some questions about the Nikon D80

[petaros16]

Hi all...I'm a newbie to DSLR's (have only used point and shoots before) but am

planning on buying one eventually. I'm specifically looking at the Nikon D80,

but am not sure about a few things about it: Firstly, I've read a fair amount

about a problem it has with its metering (how it has a habit of sporadically

overexposing), and I'm not sure how bad this problem actually is. I shoot

mainly landscape and macro shots, but also do a fair amount of portraits/action

shots, and therefore I'm afraid that some of the shots I take will be blown

out. As this (apparently) is not a consistent problem but happens only

sporadically, is it fixable using ev compensation? Secondly, I like taking

long exposure shots, and I've read that the D80 has a problem with noise when

you reach a certain length of exposure. Is this a big problem, or can it be

fixed using a noise reduction program?

 

thanks in advance for your help!

Isaac

[dan_k6]

I used to have a D80. It's a great camera but I sold it so I could buy a D200 because I did not like the D80 meter. You need to learn how to play around with exposure compensation to get excellent pictures with the D80. The D200 just does it automatically.

 

For example, you can't just set the D80 to -2/3 and leave it there. Sometimes, -2/3 would do it for me but other times I would need -1 or even 1 2/3!

 

If you don't mind doing that, you can produce the same pictures taken with a D200. I just found it too tedious.

 

The second phenomenon you are talking about is called amp noise. I don't know a whole lot about it but I'm sure other's do and they'll fill you in shortly.

 

If the meter is a problem, maybe you might like a D70s if you can find one used or maybe someone might have some old stock. It has the same meter as the D200.

[phototransformations]

I was bothered by the D80's matrix metering until I got used to how it works. In high-contrast shots, it tends to expose for the shadows. So, in these shots, the darkest parts of the images have detail and the highlights are blown out. The D80's center-weighted metering, on the other hand, seems to do a typical center-weighted thing and tends to produce exposures in high contrast situations that are about what I'd expect. On the other hand, the matrix metering does a great job in low-contrast shots and with flash shots. I just switch to center-weighted if I'm shooting outside in bright light and want to expose more for the hightlights than the shadows. My guess is that some designer or focus group decided that more amateurs are unhappy with their backlit subjects being too dark than they are with the skies and clouds being blown out, so they tweaked the image database to reflect this bias. I tend to use spot metering in those situations, or fill flash, so this bias is mildly inconvenient but not really a limiting factor. Staying with matrix metering and constantly checking the compensation would drive me nuts, but it's not necessary -- just switch to center-weighted in high-brightness, high-contrast lighting situations.

[tonybeach]

http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm

 

A worthwhile read IMHO.

[eric_arnold]

hi, i upgraded to d300 from a d80 after finding the d200 was too close to the d80 to warrant the switch. IMO the d80 is a great camera, with a gentle learning curve and many advanced features. so its perfect for a P&S convert who wants to keep developing their skills.

 

sounds like you've done your homework so you shouldnt be surprised by this body's idiosyncrasies. the d80's metering issues do make it a bit quirky at first, but its characteristics are generally identifiable and even predictable (after a while), which means you can work around it. for one thing, it only really happens in matrix metering, so if you're metering in spot or CW it's not an issue. there are times when it works in your favor though, like using matrix in poor light.

 

Turning Long Exposure NR on will help decrease amp noise; this is a problem with a lot of DSLRs, not just the d80. speaking of noise, the d80 is a smidgen better than the d200 at high ISOs and also better than the d70 in this regard.

 

new d200 prices are dropping fast, but there's still about a $500 gap between the d200 and d80. however you can get a lightly used d200 for under $1k, sometimes loaded with accessories and/or glass. the downside to that,of course, is no warranty. and, for a newbie, the d200/d300 might be overwhelming, the d40 underwhelming, and the d80 just right.

 

i'd get a d80 before getting a d70s, though, since the d80 has more in common with the d200, as well as a better viewfinder and LCD. IMO d80 is just as good as d200 for the type of photography you describe, excepting the d200's higher FPS rate. good glass is more essential than a body, anyway -- a 50/1.8 makes a better portrait lens than any of the 18-xx kit glass, and for sports/action you want a 2.8.<div></div>

[dan_k6]

How can you say the D200 is not that much different than the D80 but say the D300 is loads better?

[bruce_margolis]

Issac, I used to have a D80. While the metering was quirky at times, it really wasn't a big problem shooting RAW, especially with landscape and macro shots. Digital post processing takes care of a lot of those problems.

 

As for long exposure shots and noise, this is a non-issue IMO. Simply shoot at low ISO (below 400). Virtually all my moon shots with the D80 were ISO 100 or 200. But I did learn noise reduction software helps, especially above ISO 400.

 

Sports per se is fine with the D80. However, you are limited to 3 fps. In other words, not the very fastest for action sports but it sure works.

 

All that said, consider that the D80 is going on 1/2 yrs old. Most people speculate it will be replaced this year. When? No one knows for sure but if you are concerned about some of its limitations, you might want to wait until its replacement is released. It will be more expensive, of course, but it may address some of those concerns.

[eric_arnold]

<<How can you say the D200 is not that much different than the D80 but say the D300 is loads better?>>

 

it depends on how you read that, doesn't it? if you actually look at each camera in relation to one another, though, it's not that difficult. the d300 is loads better than both the d80 and d200. the d80 is a stripped-down d200 -- it uses the same sensor -- but the d300 is more than a souped-up d200, since it effectively incorporates some of the features of both the d2x and the d3. for example, it delivers d2x speed (6 fps w/out grip) in a d200-sized body while borrowing 51-pt AF, CMOS sensor, live view, and 920k LCD from the d3. also, the d300's high ISO performance is much better than either the d200 or d80, which are very close in this regard. so a d80>d200 upgrade wouldnt give me less noise at high ISOs, while a d80>d300 upgrade doesnt. simply put, upgrading from a d80 to a d200 only makes sense if you want a modest increase in fps, a better build, and more accurate matrix metering. maybe there are some other features, but i wasnt missing them on the d80.

 

digital cameras these days tend to move in incremental steps. rather than quantum leap evolution, we get more modest updates from product cycle to product cycle across market segments and price points. but eventually the good stuff trickles down; the d300 is better than the d200 because it benefitted from the simultaneous d3 launch. personally, if i had a d200, i probably would have held off on a d300 and waited for the d400. as it turned out, i'm glad i chose the d80 over the d200 the first time because the d300 is closer to what i really want.

[eric_arnold]

<<while a d80>d300 upgrade doesnt.>>

 

*does.

[graham_marsden]

The D80 was my first DSLR venture after compacts and I've been delighted with it. I guess I was lucky because it was bundled with the Nikkor 18-70mm which is a great lens.

 

In my opinion too much is made of its tendency to over-expose. It does, a bit, but I have -0.7 keyed in more or less permanently. You don't need to key it in each day; the camera remembers. And the camera's other attributes far outweigh this minor niggle.

 

I can't comment on whether or not the D80 will shortly be replaced. This happens all the time in the camera world and if you bothered about it, you would never buy a camera at all.

.

.<IMG SRC="http://mars.walagata.com/w/radiogandy/Icons/photo.gif">

[photo5]

Having owned a D80 and having tested the D200, I can say the image quality from both were similar, but the D200 has a much better meter resulting in a lot better highlight control. The D80 tends to overexpose highlights a lot unless you are very careful. I have the D300 now and am thrilled by it. I can't recommend the D80 to anyone. I'd wait for the D90 or whatever the D80 replacement is called.

[petaros16]

Thanks all for your help!! This definitely has cleared some of the questions I had, and I think I will go with the D80.

 

Thanks again,

Isaac

[dan_k6]

I still wouldn't say the D200 is simply a step up from a D80...I think it's more than that.

 

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm

[eric_arnold]

<<I still wouldn't say the D200 is simply a step up from a D80...I think it's more than that.>>

 

does that bother you personally as a d200 owner, or are you looking at this objectively? notice i didn't say the d200 was a step up from a d80, i said the d80 is a stripped-down version of the d200.

 

KR's review was written before the d300 came out, and i take his opinions with a grain of salt anyway. to me, the differences werent enough to warrant the difference in price -- i bought glass instead :)

 

in any event, i'm not sure what your point is. there's no question the d300 is better than either the d200 or d80, particularly when it comes to noise, which is an issue over ISO 800 on both cameras. whether or not the d200 is merely a step up from a d80 or "more than that" is fairly subjective, since both cameras share many of the same features. for me, as a d80 owner, it made more sense to get a d300 than a d200, since a d200 really wouldn't have given me anything i didnt have except for faster fps, a mag-alloy body, and less quirky metering. YMMV.

[tonybeach]

"...since a d200 really wouldn't have given me anything i didn't have except for faster fps, a mag-alloy body, and less quirky metering. YMMV."

 

> MLU, which can be very important for extracting maximum IQ.

 

The ability to meter with older lenses.

 

Larger buffer to store all those extra fps and even when you're not shooting at 3 fps on a D80 the buffer can become a limitation for me (for example, shooting handheld panos).

 

Easier access to controls and constant display of ISO in the viewfinder. I often use auto-ISO and manual shooting mode and seeing the ISO displayed helps me to determine if I should raise or lower the other parameters to keep the ISO reasonable and to avoid overexposing the image if the ISO bottoms out. Another even more important control for me is the dedicated AF-ON button. There are other niggles including those darn Scene modes, that dial on my D70 always seemed to be somewhere I didn't want it when I pulled the camera out of the bag and represented one more thing to worry about that could blow a shot if it wasn't attended to.

 

To sum up, for me there is a big difference in UI between the D200 and the D80; there is no practical difference in the UI between a D70 and a D80. In that regard I would say that the D200 is a big step up.

[dan_k6]

Thank You for clarifying that Anthony.

 

I think somebody deleted one of my other posts without telling me.

[eric_arnold]

<<The ability to meter with older lenses.>>

 

if you don't own any older Nikkors this is a non-issue.

 

<<for me there is a big difference in UI between the D200 and the D80... In that regard I would say that the D200 is a big step up.>>

 

ok, fine, works for you. i get it. more to the point, while the d200 has more dedicated buttons, it gives more or less the same image quality as the d80 with the same noise issues. with the d300 those issues were resolved, plus i got better IQ and, yes, a better UI, not to mention a kick-ass LCD and AF system.

 

i see anthony's point, but i don't think anyone can argue that moving from a d80 to a d300 is a much bigger step than moving from a d80 to a d200. and like i said before, had i upgraded to the d200, i probably would have held off on a d300 and waited for a d400.

 

btw, i'm not knocking the d200 -- a fine camera even after the release of the d300 -- but for me the d300 was more appealing coming from a d80.

 

bottom line is cameras have different specs because not every feature is something every user needs or wants. that's the beauty of it all.

[photo5]

Eric,

 

Actually yes, moving from a D80 to a D300 is a much bigger step than moving to a D200.

Why? Overall image quality and AF has been much improved in the D300 over the D200. My

testing of both the D200 and D80 showed each had about identical image quality. The D300

is a big increase over the D200.

[eric_arnold]

thanks dave, that's the point i've been trying to make this entire thread. :)