Nikon D80

[Master Mason]

here is another thing to throw a monkey wrench in your system... compare the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80. That is a much much closer comparison of features. And within a few bucks of each other at this point.

 

[Steve's Girl]

here is another thing to throw a monkey wrench in your system... compare the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80. That is a much much closer comparison of features. And within a few bucks of each other at this point.

Well now, you could compare the 30D to the D200 since it's only a few more bucks!

 

[mill4023]

Well now, you could compare the 30D to the D200 since it's only a few more bucks!

LOL. This could get very dangerous.

The reality is that the D80 and the XTi both have way more capability than I need as a first time DSLR user. The only reason I'm not considering the D40 is the lack of AF with the cheap 50mm 1.8.
So it's really a matter of whether I should choose Canon or Nikon. If I go with Canon, there's really no need to spend the extra money on the 30D instead of the XTi. And if I go with Nikon, there's no need to spend the extra for the D200 over the D80.

 

[Anewman]

Well now, you could compare the 30D to the D200 since it's only a few more bucks!

I see the D200 being almost $600 more expensive than the 30D, what do you consider "a few more bucks!"?

Buydig prices as of RIGHT NOW

Canon 30d body only $999
Nikon D200 body only $1,549

But you see that is exactly why Nikon has always produced tweeners to the Canon line, car makers do it all the time. Marketing always compares specs with the lower line from the competition, but they always compare price with a higher line.

 

[fitzperry]

LOL. This could get very dangerous.

The reality is that the D80 and the XTi both have way more capability than I need as a first time DSLR user. The only reason I'm not considering the D40 is the lack of AF with the cheap 50mm 1.8.
So it's really a matter of whether I should choose Canon or Nikon. If I go with Canon, there's really no need to spend the extra money on the 30D instead of the XTi. And if I go with Nikon, there's no need to spend the extra for the D200 over the D80.

It's always nice to have something you can "grow" into. You may find you'll need it sooner than you think.

 

[Nikel]

I see the D200 being almost $600 more expensive than the 30D, what do you consider "a few more bucks!"?

Buydig prices as of RIGHT NOW

Canon 30d body only $999
Nikon D200 body only $1,549

The price gap is exaggerated right now because the 40D is already released (so the 30D has been consistently dropping in price), but the D300 hasn't released yet (so the D200 hasn't started dropping).

 

[Master Mason]

That is not true, the 40D has not been released yet, but even so the 40D is listing for $1299 body only but backordered. Still cheaper for the 40D than the D200

 

[Nikel]

That is not true, the 40D has not been released yet, but even so the 40D is listing for $1299 body only but backordered. Still cheaper for the 40D than the D200

I have in my camera bag upstairs a shiny new 40D. They most certainly are released. I pre-ordered from amazon.com, and it shipped last week. It released early. I can go look and try to find some sort of press release. Or I can fire of a couple of quick snapshots, and you can check the exif info.

 

[Master Mason]

OK, then I stand corrected, but the place I buy from still has them back ordered, so if you pre ordered then your good, if you didn't then your waiting.

But since you have one, how is it? I am thinking of just getting the 30D, not sure that it is 300 bucks better.

But it is still cheaper than the D200 currently.

 

[Nikel]

I was prevously shooting with a 20D (and still have it as a back-up), and this was def. a worthwhile upgrade for me. The Auto ISO is a pretty handy little feature. I also like the spot metering (can't remeber if the 30D has that - the 20D does not). What's really rocking my world is the focus. Way sharper than my 20D when I'm shooting with the wider aps. It took some getting used to and time setting up all the settings where I want them, but now I'm really happy with it. I've really only played with it, and mostly trying to figure out some studio lighting stuff, so I don't have anything sample images share. I'm shooting a fairly big event this weekend though, so next week I'll have a more in depth opinion and some images to show.

 

[Master Mason]

the 30D does have spot metering, which is one of the major reasons I want to upgrade from the XT. B&H is closed till saturday now, so I will think over the weekend, but I am at the 99% to pull the trigger next week. I am planning an overnighter to DL next month and would love to have the new camera for it, plus it would allow my son to use my XT. Plus Fall ball is going now so It would be nice to have for that. I would love to have the latest and greatest, but like I said I am having difficultly justifying the extra 300 to myself. Maybe get the 30 now and the 50 in 2 years...lol

 

[Steve's Girl]

I see the D200 being almost $600 more expensive than the 30D, what do you consider "a few more bucks!"?

Buydig prices as of RIGHT NOW

Canon 30d body only $999
Nikon D200 body only $1,549

But you see that is exactly why Nikon has always produced tweeners to the Canon line, car makers do it all the time. Marketing always compares specs with the lower line from the competition, but they always compare price with a higher line.

I was just kidding! My whole point is that for more $, you can always get more. Once you start down that road, it never ends. You decide what your needs are and rule out those models that are more than you want or need.

 

[mill4023]

After more research, plenty of helpful advice in my other thread here, and playing around with the XTi and the D80 again, I've decided to go with the D80.
Now I have to decide what to do as far as lenses. My use will mainly be for family and vacation pictures. I would really like some decent low light capability because that's been sorely missing on my P&S. I'd also love to eventually have a long telephoto.
I've heard some pretty good things about the 18-135 kit lens and the 18-55 kit lens, but I've also seem some reviews that aren't very favorable (especially for the 18-135). Everyone seems to love the 18-200 VR, but that's a lot of money to spend for someone who's just starting out with DSLR's.
Eventually, I'd like to have something in the 200mm or maybe even 300mm range, but that doesn't have to be right now.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a 50mm f/1.8 for low light. Other than that, I'm not sure what to do.
Here are a couple of options I'm thinking about:
1. Get the body only and buy the 18-200 VR.
2. Get the body only and buy something like an 18-50 f/2.8 and a 70-300 VR
3. Get the kit with 18-55 and buy a 70-300 VR.
4. Get the kit with the 18-135 and use that for awhile before deciding what else I really want.

Which of these do you think is a better option or do you have another recommendation?

Thanks.

 

[fan1080]

I have the 18-200, and other than lens creep, I really like it.

A couple other options:

1. 18-135 and 70-300 VR.
2. 18-55 and 55-200 VR.

I had a 50 1.8, 18-55 and the 55-200 VR, they are all great lenses. I decided to go with the 18-200 because I don't have to change lenses.

For the low-light variety, that's where I'm at now too. I would like something in 2.8 with zoom. Nikon's 2.8 lenses are excellent, but very pricey. I've been looking at Sigma for a 2.8.

 

[Master Mason]

Personally, unless you are sure you need something at this time, I would go with option 4. That will cover most of your general needs, and then after you have learned to use the camera, you can decide what addtional lens(es) you need to get to be able to get the shots you want but can't get with the lens you have.

 

[senecabeach]

In no stretch of the imagination am I qualified to answer your question.

I am a newbie to the D80 for these last 9 mos. and have learned a wealth of information from the real "guru's" on these boards who have helped me expand my photo skills.

I would like to share my experience with you. I purchased the D 80, 18-135mm and treated myself to the 70-300 VR.
I use the 18-135 as my walk around. I have been very thrilled with these and thought they would suffice for my needs going forward.

Well...still wasn't happy with the % of pics taken vs. keepers for low light....so...I just got the prime 50mm f/1.8 and it was certainly cheap considering the use it will get.

In hindsight, I probably should have gotten the 50mm first + the 18-135mm!!

So its your choice and also remember the "extras" you will need to buy along with equiptment..camera bag ( I have 2, main + day trip)..tripod..UV/P filters(?)...etc.

Enjoy !!!

 

[NostalgicDad]

I have option #2 and it's the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX. As far as focal length coverage with these 2 lenses, for me this works good. I don't miss the 50-70mm range at all. As much as I love my Nikon 70-300VR, the Sigma has just been a joy to use. Next up for me will probably be the Sigma 10-20mm.

 

[Steve's Girl]

My vote is for option 4 (18-135) along with the 50mm 1.8 for low light. This is the set-up I started out with and took on my WDW trip last Dec. and it worked really well.

 

[YEKCIM]

A lot depends on your budget, and your anticipated needs. The equipment you see listed in my sig below is what I purchased initially, and I do not regret a single item. Having said that, though, I will say that the 18-135 and 70-300VR cover 95% of my shooting. The 50mm and the 10-20 are for special situations, and honestly do not get used much. Ditto for the SB-800, although I wouldn't want to be without it.

Of the options you listed, #4 makes the most sense to me, unless you already know that you will want a long-reach lens, in which case the 70-300VR is a good choice, if you have the funds to stretch for it. The 50mm, at $120 or so, is a bargain, and would be useful in some situations at WDW. I used it on Great Movie Ride and Carousel of Progress, but that is about it. I could've used it at night, too, but we were "on the run" so much that I really did not have a chance to do much night photography.

As I think I said in the other thread, having the extra reach of the 18-135, vs the 18-55, made that a no brainer for me, and the overlap between the 18-135 and the 70-300VR means less lens changing. I'm VERY happy with the sharpness, color, contrast, etc of the 18-135. The main complaint I've heard concerns the build quality (plastic mount, etc) and have read some posts on dedicated photo boards about the lens having to be returned to Big N for repair. For the money, though, I think it is an amazing lens, especially if you don't bang it around. For an example of the edge to edge sharpness, look at the photo of the kids' choir or whatever it is in the DPReview D80 review samples page (scroll the thumbnails to the right to find that pic...I think it's the 13th from the left). Download the full res image and then zoom in on it. I think you will be impressed. Do note that not all of the pix on this D80 review are made with the 18-135, though.

Good luck; we'll all be looking for some great pix from you on this forum!

~Ed

 

[Groucho]

I don't think anyone mentioned size/weight... without knowing the exact numbers off the top of my head (how sad would that be!), I'm pretty sure that the D80 is noticably larger and heavier than the XTi, due to it being a higher-end camera.

I'd still go for the D80 over the XTi, but it is something to keep in mind if weight is a concern.

I'd also assume that there's a reason that the Sony A100 and Pentax K10D (or even K100D) didn't make it to your final round... those are both worth considering also.