shawn_lockett Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Howdy, <P> I appriciate all of the replies on my last post in trying to find the perfect camera for my family... I have ordered a couple of DVD's, which I am still waiting to arrive... This posting is to ask the real difference between the two... A lot have recommended me the D200... I was just curious why... Is it that much better than the D80... even with the same lenses... <P> Just would like to know what i would be gaining shelling out the extra money stepping up to the D200 vs the D80... <P> Thanks, <P> S. Lockett <P> <I>I wish Shawn hadn't started a different thread on essentially the same topic. This was the other thread he started yesterday:</I> <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MWy1"> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MWy1</A> <I>where Shawn points out that:</I> <P> Budget is not to much of a factor... Lets say between 1-2 thousand... Just do not want to get to much camera... but want something that we can grow with and have a good experience when we do start wanting to experiment with shutter speed... and creative photography... <P> <I>-- SC</I> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 In your previous thread, you mentioned shooting sports. The D200 can shoot at 5 frames/sec while the D80 3 frames/sec. While the use the same AF module, the D200 has more sophisticated AF modes. Those are distinct advantages over the D80. Additionally, the D200 is much better built and can take some abuse. The D200 has now been superseded by the D300, which should be avaiable towards the end of 2007. If you can wait a few months, I would get a D300 unless initial tests and experience show that it has a lot of bugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Shawn: My first reaction (mind you, I use a D200) is to say that the D80 is more the "family"-ish of the two cameras. The are both capable of taking excellent photos, and are very versatile. The D200 is physically more robust (and heavier), and provides quite a bit more externally-located controls/features that can be very helpful to a photographer that's likely to frequently (and somewhat manually) make changes to the camera's behavior... but which might be confusing or troublesome to someone in the family that doesn't work with the camera every day. Not to be to blunt about it, but if you leave the D80 in "automatic" mode, it's far more likely that anyone in the family can just pick it up and take a good picture with it. If, though, you're talking about a family that will be using lots of lenses, getting into for more aggressive sports photography, using it in rougher conditions in the outdoors, etc... then the D200 may be the better choice. It would help to know more about the circumstances in which the camera will be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickwhite Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Quality wise you are unlikely to see any difference between the two - the quality comes from the lenses. The D200 has a more 'robust' (heavier) build and extra features such as faster motor drive capability, compare the two on Nikon's site for a full list of the differences - my own recommendation would be the D80 unless you are likely to be giving the camera a very hard time physically or will be regularly shooting fast moving action (in which case you might be better off waiting for the D300). Check out this link for a comparison. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LZOI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The following is the earlier thread Shawn started yesterday. In that thread he pointed out some of their shooting requirements and also cost requirements: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MWy1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squiggs77 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I was researching the same thing this spring. I ended up buying the D80 because I realized that I wanted to spend the money that I saved on a new lens. A good lens will stay with you longer than a good digital camera body. However, with the D300 coming out soon, the D200's price will start dropping and probably come within a couple hundred dollars of the D80, and you could probably get a used D200 for the price of a D80. For the price I saved I was able to get a Sigma 30mm f1.4. That lens is awesome! For me the pros and cons of owning a D80 vs D200 without factoring price are: D80 Pros: 1) Smaller & Lighter weight - More portable and Easier on the back and neck for a long day. 2) No vertical banding worries - This is a possibility, especially with older models. D80 Cons: 1) Slower continuous shutter - 3fps vs 5fps 2) Always displays ISO in viewfinder 3) No dedicated AF-area mode switch - I switch between Single Area and Closest Subject fairly frequently. But the D80 does have customizable menus so I have that feature always easily accessible. 4) If it's raining I need to find shelter for my D80. Well... That's it for my pros and cons. Not a big list on either side. I think they do have the same sensor/viewfinder/LCD screen so composing the shot and the image quality should be identical when shooting RAW if the D200 doesn't have banding in the shadows. If you shoot JPG then the D80 might have another check mark on the pro side for you. The cameras handle JPG conversion differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 5 FPS is not fast enought to catch the exact moment of any quick moving subject matter. Even 8 or 10 FPS may not be fast enough. Consider the swing of a baseball bat or golf club - a second is an eternity - shooting at 5fps will almost guarantee you miss the shot you are looking for. You will still need to rely on your brain and shutter finger to get the precise shots you may be looking for. The D200 has features you will likely never use. Image quality will be the same. Is the D200 worth the extra money? Yes, if you need the added features like larger memory buffer, faster frame rate, mirror lock up feature, many more settings to control the camera's various functions, weatherproofing, to name a few. I suggest you hold both cameras in your hand and pick the one that feels most comfortable to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The buffer alone is worth the difference. This series of shots has been getting a lot of uploads to this site lately too:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southjerseyphotos Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Shawn First thing What do want do with the camera and how much money can you spend?The D80 is very light and the D200 is much heavier.I have both bodies and soon will sell My D80.I agree with Shun Cheung very much!Do you have a camera now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 If your budget is $2000, I will say get a $800 DSLR and use the rest of it for a lens. If you're not VERY into sports, I think D80 will do just fine. A D80 + 70-200 VR is I think only around 300-400 bucks more than your budget, but it's a real good combination provided you don't mind the weight. Or you can add to that a used 18-70mm lens for a general walkabout (and also for if you wanna go light). That means you might be $600 over your budget, but damn, that'd be very sweet combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Or 80-200 f/2.8 if the 70-200 is a bit too dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_lockett Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 This has all been great information... I have about made up my mind to go with the D200 for some of the smaller issues like Rain... and the 3fps vs the 5fps... We will be shooting a lot of sports activities... The lenses is now my next question... shooting wildlife and such is also a use for us as well as FFA/school acitivies... I have seen an ebay package for 1800 shipping and everything... D200 sigma 28-70mm f2.8-4 dg lens sigma 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 dg macro lens .50x pro wide angle lens... Among other goodies in the package... I have read and seen the sigma 70-300mm lens recommended... My other option would be the d200 body for 1100... plus shipping... Either way I think the package would be a great start for us and then eventually add the lenses on in the future... ANY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRICIATED.. S. Lockett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 It's good that you've decided what to get, although I personally prefer to have a lesser camera with superior lens than a superior camera with lesser lens though. PS: I don't think shooting with a D200 under rain is a very good idea, your lens might not be weather sealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_lockett Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 I think the lenses are a great idea... My thoughts would be to get a great camera and then in a couple of 4 months add on the better lenses once I have grown used to the cameras funcionts... what do I need to look for in a lens??? The rain thing was just something someone had put... vs the D80... I would not trust my 5000 bicycle out in the rain that is made to be there... I sure would not trust my 1000 camera that may or may not survive a rain storm... lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Shawn, the notion that you buy a camera you can grow with is not worthwhile with DSLRs. Why? Because whatever camera you'll buy now will be seriously outdated in two to three years and you will be able to buy something much better at a significantly lower price then. So buy what you need and when you don't need it anymore you can give it to your wife/kid/friend, keep it as backup equipment or just ebay it. So, get a Nikon D40 with the kit lens. It's excellent value and anybody can use it. If you need a different camera in a year or two you will have the knowledge to know what you need. You will most likely still keep the D40 because it's small and the image quality is good. Photography as a serious hobby or as work is not a $1000 to $2000 kind of thing, it's more in the tens of thousands depending on what you want to to do. Spend $450 on a D40 with the kit lens NOW and you can start shooting great pictures instead of talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 And oh, you might think the D40 is a toy because it's cheap but it's not. There are professional photographers using these and actually prefer them to pro cameras in certain circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The problem with the D40 and D40x is that they limit the choice of lenses. A good choice for a first lens would be a Nikkor 80-200/2.8, one I routinely recommend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 No, the 80-200 is a speciality lens. If you're starting with one lens you need something wide-to-normal, not a telephoto zoom with an efl of 120-300mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squiggs77 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I agree about the D40 and D40x limiting the lens choice. If you really want a good body for cheap get a used D70s. Then you can use all of the non-internal focusing lenses. Otherwise go for a D80 or D200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 If you are going to make an investment in an extremely high quality pro camera, you may want to reconsider what lenses you are going to put on it. The d40, d40x, d80 and 200 all take pretty much identical pictures (using the same lens on each, of course). Put a good lens on the cameras, you get good results. Put a poor lens on the cameras, you get poor results. Put a great lens on the cameras and get great results. Decisions, decisions, decisions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briany Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The Nikon AFS-VR 70-300mm will be quite a bit better and faster focusing than the Sigma in that kit you mention. Put another way, you'd quite possibly be better with the D80 and Nikon AFS-VR 70-300 lens than a D200 with the Sigma. And a ".50x pro wide angle lens" ?? Run the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_lee6 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I too would favor getting a D80, and getting Nikon glass vs. a D200 and Sigma glass. If you shoot with a good fast card and JPG's (not RAW), I would think the D80 should be fine for sports. If you're thinking about a D200, I would wait for the D300 which is quite an improvement. I believe image quality between the D200 and D80 are identical, some even say the D80 is slightly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_lockett Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 What about the speed differenence between the D80 and the D200 that I have read about... Between 3fps and 5fps... Will the difference hurt me??? in action shots at sporting events or shooting birds and animals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Shawn, I have used the following example before: http://www.photo.net/photo/4375076 Obviously that egret wasn't even flying; it merely decided to flap its wings. I took that sequence of 4 images at 5 frames/second so that from beginning to end it was about 0.6 seconds. (If the 1st one was shot at time 0, the subsequent ones were at 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6.) When there are actions, 0.2 sec is a long time and frequently you don't know when the peak of the action is. If you shoot a lot of actions, the question is not whether 3 fps will hurt you; the question is whether 5 fps will hurt you, and I think it will. That is why I would suggest waiting for the D300 which can give you 8 fps with external batteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_lockett Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 yes you have a very valid point.... I think the D300 is the way to go... It has so many nice features listed... Now for picking out the right lens... Their seems to be a lot of opinions regarding the lenses... However what I do notice is Nikon is the way to go all the way around... Just picking the right ones... What would be a recommendation on a good lens to start with and then move up to??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now