It it worth upgrading to a D100 from my D80?

I am relatively new to DSLR -- new meaning, I got my first one alittle over a year ago. About 3 months ago I

upgraded to a D80 and have been very happy with it. Since then, I've become very passionate about photography. I

am really working on improving my skills by reading books, practicing, and even working with a local photographer

who is mentoring me. I don't know if I will ever do it professionally, nor am I sure I even want to, but I want my

pictures to be as good as they can possibly be. I'm sure we all want that, LOL.

 

At the time I bought my D80, a relative advised me to get the D100 instead. I felt it was overkill and didn't even take

it into consideration. But since then, I have read alot about the D100 and feel that I should have maybe gone with

camera instead. I should mention that money is not an issue -- I can afford to upgrade once again. My question is,

are there enough reasons to trade up? I typically use my camera to take pictures of my kids (candid shots are what

I prefer), and I also use it alot at Lake Tahoe where we have a second home. I'd be interested in getting some

opinions on whether it would make sense to go from a D80 to a D100, or whether the differences are not substantial

enough... thanks in advance for input!

If you go to the D100, all your SD cards will have to be replaced. A couple of 'newer' Nikon DSLR bodies that take the same SD cards have been released since the D100 was "new on the marketplace." You might look at the D40 or D40x, or the D60 bodies.

You are going backward :)

Backwards. One you have a D80, picture quality improvemnt is marginal unless you get to a D700. Lenses become important also so get pro lenses for FX format so they need not be replaced unless you definately want to stay with the smaller sensor.

 

With the new cameras,the is some improvement with higher ISO and metering, but mostly it is practice and technique. Spend the money on a computer and good photoediting program.

 

Anybody who can afford a second home in Tahoe, can afford a nice iMac 24 + CS4.

The D80 is far better than the D100. I was using a Coolpix 990 and tested the D100. I was not pleased with the D100 quality at all. To upgrade from the D80 you want to buy a D300.

That move would be somewhat of a downgrade. The D80 is years newer than the D100 and has the new technology to back it up. It is essentially a simplified D200, which was then called the "belated" D100 replacement in Nikon's prosumer range.

Dana -

 

I agree with the previous posts that going from a D80 to a D100 is a significant step backwards.

 

But I don't know that any them have asked this question:

 

What is it about the D80 that you don't like or don't feel that it provides you?

 

For the shooting that you describe - the D80 should be more than sufficient - however there are other factors to consider -

 

1. Size - The D40, D40x, and D60 are all smaller form factor then the D80 and all use the same SD Cards. D40 is a similar vintage to the D80 - with fewer manual controls. D40x and D60 are both newer and offer more in terms of resolution and improved in camera firmware.

 

2. Features / Functionality - D90 and D300 both are newer (D90 is the D80 replacement) Both offer improved low light capabilities and lower noise then the D80. D90 offers video capability - D300 does not. D90 is a consumer body. D300 is a prosumer body. Following the Nikon naming standards - D100, D200, D300 are all in the same class. D100 was first, followed by D200 and now the D300. The D300 offers metal body, weather resistance, faster frame rate, more creative controls, and 100,000 plus shutter cycles.

 

3. Full Frame vs DX - D300 and below are all "Crop" or DX sensors - which means that the photo sensor is smaller than a 35mm negative. D700 is comparable to D300 in build and features, but offers a full 35mm size sensor.

 

So - it comes back to what doesn't the D80 let you do that you want? If it's more control - go with a D300 / D700. If you're okay with less control - go with the D90. If size of camera is an issue go with the D40 / D60.

 

Dave

The D300 will probably be updated in the coming year. Why not wait a bit?

I still think it comes down to what will a new model do that yours will not. An upgrade will not necessarily offer improvements significant to you. I really comes back to skill and technique on your part, not the camera.

 

The other thing new people fail to realize is photography is all about light and seeing it and controling it.

I can only assume that "D100" is merely a typo. Whoever gave the advice probably meant the D200 or D300.

 

As uaual, for anybody who is thinking about an upgrade, the question you should ask yourself is what is insufficient with your current camera/lens that you need something better.

Yes perhaps it was the D200 or 300 that my relative mentioned... it is totally possible that I am confused (would not be the first time). Thanks for the reassurance. I do like my D80 so will probably stick with it. I guess I thought I was missing out on something, but I think it does come down to improving on my skills to get better pictures. Thanks, I knew I would get honest opinions here!

You should define what you need to do that the camera does not allow. Quality wise I believe it would be a bad decision to go to a D100. Quality wise I don't think you would see much if any difference going to a D200 (I have this body for specific reasons). A D300 would give you better AF and high ISO perfromance and maybe a bit of higher quality. Money may be better spent in a tripod, flash unit or better glass. Ask your local photographer his opinion and why.

I have owned my D100 since it first came out back in 2002. I also have a D200 and a D300. I would bluntly say that I wouldn't use the D100 now in 2008 even though you pay me to do so. It has been superseded in so many ways by newer cameras.

 

However, the D80 and D200 are still good cameras today even though there are newer models now.

As Carl points out, a D300 will give you much better AF and better high ISO performance, and the D200 and D300 can meter with older no-CPU manual-focus lenses. But unless you are unhappy with the D80, I would say stick with it until a point that you really need improvement. Most likely the D300 itself will be superseded in another year.

If you shoot raw uncompressed on a D100 it will produce images every bit as good as anything the D80 can produce. But the D100 is a step backwards as far as technology is concerned. The D80 AF should be quicker and it can save raw compressed more quickly. The D100 finder might be slightly better than the D80s. But I certainly wouldn't get rid of a D80 and replace it with a D100.

I would say that the D80 finder is much better than the D100. The D80 finder is close to the D200. The AF on the D80 is better than the D100 its almost the same as the D200. The image quality of the D80 is ahead of my old D70 which was ahead of the D100. I would understand getting say a D1x if you needed a cheap pro build fast Af body but I can't see much point to go for the D100 if you have the D80. The D100 is an excelent camera and at the right price would make an excelent first DSLR or spare body.

Wayne, really? The D100 RAW files that I shot were soft, really soft, to my eyes. Post an example if you have both cameras. Otherwise I say the D80 RAW file will easily beat a D100 RAW file in overall quality.

Given that you probably meant one of the newer Nikon cameras, rather than the decrepit D100, there is the issue mentioned above about the need to change from SD cards to CF cards. Given how cheap memory is today, this actually isn't an issue. Not only that, but a $25 purchase will give you an adapter that will let you employ SD cards in CF card slots if you really want to use what you use with your D80.

Dave. Must be your example. I can look at raw files shot with the D100 I had and they are sharp--not a while lot different that D300 raw files--very usable IMO.

Wayne, that was not my experience. When I first bought my D2X in 2005, I used the same lens (17-55mm/f2.8) to shoot some still subject at their respective base ISO to compare against the D100. I printed them to 8x10 and the one from the D2X was far better than the one from the D100. I handed the prints to my wife and the difference was very clear to her as well, even though she had no idea about exactly what I did (and used).

 

The D80 has a far better viewfinder than the D100. And we haven't even mentioned the very shallow RAW buffer on the D100 (3 frames) and its terrible ISO 800 and above results.

 

As I said, technology has improved drastically since the stone age of DSLRs, which was merely 6, 7 years ago.

Dana:

 

I have a d80 and a d300. If you are looking to upgrade go to the d300 both the 80 and the 300 are much better than the

100.

 

The d700 would be my choice if the FX format is in your sights.

 

-Owen

"My question is, are there enough reasons to trade up? I typically use my camera to take pictures of my kids

(candid shots are what I prefer), and I also use it alot at Lake Tahoe where we have a second home."

 

an easy answer: no. for the purposes you mention, a d80 is more than enough camera. there is no reason to

upgrade to a d90/d300/d700. your instincts are right that it is overkill (although, down the line, an FX camera might

be a good option if you are into landscape and/or want to take extreme low-light pics).

 

here's why: let's say you were thinking of upgrading to a d300. okay, that's anywhere from $1500-$1700 in outlay.

the thing is, the differences between bodies won't matter that much to you at this point. you're not shooting sports,

so increased frame rate is meaningless. for casual photography, the d80's AF system is sufficient. so you'd

essentially be paying a high premium for a more durable body and one more stop of clean ISO.

 

okay, now let's take that same $$ and spend it on things which will actually improve your photography: better lenses

and a tripod. if you take landscape pics, a wide-angle lens is a great idea--it will literally expand your perspective. for

around $500, you have your choice of good w/a lenses like the tokina 12-24, tokina 11-16, and sigma 10-20, all of

which work great with the d80.

 

that leaves $1200. now let's look at a good lens for indoor candid shots. again, you have a range of choices. the

50/1.8 is under $120. then there's the 35/2 for around $300. you could also consider the sigma 30/1.4, sigma 50/1.4,

or nikon 50/1.4, a bit more expensive but even better low-light performance. getting a lens like these would

essentially make up for that ISO differential between a d80/d300.

 

okay, let's say you got the 35/2 and the 50/1.8. you spent $420 and improved your IQ (basically, you won't see a big

difference between nikon d-series bodies at low ISO; the real difference comes from using better glass). guess what?

you've still got almost $800 to play with.

 

budget $500-$600 for a sturdy yet lightweight carbon fiber tripod and a good ballhead. let's add a cable release while

we're at it. now you're all set for georgeous landscape shots in tahoe.

 

and you've still got $200 left, enough for an sb-600 flash. using a bit of fill flash where necessary will improve your

candid shots more than

the d300's active d-lighting feature, and you'll avoid red eye, vingetting, and washed-out look that can happen with in-

camera flash.

 

alternately, you could blow the whole wad on a pro-line lens like the 24-70/2.8 or the 70-200 VR, either of which are

far superior to any kit lens. just saying, the real investment is in glass, not bodies, and you've got choices in that

area.

 

now here's the best part: once you've got better glass and have mastered your d80... then it would make sense for

you to upgrade your

body. perhaps by that time, the d300 will be at current d200 prices. in other words, think about an upgrade path

which makes sense and allows you room to grow and develop your skills. dont know if i've made this clear or not,

but just buying another body wont do it by itself.

Hi.... Never! The D80 is better and newer. If you want to upgrade go for the D90... it's the best camera

nowadays in picture quality (excluding FX). If you wan't more control and a tougher camera D300.

Regards

You guys forgot one thing. The D700 is a monster in terms of size. When will the camera manufacturers come out with the

digital version of the OM-1/2? The designer of the OM1/2 told his team to get rid of the three "bads" of Japanese camera

manufacturers, "Big," "Loud" and "heavy." Amazing how quickly the bad habits came back now that the OM designer

Maitani is off the scene.

 

Give me a full frame DSLR that is small, light, quiet and has a big finder. Otherwise the Japanese designers got their "F"

for failures coming.

Hi Dana,

 

I think we share the same learning curve. My 1st DSLR was a D50. After one year of wringing the most out of it (I process / print my own photos) I upgraded to the D80. I kept my D50 as a back up. Earlier this year, I upgraded to the D300, which is now my main "go to" camera for birding (w/ 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens). Sold the D50 and kept my D80 for close up and wide-angle work, landscapes, scenery (Sigma 18-50mm f2.8). This way I don't have to keep switching between different lens on one camera.

 

Bottom line, the D80 is a fine all around camera and you may want to think (IMHO) about learning how to use it as much as possible. But if you feel you absolutely need to upgrade immediately, the D300 is really a good choice. But I would not trade in the D80. You need a good backup.

 

Hope this helps - let us know what you decide. Dan

Wow, thanks everyone, you are all so incredibly helpful!!! What great direction you've given me. I am definitely not going to trade in my D80, and instead will focus on getting better glass and accessories as Eric suggested. At some point I may look into the D300 but for now I think I need to just sharpen my skills. Thanks again for the great input.