline.com There is a rumour I've heard that Nikon will announce a new replacement for the D80 in August/September. Suspect this may be true as the price of the D80 has dropped quite a lot over the last couple of months as retailers get rid of there stock in preparation for the new models. So it may be worth while hanging on for a bit. PDM > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 nikon > lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one and could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Newsgroups > ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Yeah, I asked a while back what the new name would be. That was around the time of the D3 announcement. I suspect it will be a watered down D300, with SD RAM instead of the aging Compact Flash. I've also been guessing it will be called the D90. > There is a rumour I've heard that Nikon will announce a new > replacement for the D80 in August/September. Suspect this may be true [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >100,000 Newsgroups >> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > Yeah, I asked a while back what the new name would be. That was around > the > time of the D3 announcement. I suspect it will be a watered down D300, > with SD RAM instead of the aging Compact Flash. I've also been guessing > it > will be called the D90. If CF is old technology, why do the high end boxes use CF and the entry level use SD-ram. I suspect it may have something to do with speed, but I have little knowledge in of that area. Perhaps one of our engineering friends can explain. I gave up after Goggling through five pages.  SignaturePeter >> Yeah, I asked a while back what the new name would be. That was around >> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have little knowledge in of that area. Perhaps one of our engineering > friends can explain. I gave up after Goggling through five pages. More to do with the fact that a photographer in the field or in a the dark with a pocketful of SD cards wouldnt know one from the other and they are too easy to lose. CF is bigger stronger and has more space to scribble stuff and is harder to mislay. >> Yeah, I asked a while back what the new name would be. That was >> around the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > engineering friends can explain. I gave up after Goggling through five > pages. Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, at least spec-wise. There is a new forthcoming CF standard is faster than both and it gets rid of the easily bendable pins. There are many theories as to why CF is still in use. One is that Pros have so much invested in them that camera companies are afraid to change. I guess, but they change cameras often too. >>> Yeah, I asked a while back what the new name would be. That was >>> around the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have so much invested in them that camera companies are afraid to change. > I guess, but they change cameras often too. Thanks for the information. According to the Wiki a new and better CF standard is coming. Also, it seems that CF is more reliable than SD. SignaturePeter <snip> > > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, at > > least [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thanks for the information. According to the Wiki a new and better CF > standard is coming. Also, it seems that CF is more reliable than SD. Few months ago when my last checked with the CF, and 32GB is/was the largest and 266-300X is/was the fastest. Comparing to SDHC I have the 8GB SDHC Class-6 I got about a year ago for my GPS, and 8GB is/was the lastest, and Class-6 is the fastest which I read it's somewhere around 33-66X or so (I may be wrong as it's my first and only SDHC and I got few different info). > <snip> >> > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (I may be wrong as it's my first and only SDHC and I got few different > info). I've seen 133x SDHC Class 6 cards. I'm not sure if those are the fastest; remember, the SD class only specify the minimum speeds for the category. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se > > <snip> > >> > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, at [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I've seen 133x SDHC Class 6 cards. I'm not sure if those are the fastest; > remember, the SD class only specify the minimum speeds for the category. Class-6 could be equal to 133X which I don't know, but I know for sure that Class-6 is the fastest of SDHC at the moment. >> > <snip> >> >> > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, at [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Class-6 could be equal to 133X which I don't know, but I know for sure > that Class-6 is the fastest of SDHC at the moment. Yes, it is...but it doesn't "equal" 133x, because a range does not "equal" one value. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se >>> > <snip> >>> >> > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Yes, it is...but it doesn't "equal" 133x, because a range does not > "equal" one value. Okay, it *can*[1], but you know what I mean. :) [1] "The range of grades that mean I'll pay your tuition next term is A through A." SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se > <snip> >> > Flip through the Wiki on these and you will see that SD is faster, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 33-66X or so (I may be wrong as it's my first and only SDHC and I got > few different info). Yeah, the SDHC are a bit of a conundrum. I have both a 4GB SD card (150x) and a class 6 SDHC 4GB. The SD card is noticeably faster than the SDHC. For whatever reason, the SDHC are much slower than their smaller capacity brethern. The D80's biggest speed issue over the D200 is that the D80 only has 2 lines reading the sensor compared to 4 on the latter. According to the chart on Wiki, the theoretical limit of CF is 137GB. That's a rather odd number for things usually held in powers of 2. What is that 2^7 + 9GB? Someone else posted about the size of the CF being easier to palm. My hands are not small, but they are not huge either, and I don't find the CF or SD to be too difficult to handle. Now manually loading film in the dark into my dad's old Spotmatic was difficult. Changing cards in a digital camera is quite easy. I also don't write on the cards. I dump to a computer and burn 2 DVD's of the RAW files. <snip> > >> > There are many theories as to why CF is still in use. One is that > >> > Pros have so much invested in them that camera companies are afraid [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > digital camera is quite easy. I also don't write on the cards. I dump > to a computer and burn 2 DVD's of the RAW files. I have never timed none of my memory cards (I have used 3-4 different types in over a decade), 1 8GB SDHC Class-6, and still have over dozen CF from 2GB up to 16GB. And because I use for digital cemaras so 166X is the fastest I have. And I read quite afew reports from different owners saying that when transfering date from memory card to computer the larger memory card with same rating is usually slower than the smaller card. Me? I just stick the card in reader (or portable storage) then go on with other thing so a little shower won't bother me a bit. And I came from very slow transfering memory card and devices (not like the one we have today) that would take 30-60 minutes to transfer 4-256M. > <snip> >> >> > There are many theories as to why CF is still in use. One is [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > the one we have today) that would take 30-60 minutes to transfer > 4-256M. I know RAW files transfer much faster out of my D80 into my wife's Mac than they do to either my desktop or laptop Winblows machine, eventhough my laptop has a faster processor (it does run Vista business though). <snip> > >> According to the chart on Wiki, the theoretical limit of CF is 137GB. > >> That's a rather odd number for things usually held in powers of 2. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > than they do to either my desktop or laptop Winblows machine, eventhough > my laptop has a faster processor (it does run Vista business though). This is what I read, understand, and believe. - The speed transferring between (or from) Memory Card Reader to computer is usually depend on the CARD READER. Example, the USB2 is much faster than USB1, and I read some card is faster than other. Me? for over a decade using digital cemera I have gone through almost dozen different card readers, and besides the difference between USB1 vs USB2, I can't confirm the speed difference between the same type. And the reason I have so many not because I care or believe newer is better, but because too many changes in the memory card word that I have to upgrade to be able to read a newer larger capacity. - The speed can cause by the system, example some program uses too much CPU, not enough free disk space for swapping, not enough RAM for better performance, and fragment hard drive can cause slowness etc.. - My laptop has Vista but I don't use laptop often to know much about Vista, and I always use card reader to have much experience about transferring data from camera to computer (I only did many years ago with my Olympus digital cameras and there wasn't card reader for that special memory card). > <snip> >> >> According to the chart on Wiki, the theoretical limit of CF is [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > with my Olympus digital cameras and there wasn't card reader for that > special memory card). Since you have shared who you are, let me share a bit about me. I've been developing for microprocessors for over 20 years. I've used OS's like Unix (Solaris, Sun OS 4, HP UX, Ultrix, Xenix, IRIX), VMS, DOS, CP/M, Windows (everything since Win 3), Mac (since the 128k version) and OS/2 (1.1 and Warp). I have programmed in C, C++ (with MFC and Borland's OWL), Perl, BASIC, Macro Assembly, FORTRAN 77, PL/1, LISP and Java. I have built my own machines and I've bought premade ones. I am quite familiar with USB 1, 1.1 and 2. I have both wired and wireless networks running though my house. Blah...blah...blah.... In a word, Vista sucks (ok, two words). It sucks so much that my next computer WILL be a Mac Pro. No more PCs for me. <snip> > >> I know RAW files transfer much faster out of my D80 into my wife's > >> Mac than they do to either my desktop or laptop Winblows machine, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > In a word, Vista sucks (ok, two words). It sucks so much that my next > computer WILL be a Mac Pro. No more PCs for me. Me? I came to America in late 60's and started learning English since, but because I was a little too old to learn English like younger folks, and I found computer language was much easier than English. So I started with CP/M, learned programming and I was much better with computer language than English. And I started building my own IBM since the IBM Clone was available and continue to build few newer systems every few years. I since I was pretty good with computer language I was able to program some small programs for personal use (when I can't even be able to write a lines of doccument), then later I did some cracking for some local BBSes. But in late 86 I had some illness problem that I didn't think I can make it, and I thought I could end up in wheelchair etc. It took me 5-6 years to learn to walk, and that's pretty much the end of my programming. Thank you all so much for the advise. I did look at the canon 40D and its very nice. I think I am still going to go with the Nikon D80 as it will fit my needs and is about $200 dollars cheaper. Hope to see you all here again in the few weeks. --RO ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > Thank you all so much for the advise. I did look at the canon 40D and its > very nice. I think I am still going to go with the Nikon D80 as it will fit > my needs and is about $200 dollars cheaper. Hope to see you all here again > in the few weeks. > > --RO Nikon D80 is a fine camera, but if you want to compare the price the you should compare Canon 40D with something like Nikon D300, because many (or most) people compare Canon 40D with Nikon D300 and they think they are in same class. I am not Nikon user but read some about Nikon and it's the first time I heard both Canon and Nikon users mention the improvement of Nikon D300. > Thank you all so much for the advise. I did look at the canon 40D and its > very nice. I think I am still going to go with the Nikon D80 as it will fit > my needs and is about $200 dollars cheaper. Hope to see you all here again > in the few weeks. some examples taken with my d80 in my gallery: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/gallery/#_browse sorry, but you'll have to click to find which ones are dslr, which ones are film. ;-) > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 > nikon lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one > and could post some pics shot with it, that would be nice. You will > probably see me here more often once I get it. Should arrive by next > weekend I hope. Thanks in advance I've had one for a bit over a year. It takes pretty good photos, but one thing to remember is that it likes to over-expose. I tend to run EV at -.3 or -.7 when I am not in manual mode (usually aperture priority). > > So I have decided to purchase a new Nikon D80 with a 28-80 & 70-300 > > nikon lense. Any comments are welcome good or bad. If anyone has one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thing to remember is that it likes to over-expose. I tend to run EV at -.3 > or -.7 when I am not in manual mode (usually aperture priority). I am not Nikon user to have much or any experience about Nikon to share (I hope someone won't jump up and down saying don't say if not Nikon owner), but in general most if not all Digital Cameras have pretty similar options/features/setup (I am pretty sure). - Most if not all should have option to set one or several custom setting for some basic setting like "Brightness", "Sharpness", "Noise", "Soft", "Temperature" etc.. and some has more option than other - Most if not all should have compression level - Most if not all should have meter to display the brighness measurement the camera sees (....|....), and you can use either Shutter-speed or Aperture to adjust the brightness. It may not work with <M> and Flash (indoor) but should work for outdoor photography (I am not outdoor photography to have much detail to share). Also, same with my Canons, with same lens some (like the Canon 40D) is brighter than other, and I like little underexposed more than overexposed. Yup! I read quite afew people like the brighter capture of 40D but I prefer a little darker. > Also, same with my Canons, with same lens some (like the Canon 40D) is > brighter than other, and I like little underexposed more than overexposed. > Yup! I read quite afew people like the brighter capture of 40D but I > prefer > a little darker. You should be exposing to the right and capturing as much info as possible, that means overexposing to the extent of not burning out the highlights. Underexpose if you want fewer shades with less info captured in them. >> Also, same with my Canons, with same lens some (like the Canon 40D) is >> brighter than other, and I like little underexposed more than [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Underexpose if you want fewer shades with less info captured in them. Those photos already show small blown highlights in the sky as flashing areas when opened in bibble. The camera quite correctly didnt over expose the sky and lose detail. The real problem was that the dynamic range was greater than the camera could capture. . So the photographer needed to either post process (pull up the shadows) or over expose by x amount and blow the sky out on purpose which would have looked worse to me since all sky detail would be gone/blown out.. As it is they just need the levels adjusting slightly so as to keep the highlights (sky) the same and lift the mid and shadow a little. Or use fill flash or HDR. A point and shoot would have over exposed the sky to give a brighter picture at the expence of the sky. This would please most non photographers as it would give a "brighter" image but would piss off a pro because there would be large areas of the picture that were pure white. Where all the pixels were at 255 (max value from the 0 to 255 range) for every colour. Ie no ink on the paper! |
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
|
©2008 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.