Suggestions for Nikon D80 Replacement

[shivanand_sharma]

<p>I owned a Nikon D80 for over 8 years. I used it so much so that it became an extension of my hand. My only lens was the 18-200mm VR (f3.5-5.6).<br>

<br />But recently the camera just went dead and I'm looking for a replacement. I know FX is the way to go. But I do believe that manufacturers instead of using the extra sensor area to improve the light capturing properties have just chosen to pack more pixels. So image quality wise I believe there's no difference between DX and FX... Just that you invest in bigger and heavier lenses to cover the sensor size.<br>

I also don't want to go very high in the price range since it them becomes a case of diminishing returns. I have been using the Sony RX1 for two years. It's fine but I primarily want to photograph my kids and the RX1 misses the focus, has no zoom and worst of all a horrible RAW converter (I stick to manufacturer provided RAW converters since they are able to read the proprietary curves and camera settings). So RX1 is a serious point-and-shoot but not really a portrait cam.<br>

<br />With D80 I shot marriages, landscapes, sunsets and all and had no complaints except the low DR and poor night performance. I'm still planning to continue using the DX 18-200mm nikkor as long as it lasts. Kindly suggest something that I can use to photograph my 18 months daughter while time lasts. Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I know FX is the way to go. But I do believe that manufacturers instead of using the extra sensor area to improve the light capturing properties have just chosen to pack more pixels. So image quality wise I believe there's no difference between DX and FX... Just that you invest in bigger and heavier lenses to cover the sensor size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but I disagree there with a lot of what you state.<br>

FX is not the way to go for all of us - it has certain advantages, especially with wide® angles and generally the high ISO performance tends to be better. Still, DX has its distinct advantages too (for starters being cheaper), so it really depends on your requirements and budget whether FX is the way to go, or not.<br>

The extra sensor size hasn't just been used to pack more pixels, and it is a partial myth that more pixels would mean more problems. Technology moved on a lot since the D80, so the high ISO performance of a FX sensor with nearly 4 times more pixels will exceed the D80 by a lot. Well over two stops. In fact, the resolution of DX sensors relatively increased even more (24MP on a smaller sensor = smaller pixels), and yet the light capturing abilities still are way beyond a D80. Or D90. The current day 24MP DX cameras are OK at ISO3200, the 24MP FX cameras one stop more.<br>

So, image quality wise: the light capturing abilities changed, and FX still has an edge over DX there. It really isn't just about investing in bigger and heavier lenses.</p>

<p>That all said, whether going to FX is a smart choice depends a lot on the budget. Getting a nice FX camera to use it only with the 18-200VR (which is a quite mediocre performer, to be honest) is a waste. If the budget allows for a decent FX lens, the story changes quickly. Also on the new(er) DX cameras, your lens will show its shortcomings, but at least it's a DX lens on a DX body. Personally, depending on your budget, I would try to get a better lens as well. As a replacement body - every single Nikon DSLR available today exceed the capabilities of the D80, but the lower-end D3x00 and D5x00 do have inferior viewfinders and simplified controls. It's best to check for yourself in a store whether that works for you. The D7100 and D7200 are a seriously nice step up, so probably the best choice.</p>

<p>(For the Sony RX1, probably it entitles you to the <a href="http://www.phaseone.com/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-for-Sony.aspx">free CaptureOne 8 Express for Sony</a>, which is a seriously good raw converter. Might be worth trying if the supplied software isn't to your liking)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>DX is probably still the way to go for you.</p>

<p>But...</p>

<p>I also had the 18-200, and although it was okay on the D80, when you get to the high-MP cameras of today, it really shows its qualities (especially above about 110 or 120mm in my experience). On my D90, which was 12MP, I felt it was not good enough, whereas on my 6MP D50, it was plenty fine.</p>

<p>So... if you decide that you are going to replace that lens, too, and I think you should, then if it were me, I'd get the D7100. There are serious deals out there right now. Then get a 16-85VR lens.</p>

<p>That said, if you don't print above about 5 x 7 very much and don't crop in really heavy, keep the 18-200. You won't see a difference.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I agree with Wouter and Peter, and particularly like Peter's recommendation of the D7100. If you can afford it, the D7200 is even better, but the D7100 is already such a huge improvement over the D80 that you'll be very happy with it. The controls are better, the autofocus is far better, the imaging, especially in low light, is much better.</p>

<p>By the way, if you decide to go to FX, you'll have even better imaging, particularly in low light, but you would have to at least go for the D750 to have autofocus as good as the D7100 or D7200.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Look for a used D7100. The auto focus is lightning fast and image quality an improvement over D80 (I've owned both.) I used the D7100 for two years to shoot weddings and it's a great camera for that. I just wouldn't do it with an 18-200mm zoom.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I know FX is the way to go.</em></p>

<p>I don't think such a generic statement is true.</p>

<p><em>But I do believe that manufacturers instead of using the extra sensor area to improve the light capturing properties have just chosen to pack more pixels. So image quality wise I believe there's no difference between DX and FX...</em></p>

<p>It doesn't work like that. The primary determining factor for signal-to-noise ratio is the number of photons detected during the exposure. Other factors influence SNR but play a minor role, especially as sensors approach theoretical "ideal sensor" characteristics (to which current generation Nikons are very close). The number of photons captured over the image area is not really dependent on how small or large the photosites are. Microlenses cover the whole image area and concentrate the light on the photosensitive surfaces of each photosite. There is a small difference in SNR that seems to favour lower pixel density cameras (such as Df or D4s) when used at very high ISO, and correspondingly the high pixel density cameras (such as D7200, D810) produce better SNR (especially in the shadows) at low ISO. Overall the better image quality is with the high pixel density cameras but in specialist, very high ISO applications the 16MP FX models have an advantage. However, these differences are not all that big and personally I think they're nothing to worry about for most photographers (either would work well). The difference between modern vs. older cameras (such as the D80) is quite dramatic irrespective of which pixel density the modern camera happens to have.</p>

<p><em>had no complaints except the low DR and poor night performance</em><br>

These aspects have been dramatically improved in the D7100-D7200. FX would still be better for low light night photography but as you know, the lenses you'd need are expensive (especially if you want maximum performance). The D7200 is what I would recommend (since it has a larger buffer) but the D7100 can be had for much less money. Both are DX cameras so you can continue using your existing lenses. For photographing a small child, a 35/1.8 DX Nikkor would give you more light for indoor photography and is relatively inexpensive. Both the D7100 or the D7200 have Nikon's top of the line AF system and would be able to focus track a moving subject very well.</p>

[steve_phillips3]

<p>I went through the exact same process over the last few months, also upgrading from a D80. While I love the idea of full-frame camera for various reasons, I also shoot lots of kids, and realized that the D7100 would give me better autofocus and shot-to-shot performance than a D610, and without needing new lenses (I have 4 lenses and all but one are DX lenses). I would never have been able to sell the home budget committee on a D750, even if I just got a used 50mm lens or something with it to hold me over for a while. While I was deciding, the D7200 came out and that's what I ended up with. At the time it was only $200 more, though even that was a big decision. I think the D7100 would have been great too and especially at the lower price. The AF system on the D7200 is simply, stunningly awesome compared to the D80. The photos also look great up through ISO 6400, at least compared to the D80 at ISO 1600. What more does the average amateur need?<br>

My dream is actually to someday own a Nikon Df (or something similar in terms of appearance and controls), though even if I was able to any time soon, I would probably still use the D7200 a lot.</p>

[User_276104]

<p>If you can "live in the past" a bit, Amazon is still selling brand new D7000 bodies. At the time I write this it is $563.77 and the price fluctuates frequently. I ordered one before Christmas 2014 for $525 and the price dropped to $480 before I even received it, so Amazon refunded me the difference.</p>

[jeff h.]

<p>Here is my short answer: Get a FX Nikon.</p>

<p>Now, for the long answer. After decades of using Nikon F, EM, FM2n, and N90s film cameras, my very first DSLR was a Nikon D80, which I purchased new from my local camera shop. I used it for eight years, and liked it so much that I picked up a second body for a fraction of what I spent on the first D80, in case I wanted to use two lenses simultaneously or let my son shoot alongside and share lenses with me.</p>

<p>I always suspected that Nikon would make a FX camera that I really liked, so I kept using all my original film (FX) lenses; the only DX lens I bought was the nice Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S.</p>

<p>To my delight, Nikon released the FX Df body the same year I was starting to be really aggravated by the limitations of my D80: namely, poor low-light performance and lackluster image quality/sharpness. The Df release coincided with a milestone birthday, so I splurged. For me, the Df is the perfect camera. The single greatest factor that prompted me to buy this camera is the fact that it is backwards-compatible with nearly every lens ever made for the Nikon-F mount. I gained bigger/better images, without getting huge files that would have forced me to upgrade my computer storage capacity. The performance of the Df in low light is astonishing; I have taken photos in near darkness using a fast lens and high ISO, and it looks like the photo was shot during the day (well, at least during twilight!).</p>

<p>You mention photographing your young child. In photographing children, fast shutter speed is your best strategy. The best photos I have of my own children were taken in ambient light, on a variety of lenses. Sporting/dance events are shot on second-hand 300/4D and 80-200/2.8D lenses. Portraits are shot on 85/1.8D, 105/2.5AIS, and 50/1.4 (D & AIS) lenses. Wide angle is shot on 20/2.8D, 24/2.8D and 35/2AIS . Macro is on an old Lester-Dine 105/2.8 (AIS) lens. A trio of older D zooms suffice for travel or all-in-one lens needs. Notice how many AIS and D lenses I mentioned: these are all optically fine (several are superb) lenses, and you don't need to pay for the latest version. There will not be a significant depreciation in the value of these lenses.</p>

<p>So, I heartily encourage you to get a FX camera body and use FX lenses-- which do not have to be outrageously expensive to shoot fabulous photos.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i don't think FX is automatically the "way to go" unless you can justify its cost and intended use. as has been pointed out, even a D7000 will be a quantum leap forward from a D80 in all performance metrics. A D7100 or 7200 sweetens the pot even further with better AF. in fact, the 7100/7200 both have a better AF module than the Df, which i would avoid unless you either already own mainly legacy lenses or plan on using them, or if you are mainly a low-light prime shooter who wants to travel light and dont shoot a lot of action. to get the same capability you had on your old D80 with an FX body, you would have to spend at least $1500 (D610) + $1000 (28-300 zoom), so $2500 all in. OTOH, a d7100 + an 18-140 (which has better optics than the 18-200) is only $1500 all in. that's a significant price differential, one which would allow you to add a fast prime and maybe a wide angle. if you have to ask whether FX or DX is better for you, the answer is probably the latter.</p>

[steve_phillips3]

<p>Actually, the cost savings by going with the D7100 is even better now as the D7100 with 18-140 lens kit is now listed at $1199.95 - that's a pretty sweet deal. Body only is 899.95. These are current list prices direct from Nikon.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>yeah, the price i quoted was actually for D7100+18-140+55-300 for $1500, as it turns out. that's a pretty decent deal. i would definitely upgrade/sell the 18-200 when moving up the megapixel ladder, and the 18-140 seems to hit a superzoom sweet spot. whether that plus the 55-300 is worth $600 extra is another consideration, but most DSLR shooters would probably only need to add a fast prime and maybe an ultrawide for a decent kit.</p>

[shivanand_sharma]

<p>Unfortunately in India The price point of a Nokin D7100 is almost twice that of D80 (at the time of purchase in 2008). So price-wise it's not a drop-in replacement for the D80. My expectation was that for a camera that fits the same budget will have better tech specs today.</p>

<p>And if I have to invest in a lens and a body at the current price-point then FX would be the way to go.</p>

[roger_rowlett1]

I've been with DX since the beginning, a D100. You would not be disappointed with

aD7100 of D7200. You will be shocked at the 24 Mpixel resolution and the high ISO

capability. No need to move to FX unless there is a reason to. DX has some

advantage with tele work, FX with low light and wide angle work. Both DX and FX

make great images. Your 18-200 will be OK on a D7xxx. The 18-140 is a little better

but not much in that focal length range. Add a 70-300 VR and you have a dynamite

lightweight kit. Throw in a 12-24 or 10-24 for a really complete kit.

[ShunCheung]

<p>How much were/are the D80 and D7100 in India?<br>

<br />When Nikon introduced the D80 back in 2006, it was US$1000 new, same price as the D70 and D70S before it and the D90 two years later. The D7000, D7100, and D7200 are effectively "half a grade" higher at $1200 initially. Since the D7100 is now an old model superseded by its successor the D7200, it should be at deep discount now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D80 (at the time of purchase in 2008)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />The thing is that you bought the D80 roughly two years after its introduction (2006), in the year its success the D90 was introduced (2008). I assume you got the D80 at fairly deep discount.</p>

<p> </p>