Nikon P80

Now I have another camera I'm debating on purchasing. I have a budget of around

$500. I like to take pics of icebergs, scenery, wild animals, as well as family pics.

I am now adding Nikon P80 along with the Canon Rebel XT & Nikon D40. I just

want the group's thoughts on the Nikon P80. It's not something I want to put alot of

money into right now. It's a hobby for me. Perhaps when I learn more of the basics

I can look at other options. When it comes time to make my purchase, I will be

well informed, and knowledgable thanks to the kind folks here in the group. For

me, it's a big decision cause I don't want to have a camera for couple years and

not like it anymore and want to get a new one again. If my husband and I are

driving down the highway and see moose or caribou, or any kind of wildlife, I would

like to get a pic close-up without having to get physically close to them. I know

what pics I want to take but choosing a camera is confusing.

Thank-you<div></div>

Carol, if you are at least somewhat serious about photography, I would get a digital SLR instead of point and shoot. With an SLR, you'll have a much better selection of lenses. For example, I find that your iceberg image has way too much space around the subject. You can certainly use a longer lens.

I actually think that if you are starting out in digital photography a large-zoom bridge camera is not a bad way to go. There's incredible versatility, good image quality, and a compact package without having to purchase multiple lenses and such. However, the caveat about not wanting to buy another camera in a few years is a red flag of sorts. Does this mean that you don't want to feel you need to move "up" to a DSLR in a few years, or that you don't want to buy a low-end DSLR only to discover you need something more expensive?

 

My older son started with a Panasonic FZ18, a very good bridge camera. He loves it and takes it everywhere with him. To take all of the types of photos he currently captures he would have needed hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in interchanageable SLR lenses.

 

The biggest drawback of a bridge camera is that once you get up to say, ISO 400 the images tend to be noisy, much more so than with a DSLR. And regarding this particular new Nikon model, it does not take RAW images, as far as I know. You may want to consider whether this is something you might actually want in a camera.

psst...nikon doesnt want you to buy one of their P&S cameras. they want you to buy a d40 or d60, where they'll eventually get you for all sorts of accessories and maybe another body. the p80 is a step in the right direction, but as thom hogan poitned out, it's a me-too camera, introduced somewhat reluctantly after the panasonic FZ series.i just dont get the sense that nikon's heart is in their coolpix line, ashton kutcher aside.

 

i love nikon, but i'm not sure i would go with the nikon p80 over the pana fz18 or even the canon g9 if i wanted a good P&S with a superzoom. if i could cough up $200 more, though, i'd take a serious look at the Fuji S100fs, a bridge camera with more DSLR-like features than any camera in its class. 11MP, 14x zoom, 7fps burst, optical stabilization, tiltable LCD, all keep up with the jonses, but where the Fuji edges others out is in its film simulation mode, which emulates Provia and Velvia, and the Super CCD chip, which offers expanded dynamic range--they use a slightly bigger sensor in the S100fs than other CCD P&S's-- and dedicated buttons not usually found in a camera in this class, like metering mode. fuji is known for good high ISO performance -- my lowly little f20 can do ISO 2000 with almost no noise--and while the S100fs's ISO 10000 (at 3mp) is kinda gimmicky, reviews indicate its quite usable at 800 and even 1600 ISO, which is about as good as a d40.

 

the price is about the same as a d40 with non-stabilized 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, except the zoom goes from 28-400mm, and is only f/5.3 at the long end. to put this into perspective, the nikkor 18-55 is f/5.6 at 55mm. if you wanted equivalent specs for a nikon DSLR, you'd have to spend more than the cost of the body, and be limited to AF-S or HSM lenses to boot if you wanted AF. plus, you can't get 2.8 and VR at the wide (28mm) end with any Nikkor lens, which the Fuji gives you at no additional cost.

 

even though i already own two nikon DSLRs and a bunch of lenses, i would definitely consider the Fuji for travel, hiking, biking, snapshots from the road, and other situations where convenience is paramount and light weight is essential. you will probably get slightly better image quality and less purple fringing with a DSLR , but for your purposes that may not be as important as getting the shot in the first place.

Awhile back when I had a D100 I did a lot of sour searching concerning my next digital. I had pretty much convinced myself that especially for travel photos, I would be better off giving up a little quality for a high end, compact Digital Point and shoot (like the P80 which wasn't out at that time). But I ran into the same thing mentioned above. With a small sensor size Point and Shoots just can't decently handle ISOs above 400--and in most cases ISO 200 is a better bet. So I upgraded my DSLR and although it is larger and heavier, I love the images it produces.

D40

A DSLR will be a much better choice in the long run. It will be more of a piece of equiptment/investment instead of a toy. The image quality will be better with a DLSR, and it will be much more versatile.

Are you saying that you already have a D40 and an XT?

 

 

I just bought a P80 for my wife and will test it against my D2X, 28/2, 50/1.4, 135/2, 200/2, and 400/2.8 this week. I'll let you know how it makes out.

I got a P80 when they were released in Japan because I was there. I won't give it up.

 

Girding up for the flaming I'll get, I'm wading into an area that is very like the early digital v film arguments.

 

My point is: the interchangeable lens dSLR is going to go the way of the dodo. They are so good now that for almost all people including most of the interchangeable lens crowd will give up carrying all this crap because the differences are negligible or nonexistent. Are all digital P&s cameras that good yet -- no. But I have a couple that cause me to leave the D300 at home.

 

In most regular situations, there is little to no difference between what you can get with a big load of camera and lens compared to the P80, 5100 or 5000 if you have any idea what you're doing.

 

They won't ever do for specialty things like sports or flying birds, but for the very vast majority, the dSLR will be a specialty item.

 

The P80 has a digital viewfinder that makes a difference.

 

The weight and inconvenience compared to the convenience and little loss of quality will save a lot of weight, expense and trouble.

 

I'm going to have dinner and go to bed now. I can probably look out on my lawn soon and see the flaming torches.

 

Conni

I just bought a P80 for my bride of 44 years to replace her old P&S. So far I've only done my own test pix comparing it to my D200. We leave for a trip to France in a few days where the real "testing" will be done! First observations are very positive- good white balance in different lighting conditions (I've had WB issues with other P&Ss), very good noise perf. up to ISO400 (heck, I just shoot up to 800 in my D200), intuitive menues, easy to use, surprisingly good lens performance in its class (geez- an 18x zoom!!!). It's a very nice P&S and that's what she wanted- she wasn't interested in a DSLR because of weight, predominantly, and size next. My only gripe so far (which I knew before-hand) is no thread for a protective lens filter (yep, I'm one of those people who buy them for all my lenses- in 40 years of photography they've saved my lenses twice). I can't compare it to the cameras mentioned earlier in this thread but I was really interested in the Canon G9 until reading the review of it in dpreview- and the optical VF on it really stinks, as do all of Canon's P&S optical VFs. Of course I haven't seen a P80 review yet but this upcoming trip forced a decision- and the P80 was bought where I can return it (unless of course it's damaged) after the trip if we're not pleased.

 

But Conni- I think I'll keep and continue using my beloved D200- I just NEED that 50mm f1.4 lens in poorly lit cathedrals! Of course, I could always carry a P&S and a BIG tripod instead. ;^)

 

Seriously, if you're that happy with your P&Ss I hope you can sell the D300 and lens collection for not much of a loss- let me know- I may be interested in buying it! Cheers- Bob

Hi, Bob:

 

I'm not giving up my D300 either but I do consider whether what I'm planning to photograph is worth carrying it at that time. And with the cameras I listed above, more and more, my decision is no, I won't lug all that and worry about it when I can get good results with something tiny.

 

Most who will object to what I wrote will do so as a knee-jerk reaction without having used, with the same care they use their dSLRs, or without ever having used any of these little cameras at all.

 

I do think their is a tendency for people who use the full kit to not use care when they use something like the P80. They don't take them seriously The P80 is a serious little camera or you can use it like the cell phone camera group does.

 

The P80 is not right for every situation. If you need that 200 mm lens, you need it. If you need that umpteen shots per second, no it won't do it.

 

It's just that last winter I carried my D300 and range of really good glass and a P5000. I took duplicate shots over the course of a month and it was very difficult or not possible to detect the difference. Then there were those where the P&S just wasn't in the right place. I have moved on to the P5100, the P80 and the P60. I think about where I'm shooting and the conditions I will find and make a determination about what to take. I use the same care in determining all the factors: light, white balance, range, etc. before I push that button. I get good results when I do that. If I start just grabbing shots, I get what I deserve.

 

This goes back too, to the early conversion to digital. People just refused to believe that it would ever be as good as film. There are still some out there and in some (many?) conditions, film can still be the better choice. With the strides Nikon especially is making with their P&S cameras, I stick by what I said. Almost all photographers will eventually come around to the quality and convenience of these little cameras. Given the cost, weight, worry about theft when traveling and yes, just traveling, will help shift to something that does the job and just doesn't create burden.

 

Remember the photographer who shot a few years ago the Sports Illustrated magazine swimsuit special with a P&S and his pics were right on but he also did what I said above. He used the camera with the same care as a big rig and used it in ways that were appropriate for what the camera could do. Since then, their quality and what they can do has grown exponentially.

 

Again, they won't ever be good for some types of work.

 

And it was a relief to find my house still standing.

 

Conni

No one's mentioned the Panasonic FZ-50 yet. It's bigger than the FZ-18 but is still a superzoom. Lots of reviews and raves about it on the web.

I am in the same predicament. I think you have the best one right there in your stable, the D40! Put your money towards a really good Nikkor Telephoto zoom f2.8 (upgrade your kit lenses and the D40 will be magic in your hands. That's my .02 cents btw, good shooting!

Rick

the s100 it will give you the most bang for your buck.