|
lextalion
Jan 10, 2007, 4:42 PM
Post #1 of 45
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 216
|
I've been looking to get an SLR and have been leaning towards the D-80. Found a good price $1300 for the body, battery, memory card & two lens. Just wanted to hear from you rabid photographers if this was worth its' weight in gold. I'm planning on using it mostly for shooting climbing and backpacking adventures. Plus what ever else I do with the family. Also is that a good price for the package. By the way I found this price @ Costco. Something I'd have never considered purchasing through them. But for the package price, I'm considering it.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jan 10, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #2 of 45
(5174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
D 80 is a great camera but you should consider the D40 and put the extra $ into another road trip. I have a D200 and love it but when my son bought a D40 I fell in love with that too. It sooooo light. There's a good real-life comparison and review here:http://www.kenrockwell.com/...0-d50-d40-5d-xti.htm. Lots of other good info there, too. Mal PS- The dial twiddlers and pixel counters and spec-chart lovers don't like Ken Rockwell because he over simplifies but generally I've found his advice great and fair.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 11, 2007, 1:04 AM
Post #3 of 45
(5155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Niether the d80 or d40 are weather sealed, but they both take a lot of the d200's technology. like malcom said the D200 is a beast. not so big in terms of pro cameras but big in terms of what most people like to lug around for pleasure. once the camera becomes an albatros you will rarely take it anywhere. size is nice for balance of heavy lenses but it does come at a cost of enjoyment of the activity your trying to capture. the d40 only has a single control wheel. this does influence shooting ergononics. but for the cost difference you could get an extra lens. and while whatever camera you get might be antiquated in 2 years the lens (assuming the 1.5x remains) will still be a good lens.
|
|
|
|
|
lextalion
Jan 11, 2007, 8:44 PM
Post #4 of 45
(5130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 216
|
Malcom, thanks for the advice. I'm also interested in finding out if the $1300.00 is a good price for the package deal. Body, Battery, 512Mb memory card, 18-55 lens & 55-200 lens with ballistic case. I've also had looked at getting the D-50 however I have been told that nikon has discontinued the model. I loved the light weight of it, however when I heard about the discontinuation I was worried about repairs if I got one. By the way are you going to at Red Rock Rendezvous again this year?
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 11, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #5 of 45
(5126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Don't get the D40, that things a POS...I'd for the D200 or 80...for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
lextalion
Jan 12, 2007, 6:26 PM
Post #6 of 45
(5090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 216
|
dbrayack, Thanks for the advice. I'm heavily leaning towards the D-80 as the D200 is more camera right now than I need as this will be my 1st DSLR. I have also found it on line for a little less money than the price from costoco. However immediate gratification of having it in my grubby little hand now factor & what shipping via the internet purchase may not be much difference in price. I also checked out your website. Nice site and the article on photography are very helpful. Nice going & thanks. Hope to see you out @ red Rock rendezvous in March. (mgear.com and check out their event schedule)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 12, 2007, 6:31 PM
Post #7 of 45
(5088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Glad to help man. One thing I've learned...the body doesn't really matter as much as the lenses... in 10 years, assuming I don't break them, I'll be using all my lenses on the D8x or whatever...my D70 I gave away. I can see my D200 going the way of the (I cannot remember that stupid extinct bird..it would be a great saying). But anyways, lenses are eternal, bodies are only a 2-3 year investment. So I'm sure the D80 will treat you just great! ALso, be suuuuper careful with "online" pricing for bodies...I would check out B&H photo or "Abes of Maine"....trust me :) Pay the extra whatever. Most of the time, places who advertise the low prices are foreign POS (in japanese or something) or just simply not in stock. -Danno
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Jan 12, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #8 of 45
(5082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
Dan nice website1
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 12, 2007, 6:55 PM
Post #9 of 45
(5077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Thanks man
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 12, 2007, 10:40 PM
Post #10 of 45
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: Don't get the D40, that things a POS...I'd for the D200 or 80...for sure. Not being a smart ass here. But what is wrong with the D40. The reason I'm asking is not that I care but the OP said he was looking at the D50 but decided against it because it's discontinued (which doesn't mean anything since once the warranty is up repairs usually exceed camera value anyway on sub $1000 cameras). Anyway, the D40 seems to be an upgrade of the D50 so I'm just curious as to what specifically makes it a POS?
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 12, 2007, 10:44 PM
Post #11 of 45
(5055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
It shoots suuuuuuper slow, I think like 2.5 frames a second or less. Seems like they took a lot of short cuts with it. For climbing photography, you want to be shooting at least 3 frames a second (in my opinion) Also, you want a good buffer so you can roll off about 20-30 shots without lag. To name a few.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 12, 2007, 11:40 PM
Post #12 of 45
(5037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: It shoots suuuuuuper slow, I think like 2.5 frames a second or less. Seems like they took a lot of short cuts with it. For climbing photography, you want to be shooting at least 3 frames a second (in my opinion) Also, you want a good buffer so you can roll off about 20-30 shots without lag. To name a few. Fair point on the burst rate. I think the buffer is more important. Climbing (not bouldering) is static. Unless your trying to catch leader falls. 99% of the stuff on the front page or magazines can be captured with a manual wind film SLR. Hockey, football, or lacrosse on the other hand need at least 3fps, and 4-5fps is definitely ideal. They probably did shortcut with it though. It was designed to compete with the ever increasingly lower priced 6MP offerings of Pentax which were destroying there market share in Asia and Europe (and consequently highly profitable for the manufacturer since it was using the same 6MP sensor used for the last 2-3 years but with increasingly better IQ as a result of improved firmware and image stabilization). I don't think Nikon intended to release another 6MP camera after the D50 (notice canon didn't but it kept the Rebel XT in the lineup) but you have to compete to survive and I don't think they imagined people would stop buying into MP hype.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 13, 2007, 12:00 AM
Post #13 of 45
(5031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
pico23 wrote: Fair point on the burst rate. I think the buffer is more important. Climbing (not bouldering) is static. Unless your trying to catch leader falls. 99% of the stuff on the front page or magazines can be captured with a manual wind film SLR. Hockey, football, or lacrosse on the other hand need at least 3fps, and 4-5fps is definitely ideal. I shoot at 5 frames per second..you'd be amazed at the difference in quality between those 2 shots at 5 fps...
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Jan 13, 2007, 12:16 AM
Post #14 of 45
(5023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
I remember hearing the d40/50 only take some of the Nikon lenses (since it doesn't have an aperture control screw in the body, so only works with lenses with there own aperture motors). As for the weight issue, if you want a light camera, don't get an SLR. The only reason to get an SLR is because of the better quality results from good optics. Cheap kit lenses often fall short on delivering good results, and your better saving money and buying a cheaper camera. If you’re serious, buy good glass and a body that will deliver. I'm not saying you need to buy several thousand dollars worth of lenses, but read reviews on what lenses are good value.
|
|
|
|
|
gr8outdrsmn
Jan 13, 2007, 12:17 AM
Post #15 of 45
(5021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2007
Posts: 9
|
I'm going to go against the grain here. I use the Canon 30D, haha. It shoots 5 fps and fits my hands very well, i have big hands. I like the feel of it over the feel of the nikons in the same price range. I guess it is all up to the user.
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Jan 13, 2007, 12:25 AM
Post #16 of 45
(5020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
gr8outdrsmn wrote: I'm going to go against the grain here. I use the Canon 30D, haha. It shoots 5 fps and fits my hands very well, i have big hands. I like the feel of it over the feel of the nikons in the same price range. I guess it is all up to the user. I use the 10D, canons got me with there glass now. The XXDs from canon vs. the DXXs from Nikon are nicer. Better colour response, metal chassis and slightly bigger dimensions. Oh and you can get a vertical grip for canons, Nikon is letting the side down by not making on for the DXX series. The d40 and canons 400d just feel like toys.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 13, 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #17 of 45
(5014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: I shoot at 5 frames per second..you'd be amazed at the difference in quality between those 2 shots at 5 fps... Your stuff is good, so assuming I ever get back in the mountains, I will have to test this out and see the difference first hand.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 13, 2007, 1:06 AM
Post #18 of 45
(5009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
jimfix wrote: gr8outdrsmn wrote: I'm going to go against the grain here. I use the Canon 30D, haha. It shoots 5 fps and fits my hands very well, i have big hands. I like the feel of it over the feel of the nikons in the same price range. I guess it is all up to the user. I use the 10D, canons got me with there glass now. The XXDs from canon vs. the DXXs from Nikon are nicer. Better colour response, metal chassis and slightly bigger dimensions. Oh and you can get a vertical grip for canons, Nikon is letting the side down by not making on for the DXX series. The d40 and canons 400d just feel like toys. Reading many of Galen Rowells books I've determined he was possibly the biggest camera snob around. He bled Nikon yellow. But even he used "cheap plastic bodied" cameras at times. He used the Nikon FM10 and even a Canon Rebel. And he published shots taken with these cameras. You put a good lens on just about any SLR on the market right now and the camera didn't lose the shot, you did. Consider that 99% of the film SLR's ever produced were capable of producing magazine quality shots, yet 99% of the photos taken with those same cameras weren't printable. The best camera is the one that gets the shot. The best camera is the one you take with you. The IQ on the "toy" cameras is usually on par with the big boys. The IQ on the D80 is actually better then it's big (and I do mean big) brother the D200. The reason to opt for a light SLR over a digital compact is the IQ of a light SLR is significantly better then a compact. The IQ of the Rebel Xti or D40 pretty much blows away any digital compact regardless of price. The reason is the image sensor is significantly bigger, it allows for higher iso's, and it allows for lower noise. In the end though, the camera that is accessable and with you will get a lot more shots then the one burried in your pack, or sitting at home. With a little care you can get printable results from most cameras (film since 1950's, and digital since about 2003).
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Jan 13, 2007, 1:16 AM
Post #19 of 45
(5006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
pico23 wrote: The reason is the image sensor is significantly bigger, it allows for higher iso's, and it allows for lower noise. I think you'll find that the 10mp sensors suffer from far worse noise at high iso's vs "small" 5-6mp sensors. Yes, cheap bodies do the job with significant limitations. Frame rate, shutter speed and iso range to name a few.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 13, 2007, 2:27 AM
Post #20 of 45
(4993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
jimfix wrote: pico23 wrote: The reason is the image sensor is significantly bigger, it allows for higher iso's, and it allows for lower noise. I think you'll find that the 10mp sensors suffer from far worse noise at high iso's vs "small" 5-6mp sensors. Yes, cheap bodies do the job with significant limitations. Frame rate, shutter speed and iso range to name a few. There is a limit in sensor size with current technology to how many pixels you can pack in. The noise is the killer when packing more pixels into a fixed sensor size. I suspect that as technology progresses they might be able to put 20MP into a DX sensor with an ISO range of 50-3200. But that seems to be a ways off. The 10MP sensors do actually have lower IQ at high ISO then there 6MP predecessors, especially the last generation of 6MP APS/DX sensors. Resolution clearly isn't everything. But the sensor size of a digital compact is about 5x7mm which is considerably smaller then the APS/DX (about 1/3) size and so noise usually becomes a factor as low as ISO 200 on these compacts. Even at 10MP the DX/APS sensor still produces high quality images into ISO 800 range and above. The D80 is highly usable at 800 where a compact is almost useless by 400ISO. I agree with the limitations but those limitations don't apply to every aspect of photography. Frame rate is really only needed for fast action (certainly not for landscape, mountaineering, or portraits), not to say it's not great to have as many FPS as you can get. ISO range of the D80 is actually better then the D200 (well the IQ is better and more ISO are usuable), yet it's $600 less expensive, and shutter speed of most SLR's these days goes to 1/4000th. Even pro sports shooters usually shoot below 1/4000th in day games which is well below the 1/8000th the super high end cameras top out at. My PZ-1P has 1/8000th shutter speed, I'm not sure how often I've used that speed. I know for shooting baseball, my ideal shutter speed if everything is perfect (lighting and such) is about 1/1250th. In day games I shoot at that speed in shutter priority. At night I pray the lighting is good enough for 1/640th or even 1/400th at ISO 1600. All that said, minus the lack of weather sealing, and 100,000 actuation shutter, the D80 is a killer camera. It's not that big and it's got superb IQ for a 10MP camera. Just put some good glass on it.
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Jan 13, 2007, 2:45 AM
Post #21 of 45
(4987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Recently, I was in the same boat as your in looking for a camera. I used to be into it 25 years ago and due to some disappointing results/missed opportunities with my point and shoot, decided to step up to the plate. I was looking at the Canon 350, 400 and Nikon 70s and 80. From what I've found out, none of these will disappoint. I was wanting to take some nice shots while climbing and hiking while still being able to get the kids playing sports (how many pics of your kids playing soccer can you get anyway...? They all start looking the same, real soon...). Some of the people here are have demanding standards and one's skill will probably be playing catch up to the potential of equipment. I wanted the D80 but after seeing a poster size print from a "measly" 6 mp that looked VERY nice and clear. The driving factor for me wanting the 80 was it being a 10 mp. I ended up getting a less than year old 70s from a portrait photographer for about 40% of the price of a new one (she was changing over to Canon). That gave me some coin to get a tele, some filters, etc. It is quite a bit to haul around but that sacrifice is expected to capture the quality of material I'm looking for. By the time I really figure this out, i.e. proper framing, exposure, actually learning the details to what makes a good shot, my box will be outdated (from many of these serious guys, it probably already is ready for the graveyard...) I plan on keeping the 70s for quite a while and learning to "master" what I have. I have no doubt the 80 will do everything you want it to and more. You just need to figure out how much you want to get into the photography thing. Buying a Mont Blanc pen wont help you write a better story. Photography is a passion driven hobby. Learning to create a work or art comes from taking many, many photo's. See Buck Forester and some of the others on this site. Something I didn't realize about memory cards: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906 Good Luck!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Jan 13, 2007, 2:47 AM
Post #22 of 45
(4987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
I should have been more clear. When I said a cheaper camera I was thinking of a pseudo SLR like the canon s3 or something along those lines. Yes you do need a lager sensor to get enough light to generate a good image. The d80 is a mighty fine camera. And yes, put good glass on it. I doubt I'll upgrade from the 10d before it dies, but like the d200, thats not meant to be for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 13, 2007, 3:06 AM
Post #23 of 45
(4980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
uptick wrote: Recently, I was in the same boat as your in...Buying a Mont Blanc pen wont help you write a better story. Photography is a passion driven hobby. Learning to create a work or art comes from taking many, many photo's. See Buck Forester and some of the others on this site. Something I didn't realize about memory cards: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906 Good Luck!!! Well said. BTW, your D70s should be able to produce (if shot in RAW and shot with care) a very clean 12x18 print. If you need more pixels to crop with try upsizing +1 using Adobe camera raw.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jan 13, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #24 of 45
(4956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Yep, while the climber my not be move very fast up or down, the still blink, move hands, etc that you might miss the good stuff with 3fps. I shoot with a 8.5fps mark II last night, and I would love to have one of those for climbing, even if it is a bit heavy.
pico23 wrote: dbrayack wrote: I shoot at 5 frames per second..you'd be amazed at the difference in quality between those 2 shots at 5 fps... Your stuff is good, so assuming I ever get back in the mountains, I will have to test this out and see the difference first hand.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 13, 2007, 6:47 PM
Post #25 of 45
(4939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
If were are talking dedicated climbing shoot, with booms, full rigging, etc, then a 1D might be an option, even then holding that beast for hours on rappel would get old. Everyone on this site needs to keep one thing in mind, not everyone that buys into an SLR is looking to become a dedicated climbing photographer. They want better image quality then a digital compact or film point and shoot can give. They want the flexiblity of not being tied into a specific lens or focal length. Most are just looking to catalog there adventures, maybe make a few prints for themselves and friends. The 1D would be absolutely unaccaptable to mostly everyone on this site that isn't getting paid for there days on the cliff. If your making money/living off your work you take whatever is necessary to get the job done. People have shot climbing with Medium Format and lighting setups. Most people aren't going through that much effort on the relatively few days they get to climb. If the camera is an albatros you won't use it. Thats a fact unless photography is the focal point of your adventures. Thats why I always laugh when people on this forum right lenses slower then 2.8 are useless. True 2.8 and faster lenses are ideal, they are usually better built, and offer faster AF, and in a perfect world those are the most important things but not at the cost of not carrying the lens or camera. Or not enjoying the activity your participating in. Photography isn't one size fits all. Every situation can require different equipment. Even high end pros make compromises necessary for enjoyment and simply neccessity. Having the flexibility to adjust your system is nice. When my trip is about photography the f2.8s and big bodies go in the bag. When it's about climibing, hiking, paddleing, biking, the compact or compact SLR with a few small primes go in the bag. Anyway, my point isn't anyone is wrong, just that you have to consider what the person wants from there system and what there goals are. Pros are the worst people to ask because they've accepted the misery of carrying oversized cameras and lenses, and even more so are capable of eloquently justifying the need to carry 10lbs when 5lbs will do.
wes_allen wrote: Yep, while the climber my not be move very fast up or down, the still blink, move hands, etc that you might miss the good stuff with 3fps. I shoot with a 8.5fps mark II last night, and I would love to have one of those for climbing, even if it is a bit heavy. pico23 wrote: dbrayack wrote: I shoot at 5 frames per second..you'd be amazed at the difference in quality between those 2 shots at 5 fps... Your stuff is good, so assuming I ever get back in the mountains, I will have to test this out and see the difference first hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|