buying my first digital camera

[marvin_chambers]

<p>After surfing the web for months, i ran across this site. I must have read every thread concerning Nikon D40, 60, 80. I,m ready to take the leap into the digital world, and my heart is set on a D80 as my first camera. I'm very familiar with the 35mm format, I've taken pictures since the 70's. Nothing professional. My question to all of you very knowledgable people is, " is the D80 too must camera for my first digital, and what would be a great first all around lense. By the way i've been looking at refurbished cameras. I truly would love your professional feedback...marvin</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>honestly? get a d90 or a d5000 instead. it's worth it for the extra stop of ISO. the d90 also has better metering than a d80. the d80 is great at base ISO up to about 800 for IQ, but it overexposes in matrix metering. nothing that cant be mastered but takes time and patience.</p>

<p>i wouldnt say its too much camera but it's better to have one you can grow into.</p>

<p>as far as lenses, i'd maybe look at an 18-200VR and a 35/1.8 as a beginners "kit."</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I agree with Eric's advice for camera. D5000 or D90 is a better way to start in digital today. If the budget is very limited, D80 could be still a solution...</p>

<p>As for me, I'd prefer a different lens to start with: Tamron 17-50mm/f2.8 VC. It is fast, gives a great 4 stops advantage because of VC, and has a great IQ for a very decent price. A later addition would be Nikon 85mm/f1.8.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Adorama has factory refurbished D80's for $575. I think that it's a great choice. The D80 is still a very good camera and unlike the D5000 or D3000 it can AF with lenses that don't have built-in motors. That's a big advantage for serious photographers. It can also be a money saver as there are many good used lenses that lack motors.</p>

<p>A good lens to start with is, in my opinion, the Nikon 18-105 VR or 16-85 VR. The 16-85 VR is a little wider and has better build quality. The 18-105 VR is a lot less money, about as sharp, and built well enough to stand up to the use most amateurs would give it. If you want one lens to cover the range of two or three lenses consider the Nkon 18-200 VR, Sigma 18-200 OS, Sigma 18-250 OS HSM, and Tamron 18-270 VC. All have image stabilization. The Nikon is the most expensive by a good amount. The Sigma 18-200 OS is the least expensive, but it's as sharp as the others. The Tamron is a good lens but slower to focus than the others. The Sigma 18-250 OS HSM would be my choice even though I have the Nikon and love it. It's at least as sharp, a little longer, the HSM motor is fast and quiet, and significantly less expensive than the Nikon.</p>

<p>The negative side of superzooms, as these lenses are called, is that they are not as sharp, especially at the long end, as shorter ratio zooms like a 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR combination would be. However they are still sharp enough to produce very good to excellent 8x10's at all focal lengths.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

What type of film camera did you or do you still use? Was it an SLR? Was it a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus? Was it a point-and-shoot? Or an Instamatic of some sort? It'd be easier to recommend something if we knew where you're coming from.

 

In any event, keep reading, keep searching, keep learning...

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>The D80 is not "too much" camera to start with. It was my first D-SLR. The metering does over-expose at the first hint of contrasty light, but I automatically came to know when to change the compensation to -0.7. It takes wonderful photos and has many nice features. That said, it is 4 (?) years old at this point and the newer models do offer some nice enhancements. The D90 would be my choice if it is in the budget. The less expensive models tend to bury too much in the screen menus which drives me crazy. I say the more buttons and knobs the better because I detest digging through menus.<br>

All the lens suggestions are good. I can speak only from my experience. The first lens I paired with the D80 was the 18-200mm VRII Nikon. It was a great all around lens. My own limitations were more significant than any in the lens. For 2 years it was on my camera almost all the time. I still love it although my current favorite is the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 which is likely too pricey a way to go for a first lens.<br>

I don't know your budget, but I would say D90 + Nikon 18-200mm.<br>

Whatever you choose, it is (obviously) more important to just have fun using it. There really isn't a wrong choice you can make here. They are all wonderful and capable of terrific photos.</p>

[marvin_chambers]

<p>This is why I join this site. This community is a very knowlegable and sharing one. You guys and girls are the greatest, thank you sooo much for your advice. I can't go wrong with a group like you.</p>

[marvin_chambers]

<p>By the way i came from the SLR 35mm class, mostly Canon, Minolta,</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'd get a D5000. No question. You don't have any lenses yet,right? Then just avoid buying lenses that won't AF with it. That's easy now.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>D80 would be a great choice IMO. My first was a D100 back when everyone was saying I just HAD to have a D80 or D200. The D100 was a great first DSLR for me and the D80 I'm sure will do the job for you without investing an arm and a leg. Don't let the tech junkies make your decisions for you.</p>

 

[ted_raper1]

<p>I had and used a D80 for a couple of years. As noted above, the matrix meter does tend to overexpose a bit, so I usually kept .07 exposure comp dialed in (outdoors) or just used centre weighted metering and things worked out fine. The D80 does have the advantage of the built in AF motor, and I used it with a variety of older AF lenses. The advantages to buying a D5000 over it would be newer technology, probably better IQ and AF. But then you have to purchase AFS lenses. </p>

<p>Tough choice! It really depends on which appeals to you more - the ability to use older AF lenses or having more modern technology.</p>

[sam_kenny]

<p>The D90 is a far better camera than the D80, and I have owned both. Although it doesn't affect the photo, the high res LCD on the D90 is marvelous. You are getting a CMOS sensor with the D90. The D80 was only a marginal upgrade from the D70 and its metering problems are maddening. I bought my D90 with 3000 shutter activations for about $600. It turned out to be gray market, but so what? I would suggest that you also get a SB600 flash. If budget is tight, you can get the 18-55mm lens with VR at a reasonable price. A D90 is years ahead of the D80.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>A PS to my post above. I agree that the D90 is better than the D80. You asked about the D80, so I respnded to that. If you can afford a D90, that's what I would recommend. However there is a big difference in the price. If that is important, then the D80 is still a very good choice. The D5000 is a good choice, but because of the lens limitation I'd prefer the D80. If that's not a problem for you then I'd rate it over the D80 also. To summarize:</p>

<p>1. D90, if you can afford it</p>

<p>2. D5000, if the lens limitation is not important</p>

<p>3. D80, if the D90 is too expensive and if you don't want the lens limitation of the D5000.</p>

[jacobreiskin]

<p>Hi, the D80 is a good camera, but after two years it was already time to upgrade because i had purchased the D80 in late 2008, so it was already old now its really old and I purchased the d300s. The D80 was good but the technology has gotten so much better and by buying the d90 or d5000 you will be saving money in the longer term because you will not need to upgrade in 1 year because you have "outgrown" the d80. I was on a tight budget as well and looking back spending the extra money (if possible) would have been the right decision. You will be much happier with the D90 or D80</p>