I'm considering a DSLR, my first, and am tempted by the Nikon D80 with the AF-S DX 18-135G lens.
I used to be a keen SLR amateur photographer, 35mm, a long while ago.
I got fed up with film due to the poor development services available and not being willing to develope my own film.
I've read the reviews but would like the views of other amateur photographers on how good it is. Will it keep my interest and have enough features to improve my photographic skills? :wonder:
Is it a camera that will still be good enough 3/4 years down the track or do I need to pitch higher, say the D200?
How good is it when compared to the cheaper alternatives, Sony alpha 100 etc?

Thanks.

D200 / 300 is the better camera and is the entry level pro body. As such has a cut down firmware / settings of the D2x.

I like it, and having used mine since March last year, never had a problem except 1 which was more my fault than anything else. I did a firmware upgrade and it put the camera back to default settings, loosing all my settings.

I'd say if you can stretch to the 200/300 go for it, you'll be better off in the long run.

My mate was in a similar position to you, looking to get a DSLR after using film versions and also 'bridge' digital cameras.

He got the D80 and loves it. All the features you are likely to need and very good quality results and also very good build quality and 'feel'. As Simon mentioned the 200/300 is the next step up, but to be honest I'd be surprised if you were disappointed with the D80. Its very impressive for an 'amateur' camera, and I was certainly impressed having used it - and saying that sticks in my thoat being a Canon 1D user :D ;) Unless there was a specific reason/feature for getting the 200/300 I'd get the D80 and save a bit of cash for an extra lens or flash.

Gareth

My mate was in a similar position to you, looking to get a DSLR after using film versions and also 'bridge' digital cameras.

He got the D80 and loves it. All the features you are likely to need and very good quality results and also very good build quality and 'feel'. As Simon mentioned the 200/300 is the next step up, but to be honest I'd be surprised if you were disappointed with the D80. Its very impressive for an 'amateur' camera, and I was certainly impressed having used it - and saying that sticks in my thoat being a Canon 1D user :D ;) Unless there was a specific reason/feature for getting the 200/300 I'd get the D80 and save a bit of cash for an extra lens or flash.

Gareth

Thanks Gareth,
Not sure that I'm completely 'sold' yet but your comments are on the + side of what I expected. Thank you!

Simon C, do I really need a pro body camera?
How much does an amateur D80 user lose out to the 200/300 buyer?
Can you demonstrate a situation where I'd feel like a loser?

Many thanks.

Just to back up my opinion, any modern digital SLR is far more specified than even the best film SLR in options and features, and the D80 has a wealth of features.

The D200/300 may have faster fps shooting and feel slightly more 'pro' but in terms of everyday picture taking I doubt it would make any difference. In terms of the final picture, I'll put my life savings (all £4.87 :D) on you not being able to tell whether the pic was taken on a D80 or D200.

I'm not totally familiar with the Nikon cameras and the differences between the various cameras in the system, but its comparable in models to the Canon settup.

If you want to improve your photography, then both cameras offer full manual control, as well as all the other shooting modes you would require. Lots of features are great to have on the camera, but I bet you wouldn't use 80% of them most of the time.

Best thing to do is to try both in a dealer and see which feels best.

Gareth

Depends on what you photograph and also how you like your cameras to feel.

back in the old days, all my cameras were metal body, and I like the reasurance this gave, its carried over to today. My D200 is a mag alloy body, it just feels right.

I think the D80 is a plastic body looking at the weight (its about 200g lighter than the 200)

Also the D80 only does 3 frames/sec (d200 is 5fps). I don't know if your going to be shooting anything thats going to require that sort of speed.

You can find Nikons specs here at Nikon UK - Digital Cameras (http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/1.html)

J
I'll put my life savings (all £4.87 :D) on you not being able to tell whether the pic was taken on a D80 or D200.

Gareth


At the last gig we did a comparison on the results from a D2x and my D200.

The biggest point was the noise level on the 200 its staggering when up against the D2x (ok were talking £1.5k differance), but the same thing was also true when I did a comparison between my then D70s and my new D200.

I have owned a D50 and a D200 and I have now sold the D200 for a number of reasons. It felt great and had a lot of high level features but I found that I was spending far too much time trying to 'work' it and less time on actually taking photos. I get excellent results from the D50 and a friend who has a D80 also gets excellent results. The 'noise' from the d200 sensor in low light was also a factor in going back to the D50. Downsides of the D50 are lack of flash control, no back light on the display (I think the D80 has addressed these issues?) but other than that I don't really miss anything from the D200. The bonus is that my wife is happier using the D50 because it is that much lighter.

I guess it depends on how 'professional' your approach is to your photography. For me I have to fit it around my family and therefore the D50 suits me better.

Hope that helps,

Steve

At the last gig we did a comparison on the results from a D2x and my D200.

The biggest point was the noise level on the 200 its staggering when up against the D2x (ok were talking £1.5k differance), but the same thing was also true when I did a comparison between my then D70s and my new D200.

Yep, but you are taking pretty demanding situations there for the comparison - in terms of everyday general photography I stand by my comments in the hope of keeping hold of my £4 :D

It comes down to whether you are going to use the camera in that situation on a regular basis or once in a blue moon, and if its worth paying the extra. You are prepared to work with the D200 rather than pay for the D2x .

Its not a case of which camera is better, its a case of which camera is best for your needs.

Listen to Gareth. Forgive me Simon, but I think your specialsed kind of photography, ie shooting gigs, makes noise a much bigger issue than it is for mere mortals ;) I have to look very hard for any sign of noise, even on my humble Canon 350D.

I suggest any Nikon or Canon that takes your fancy, and spend more time (and money) on lenses etc. That, afterall, is what SLR photography is about and these brands have hundreds of lenses and other stuff that you can stick on them.

Other brands like Sony/Pentax/Olympus etc are not in the same position (yet) despite some excellent cameras.

Good luck,

Richard.

Yep, but you are taking pretty demanding situations there for the comparison - in terms of everyday general photography I stand by my comments in the hope of keeping hold of my £4 :D

It comes down to whether you are going to use the camera in that situation on a regular basis or once in a blue moon, and if its worth paying the extra. You are prepared to work with the D200 rather than pay for the D2x .

Its not a case of which camera is better, its a case of which camera is best for your needs.

No, its called I can't afford the D2x or D3 :D


However I have dropped hints to the parent as its my birthday next week! Oh and now I return to reality! :D


Yeah, I'll be the first to admit I work in demanding circumstancs, and cameras aren't really designed for what I (we) do.

Oh and I agree whole heartedly with your last sentance.

Listen to Gareth. Forgive me Simon, but I think your specialsed kind of photography, ie shooting gigs, makes noise a much bigger issue than it is for mere mortals ;) I have to look very hard for any sign of noise, even on my humble Canon 350D.

I suggest any Nikon or Canon that takes your fancy, and spend more time (and money) on lenses etc. That, afterall, is what SLR photography is about and these brands have hundreds of lenses and other stuff that you can stick on them.

Other brands like Sony/Pentax/Olympus etc are not in the same position (yet) despite some excellent cameras.

Good luck,

Richard.


Richard, you are forgiven mate :D :p


Only mentioned noise as its cropped up at some inopertune times with me. The comparison was done at teh gig because thats when we had both cameras side by side, and is the 1 senario that will highlight the noise levels.

I'd agree 99% percent of the time, noise hasn't been a problem, however look at this pic then look at the fireplace. A quite normal (by normal standards) photo, for me atleast :rolleyes: :lol1:

http://www.focuslive.co.uk/promo/toy2.jpg (http://www.focuslive.co.uk/promo/toy2.jpg)

Thats probably me being picky.

No noise here

http://www.focuslive.co.uk/press/_DSC8039.JPG

Ive just bought a D80... its my 1st DSLR. Ive had it 3 days and am slowly learning how to use it.

The built quality and first impressions are very very good. I dont think you'll be disappointed TBH. :thumb:

Here's a review of the D80 by Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm) who compares it with his D40 and D200 with interesting opinions.

Specific comparison between D80 and D200 here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm)

Have a read before chosing and parting with your cash.

I've had my D80 about 12months, I purchased it after 18 months ownership of a D70, my reason for buying was a second body for a safari trip. The camera is in my opinion, very very good, and great value, the build quality is great and you would be very happy with it. Having said that, I would have loved a D200, but this was a fantastic compromise.

Thanks to all for taking the time to respond.
All very helpful.
Looks like a D80 it is then. :thumb:

I also own a D80 and am thoroughly impressed with it. My dad owns a D200 so I have regular access to both.
On more than one occasion, usually after a glass or two of wine dad has admitted that if he were to spend the money again he'd probably buy the D80 as it simply doesn't lack any features he uses regularly.

Friend of mine is a pro photographer (mainly travel). He bought a D200 for work and a D80 as a back-up body, says it's all he needs. Depends on your disposable income, there used to be a hell of a price difference (for me, anyway). D40/50 don't have the second wheel so I think they lose some flexibility at the higher end of the manual settings.

D40/50 don't have the second wheel so I think they lose some flexibility at the higher end of the manual settings.

This was the advice that stopped me from getting the D50 kit and going for the D80, i'm only starting out and even I find the 2nd wheel invaluable, mind you after reading the D300 review posted in here it would be tempting in a couple of years to move up the ladder a bit.

Correct me if I am wrong but the D80 uses SD cards which is serial and most other DSLRs use CF cards which is Parallel, so surely this SD card system in the D80 is much slower than any CF card camera.

But I could be wrong.

Correct, on both counts - it uses SD, and you're wrong about it being slower ;) :D

My Canon 1d MkIIn and MkIII bodies take both CF and SD (2gb Lexar pro 133x) and there's no noticeable difference in write speeds.

I'm certain that you won't notice any problems with the D80 with decent SD cards. Shooting large MB RAW/jpg sequences would soon show up any problems with cameras processing/write speed, either with the camera or card, and would be a major problems for the manufacturer. I can't recall any concerns with D80 write speed.

Gareth