Is a Nikon D80 overkill?

[Curren~Sea]

I’m trying to decide between a D80 or a D50.

Requirements are to take excellent family pictures (two girls aged 2 & 4 who just happen to be incredibly cute and beautiful).

I’ve been using little digitals, currently a Sony DSC-W50, which is great outdoors and easy to pack around, but not good indoors, is too slow (although one of the fastest little camera’s I’ve tested), and the worst of all problem is red-eye. (I know I can edit this out but you often lose eye color that way and it often looks almost as bad when you’re done).

I’ve had a couple of 35mm’s, currently a Canon Rebel which is ok, not great. Now I want a digital SLR and it’s down to a Nikon D50 or D80.

I’m not a hobbyist nor do I aspire to be an amateur photo buff, although I like having options to grow into.

Price is not the issue, but value is very important, if you know what I mean.

I’ve read a lot on the web, surfed, browsed, searched, etc

Do I need 10mp? Is that just going to eat up my hard drive as I take hundreds of pictures of my kids, many of which I end up resizing to post on my website?

Will I feel limited by the D50 in any way?

As for lenses I will see how the kits work out but I like the idea of the 50/1.4 and a VR zoom. Perhaps with these, I won’t need to use the flash as much indoors.

The new D40 is too small, I don’t like how it feels. I like the D50 and D80 body. Don’t really care about the lcd screen but I do care about a camera that is easy to use yet flexible enough to do what I want.

As an aside: My last big vacation several years ago was to Spain and I lugged around my Canon 35mm. It was a pain. I got home and started using little digitals and thought, “Hey, I should have just used this the whole time and saved myself from lugging all that crap around! Now however, I have come full circle and realize that a full glass camera is probably the best fit for me right now. And, I’ve always wanted a Nikon

As I type this up, I feel like I’m leaning towards a D80. But I don’t want to pay hundreds extra for features I’ll rarely use. But if there are other good reasons that make the D80 a better choice, I’d like to hear them. Thanks!

[ChrisA]

I’m trying to decide between a D80 or a D50.

I have the D50.

Buy the lenses you want then a body with any left over budget. It is not worth buying an expensive body if that means you can't get the lens you want. But if you have budget for both go with the D80.

The "80" gives you a few more pixels. You want these mostly for crops. An uncropped D50 frame is big enough for full page prints at 300DPI while the D80 can make 30% larger prints at the same DPI. You pay a lot of money for that extra 30%. I tend to crop everything I print. I hrdly ever keep the 3:2 aspect ratio.

Concider not buying the d50 kit lens and putting the money to the kit lens from the D80 You may never need a longer lens than that and the 18 end is wide enough for most people

The 50mm f/1.4 is really what you want. I can see the difference in a second between shots with my 50mm vs. the 18-70. A lot more "snap" in the 50mm lens. I have an 85mm f/1.8 put it is to long for indoor kid shots. On the DX format the 50mm is already a mid-telephoto.

You might think that a VR lens would let you shoot in low light. It can compensate for camera shake but not subject motion. If the kid is moving VR can't help you. Only a faster f-stop can (or a strobe)

Because I have the D50 I plan wait one more product cycle and buy whatever replaces the current D200/D80 I don't see the D80 is that great of an upgrade for me and I'd MUCH rather have a 80-200 f/2.8 lens than a new D80. But if I were buying now I'd base the D50/D80 decision on budget. If I could afford the D80 I'd get it but truthfully the D50 will do well enough

[extraextra]

I would get the D50 and use the extra money for better lenses (since that is what will really make a difference in your pictures), but the extra megapixels of the D80 will allow you to crop more. Do you find yourself cropping images heavily, and often wishing that you could crop a little more (but can't, because then the image isn't sharp)? If the answer is yes, then you should go for the D80.

[Foucault]

I agree the D50 is an excellent and durable camera. I've had it for a year, and it has survived Burning Man and various other extreme conditions that I have taken it to. Spend the extra money on the 50mm Nikkor lens, and get the 18-200mm lens (if you can afford it) and those are the two lenses you'll ever need for what you're going to do.

[Buschmaster]

I have the W50. The D50 is lightyears ahead of it. You'll be content with that. It was suggested to you that you buy the lenses first and then buy the body, I would say lay out a budget, get a really nice lens or two, get a tripod, then get the body after that. You may not need the D80, anyway, but it could make your decision a lot easier but eliminating it financially anyway.

[b0tt094]

D50 all the way, the 10 megapixel will cluter ur comp if u take take as many pics as u say, ive had it since october and im still exploring and discovering, it has great preset settings and an even better manual mode. I think the d80 is boarderline overkill for u, i have a friend who has a d80 and is alittle upset becasue of how much obverkill it is for her... in other words she likes my d50 vmore:cool:

ya and uf ur shooting kids i'd say save money for a good wide angle lense

[Curren~Sea]

Thanks for the replies.

Any comments on the D40?

Ken Rockwell seems to like it.

[EastCoastFlyer]

Don't know anything about the D40 -- but I can speak very highly of the D50. If you click on the link in my signature below, virtually everything (with maybe 2 exceptions) was shot with my 50 -- and many with the kit lenses.

[Silentwave]

D50 is a nice camera, but the images coming out of the new D40 are out of this world.

If it feels too small for you then don't get it, and the new, smaller battery does worry me, but the big screen is great, the viewfinder is larger than the one in the D50/70, and quality is phenomenal. The sensor really has been taken to a new level, high ISOs are absolute dreams.

Chris' advice is sound, perhaps the most sound advice i've heard for DSLRs.

Get the lenses you want, let your budget afterwards dictate which body.

[Clix Pix]

Read the reviews on http://www.dpreview.com of each camera, then go to the store and handle each of them. There are some key differences in the handling of the D50 as opposed to the D80: one being that the D50 has just one command dial, whereas the D80 has two. The D80 has a larger LCD. The D80 shares some features with the D70/D70s that are not available on the D50.

The D40 is cute but limited in that it will not accept Nikon's older lenses; this can be a key point when you want to expand your lens collection. Again, as has already been mentioned, before buying any camera body, consider what you want to do with it and what lenses would most likely get you where you want to be.

[failsafe1]

Always buy good lenses and then get a body you can afford. After 27 years in the photo biz I have seen too many people buy really nice camera bodies and then slap pop bottle lenses on the front. I don't think you can have too many pixels either but glass is the most important first thing.

[SpankyPenzaanz]

no but it is overpriced

[Curren~Sea]

Thanks again for the replies.

I spent a couple hours with the D80 and D50 tonight, only a minute or two on the D40 because it just didn't feel as good in my hands. The 50 and 80 feel almost exactly the same. The sales guy was great in helping me pick the right one, which seems to be the D50. I'm charging the battery now...

The D80 is definitely a nicer camera. I really like the larger viewfinder. It also has a nicer sounding snap. Many of the cool features on the D80 would probably be wasted on me at the moment, although I may grow into them later.

For now, I'm looking forward to taking some great Christmas shots with my new Nikon D50. I'll start with the delivered 18-55 DX lens. It's nice and light, and seems to be snappy. I like how this setup feels. I'll probably get a 70-300G but we'll see. For casual snapshots I think I have the perfect camera.

[pdxflint]

My only gripe about the D50 is that the ISO settings seem a little low to me, like about a stop. Nothing scientific about my observations, just the way it feels when I shoot with the kit lens. f/3.5 on the "fast" end often requires me to shoot at 1600 ISO to get useable shutter speeds indoors without flash, and during the later hours of the day up here in Oregon during the winter. Lots of trees, gray days. When using a Canon a95 P/S on aperture preferred, which is limited to ISO 400, I often can shoot with similar shutter speeds in lower light, although it does have a f/2.8 lens on the wide end. I'd like to have at least a 3200 setting on the D50 that I could "push" to 6400 by compensating down one stop, if needed.

Also, I don't mind the D50 single command dial, I just wish it were on the front, not the back, more like the Canons I used to shoot with.

Of course, I know I really need fast glass, and the 50 1.8 is definately on the list. Maybe for Christmas...

[Buschmaster]

Thanks again for the replies.

I spent a couple hours with the D80 and D50 tonight, only a minute or two on the D40 because it just didn't feel as good in my hands. The 50 and 80 feel almost exactly the same. The sales guy was great in helping me pick the right one, which seems to be the D50. I'm charging the battery now...

The D80 is definitely a nicer camera. I really like the larger viewfinder. It also has a nicer sounding snap. Many of the cool features on the D80 would probably be wasted on me at the moment, although I may grow into them later.

For now, I'm looking forward to taking some great Christmas shots with my new Nikon D50. I'll start with the delivered 18-55 DX lens. It's nice and light, and seems to be snappy. I like how this setup feels. I'll probably get a 70-300G but we'll see. For casual snapshots I think I have the perfect camera.
Glad you made your decision! Good luck with all your shots, take a bunch of practice shots to get used to it.:)

[Abstract]

I have the D50 and I don't think the D80 would be "overkill." What is "overkill" about a camera? The D80 has all the functions of the D50, but several more. It's not as if I'd be confused with a D80 in my hand. It would take me 30 minutes to "acclimatize" (or probably a few hours of shooting to really make it feel like it was "mine").

If I were in the market today, and money wasn't the issue, I'd go for the D80. It's still great value and you don't get a lot of things you would never miss. However, I love my D50 and it takes photos I'm happy with, so congratulations. :)



@pdxflint: DPReview does tests on ISO and Nikon is very accurate with their ISO settings, unlike Canon. Pentax and Nikon both seem to be accurate.

[pdxflint]

@pdxflint: DPReview does tests on ISO and Nikon is very accurate with their ISO settings, unlike Canon. Pentax and Nikon both seem to be accurate.
I don't doubt that, and that would explain how my experiences coming from previous 35 mm Canon SLRs and the a95 could affect my perception. Still, I wish the D50 had higher ISO settings. I'd even take more noise just to get there. Still, it's a really nice camera, and very well built. It's not going anywhere...;)

[Curren~Sea]

What is "overkill" about a camera?

Overkill, in my mind would be paying $450 more for features I would rarely if ever use. The features on the D80 that I would have liked include the larger nicer viewfinder, the quieter shutter snap, and perhaps some of the editing functions. For my use, I don’t see much benefit in the larger LCD screen or enhanced flash capabilities, among others. So it was impossible for me to justify the extra $, for now… I could get 3 months down the road and find that I really want more features. In which case, the store where I bought my D50 would be happy to exchange my D50 (as long as it’s in good condition) and upsell me.

Once again I’d like to thank everyone for their feedback, including the folks in other posts who gave their opinions.

[ChrisA]

Any comments on the D40?
Ken Rockwell seems to like it.

Ken Rockwell gets his technical stuff exactly right and he writes well but his opinions seem to be not so mainstream.

The D40 lacks an in-body focus motor and is therefor limited to using only AF-S lenses. This for me is an absolute deal killer. I would not want a D40. And the price is the same as the D50.

[Irish Dave]

I’m trying to decide between a D80 or a D50.

Requirements are to take excellent family pictures (two girls aged 2 & 4 who just happen to be incredibly cute and beautiful).

I’ve been using little digitals, currently a Sony DSC-W50, which is great outdoors and easy to pack around, but not good indoors, is too slow (although one of the fastest little camera’s I’ve tested), and the worst of all problem is red-eye. (I know I can edit this out but you often lose eye color that way and it often looks almost as bad when you’re done).

I’ve had a couple of 35mm’s, currently a Canon Rebel which is ok, not great. Now I want a digital SLR and it’s down to a Nikon D50 or D80.

I’m not a hobbyist nor do I aspire to be an amateur photo buff, although I like having options to grow into.

Price is not the issue, but value is very important, if you know what I mean.

I’ve read a lot on the web, surfed, browsed, searched, etc

Do I need 10mp? Is that just going to eat up my hard drive as I take hundreds of pictures of my kids, many of which I end up resizing to post on my website?

Will I feel limited by the D50 in any way?

As for lenses I will see how the kits work out but I like the idea of the 50/1.4 and a VR zoom. Perhaps with these, I won’t need to use the flash as much indoors.

The new D40 is too small, I don’t like how it feels. I like the D50 and D80 body. Don’t really care about the lcd screen but I do care about a camera that is easy to use yet flexible enough to do what I want.

As an aside: My last big vacation several years ago was to Spain and I lugged around my Canon 35mm. It was a pain. I got home and started using little digitals and thought, “Hey, I should have just used this the whole time and saved myself from lugging all that crap around! Now however, I have come full circle and realize that a full glass camera is probably the best fit for me right now. And, I’ve always wanted a Nikon

As I type this up, I feel like I’m leaning towards a D80. But I don’t want to pay hundreds extra for features I’ll rarely use. But if there are other good reasons that make the D80 a better choice, I’d like to hear them. Thanks!


I know that Nikon don't have a camera with a "full frame" sensor which would put me off buying Nikon. This is serious if you decide to update your camera body later.

I've heard rumors that the autofocus system in Nikon SLR's have trouble focusing in low light. If this is true ...... go for Canon.

Dave :)

[Clix Pix]

Many photographers don't pay much attention to Ken Rockwell -- his "reviews" are highly suspect in that, one, they are quite subjective and two, at times he comments on and critiques cameras or lenses that he has not even seen or handled. !!??!! Take whatever he writes with a huge grain of salt and go elsewhere for genuine reviews of cameras and lenses.....

[Silentwave]

I know that Nikon don't have a camera with a "full frame" sensor which would put me off buying Nikon. This is serious if you decide to update your camera body later.

I've heard rumors that the autofocus system in Nikon SLR's have trouble focusing in low light. If this is true....

Dave :)

First of all, nikon doesn't because:
A) until this past year, Full Frame was insanely expensive- prior to the 5D, nothing under $5000 was full frame.
B) Full Frame without solving some of the problems that Canon has ignored in its past 3 cameras does not satisfy Nikon's stringent quality requirements.

Full Frame is ONLY an issue at this point if you feel the strong desire to upgrade to a $3000+ body. Even so, there are two previous Full Frame 14MP Nikon-mount DSLRs from Kodak. Nikon is also rumored to have at least two prototypes floating around for their Full Frame next generation camera.

Also, that AF system talk is patently false. Nikons are great in low light, and several have a reputation for being better in low light focusing than Canon.

[Irish Dave]

First of all, nikon doesn't because:
A) until this past year, Full Frame was insanely expensive- prior to the 5D, nothing under $5000 was full frame.
B) Full Frame without solving some of the problems that Canon has ignored in its past 3 cameras does not satisfy Nikon's stringent quality requirements.

Full Frame is ONLY an issue at this point if you feel the strong desire to upgrade to a $3000+ body. Even so, there are two previous Full Frame 14MP Nikon-mount DSLRs from Kodak. Nikon is also rumored to have at least two prototypes floating around for their Full Frame next generation camera.

Also, that AF system talk is patently false. Nikons are great in low light, and several have a reputation for being better in low light focusing than Canon.

Hi,
Even the top of the range "Professional" Nikon cameras don't offer "Full frame" sensors. To a "Pro" this is criminal.

When is a 24mm lens not a 24mm lens ? ................. Answer When it's fitted to a Nikon.

I don't agree, Canon autofocus system is streets ahead of Nikon. Why do over 80% of professional photographers choose Canon?

Dave:)

[pdxflint]

When is a 24mm lens not a 24mm lens ? ................. Answer When it's fitted to a Nikon.

Dave:)
... and when it's fitted to a few Canon's... at least as far as the non full-frame Canons vs. Nikons - the Nikons have slightly larger sensors at 1.5x vs. 1.6x for Canon.

But, I do agree largely with the notion that for pro work I'd prefer a full-frame body, and think Nikon should just go ahead and release one.

[Irish Dave]

... and when it's fitted to a few Canon's... at least as far as the non full-frame Canons vs. Nikons - the Nikons have slightly larger sensors at 1.5x vs. 1.6x for Canon.

But, I do agree largely with the notion that for pro work I'd prefer a full-frame body, and think Nikon should just go ahead and release one.

Hi,
At the moment there are three Canon D-SLR's with full frame sensors. Yes they are very expensive but essential for professional photographers. Although two of the three cameras are outside the budget of most keen amateurs, the EOS 5D is reasonably affordable and can be had for £1700 GBP for the body.

Nikon really should get their act together and release at least one. They are loosing what little share of the pro market they still have by not having a full frame D-SLR.

Two of our local newspapers, who had been Nikon users for years have recently changed to Canon for this very reason.
Once Pro users change from one make of camera to another, they probably won't change back again.

This is why I think it's criminal that Nikon users are still waiting for a "real" pro camera years after Canon have released theirs. I have used the Canon 16.7 Mp EOS 1Ds Mk 2 camera, it's totally awesome. A friend who uses one of them regularly has enlargements of 8 feet x 6 feet and the quality is unbelievable.

Greetings from Ireland
Dave :)

[Irish Dave]

First of all, nikon doesn't because:
A) until this past year, Full Frame was insanely expensive- prior to the 5D, nothing under $5000 was full frame.
B) Full Frame without solving some of the problems that Canon has ignored in its past 3 cameras does not satisfy Nikon's stringent quality requirements.

Full Frame is ONLY an issue at this point if you feel the strong desire to upgrade to a $3000+ body. Even so, there are two previous Full Frame 14MP Nikon-mount DSLRs from Kodak. Nikon is also rumored to have at least two prototypes floating around for their Full Frame next generation camera.

Also, that AF system talk is patently false. Nikons are great in low light, and several have a reputation for being better in low light focusing than Canon.

Hi,
What problems have Canon been ignoring? I certainly haven't heard of any,

Which Nikon's are faster at focusing in low light?

Surely you must admit that having the focusing motor in the body is a bad idea. Canon has the focus motors in their lenses so each lens has the optimum torque for rapid focusing (in any light)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go to any major event and look around at what the pro's are using. I think you will find it difficult to play "spot the Nikon"

Nikon very well MAY have two prototypes floating around, but this doesn't do much for their sales.

Dave (retired pro photographer with 30 years experience) :)

[coldrain]

Canon only has 2 full frame cameras. The 1Ds and the 5D. No idea what the 3rd one would be!

Full frame is not a sign of being "professional". It has its advantages (wider view angle, bigger photo diodes so less noise/better dynamic range, no difficulty with trying to calculate crop factors in focal lengths when you are used to 35mm focal lengths).

It also has its disadvantages: less tele reach compared to 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor sensor DSLRs, vignetting (light fall off) towards the corners at wide angles (due to the angles of the light that falls on the micro lenses in front of the photo diodes).

This last problem is what probably above poster meant with "problems Canon ignores". A bit silly to make that into a big problem, the vignetting doesn't have to be a problem in most cases.

Nikon IS working on a full frame sensor/camera anyway. And they are trying to solve that micro lens/wide angle problem, probably in the same way Leica did with their 1.3x crop sensor M camera.

Now back to whether a D80 is overkill: while its sensor is not as nice as the 10mp one of the Canon 400D/XTi (more noisy... same sensor as the D200 and Sony A100, they just filter out noise and that translates into less detail), it is a good camera. It has some silly options (in camera image editting stuff), and its kitlens (18-150?) is a dog so avoid the kit.
6 to 10 mp is quite a jump though, so it is not really overkill. Avoid the D40 as you are very limitted in lens choice (both from Nikon and 3rd party).
IF you want to save money and go for a 6mp Nikon, choose the D50. With its internal motor it allows you to use all the current Nikon primes and other lenses that use the internal motor.

[Irish Dave]

Canon only has 2 full frame cameras. The 1Ds and the 5D. No idea what the 3rd one would be!

Full frame is not a sign of being "professional". It has its advantages (wider view angle, bigger photo diodes so less noise/better dynamic range, no difficulty with trying to calculate crop factors in focal lengths when you are used to 35mm focal lengths).

It also has its disadvantages: less tele reach compared to 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor sensor DSLRs, vignetting (light fall off) towards the corners at wide angles (due to the angles of the light that falls on the micro lenses in front of the photo diodes).

This last problem is what probably above poster meant with "problems Canon ignores". A bit silly to make that into a big problem, the vignetting doesn't have to be a problem in most cases.

Nikon IS working on a full frame sensor/camera anyway. And they are trying to solve that micro lens/wide angle problem, probably in the same way Leica did with their 1.3x crop sensor M camera.

Now back to whether a D80 is overkill: while its sensor is not as nice as the 10mp one of the Canon 400D/XTi (more noisy... same sensor as the D200 and Sony A100, they just filter out noise and that translates into less detail), it is a good camera. It has some silly options (in camera image editting stuff), and its kitlens (18-150?) is a dog so avoid the kit.
6 to 10 mp is quite a jump though, so it is not really overkill. Avoid the D40 as you are very limitted in lens choice (both from Nikon and 3rd party).
IF you want to save money and go for a 6mp Nikon, choose the D50. With its internal motor it allows you to use all the current Nikon primes and other lenses that use the internal motor.

Hi,
I said Canon have 3 full frame digital SLR's because the original EOS 1 Ds is still available. I know it has been officially replaced by the 1 Ds Mk 2 but it can still be bought new. The third one is obviously the 5D

I notice you don't make any comment on the focus motor in the Nikon body, their problem in focusing in low light or the fact that the vast majority of Professionals use Canon.

I never said that using a full frame Canon D-SLR shows you are a pro, just that it's a fact that most who are .......do.

Personally I have never experienced vignetting with any Canon cameras when using Canon lenses. (or Nikon either I must add)

I must also concede that Nikon make great lenses. I did use Nikon cameras and lenses for quite a few years, but changed to Canon because their digital camera system was superior.

Dave:)

[coldrain]

Hi,
I said Canon have 3 full frame digital SLR's because the original EOS 1 Ds is still available. I know it has been officially replaced by the 1 Ds Mk 2 but it can still be bought new.

I notice you don't make any comment on the focus motor in the Nikon body, their problem in focusing in low light or the fact that the vast majority of Professionals use Canon.

I never said that using a full frame Canon D-SLR shows you are a pro, just that it's a fact that most who are .......do.

Personally I have never experienced vignetting with any Canon cameras when using Canon lenses. (or Nikon either I must add)

I must also concede that Nikon make great lenses. I did use Nikon cameras and lenses for quite a few years, but changed to Canon because their digital camera system was superior.

Dave:)
I decided on the Canon system myself too, but I do not want to make this Nikon thread into a Canon fanboy flame war ;)
If you try a full frame Canon body and any wide angle, you WILL notice vignetting/light fall off towards the corners.

About the internal lens motor... some lenses seem to work FINE with it. And Nikon is now switching to AF-S motors in the lenses. But still there are nice lenses without AF-S, and that makes the choice for the D40 not so smart. Especially if you want some nice primes.
And about focus accuracy... I have a 350D, and so I can not really fault Nikon in that area ;).

And about Nikon lenses, Nikon has some great lenses. They also have some so-so lenses, and even some crap lenses. Canon has great lenses and so-so lenses too, you really have to know your lenses if you want to make a brand decision on lens quality.

Happy xmas to you too, Dave :)

[Irish Dave]

I decided on the Canon system myself too, but I do not want to make this Nikon thread into a Canon fanboy flame war ;)
If you try a full frame Canon body and any wide angle, you WILL notice vignetting/light fall off towards the corners.

About the internal lens motor... some lenses seem to work FINE with it. And Nikon is now switching to AF-S motors in the lenses. But still there are nice lenses without AF-S, and that makes the choice for the D40 not so smart. Especially if you want some nice primes.
And about focus accuracy... I have a 350D, and so I can not really fault Nikon in that area ;).

And about Nikon lenses, Nikon has some great lenses. They also have some so-so lenses, and even some crap lenses. Canon has great lenses and so-so lenses too, you really have to know your lenses if you want to make a brand decision on lens quality.

Happy xmas to you too, Dave :)

You too my friend, have a good one.

Greets from Ireland

Dave :)

[jessica.]

I know that Nikon don't have a camera with a "full frame" sensor which would put me off buying Nikon. This is serious if you decide to update your camera body later.

I've heard rumors that the autofocus system in Nikon SLR's have trouble focusing in low light. If this is true ...... go for Canon.

Dave :)

I assure you that both canon and nikon have the rumors about the low light auto focus issue and to date I have yet to experience that issue with any nikon owned providing I am using a decent lens. The same goes for canon. I speak from using both canon and nikon and not based on something I read. Take it or leave it. I received poor auto focus in low light conditions results using the same sigma 4.5 70-300mm lens. The lens was about $200 and the low light issues were indeed an issue. You get what you pay for.

I also believe that the full frame sensor thing that you're worried about is silly unless you're a professional or semi professional photographer. I think that while it is a huge selling point of canon, most consumers do not care about that. I'm sure in many people's eyes it is just standard practice to say that they choose canon for the full frame sensor...most of those people I run into don't understand what the sensor is. But seriously do not get me wrong, full frame sensors are seriously great and nikon should adopt that in their models, but hey...it's not a reason to shy away from nikon or gravitate to canon.

To the OP:
I would not do the d50 but I would do the d40 because the images are amazing. I would personally not buy either because they do not fit my needs, but the d40 sounds right up your alley. I'm not sure about the battery deal, but I guess that could be researched.

[Irish Dave]

I assure you that both canon and nikon have the rumors about the low light auto focus issue and to date I have yet to experience that issue with any nikon owned providing I am using a decent lens. The same goes for canon. I speak from using both canon and nikon and not based on something I read. Take it or leave it. I received poor auto focus in low light conditions results using the same sigma 4.5 70-300mm lens. The lens was about $200 and the low light issues were indeed an issue. You get what you pay for.

I also believe that the full frame sensor thing that you're worried about is silly unless you're a professional or semi professional photographer. I think that while it is a huge selling point of canon, most consumers do not care about that. I'm sure in many people's eyes it is just standard practice to say that they choose canon for the full frame sensor...most of those people I run into don't understand what the sensor is. But seriously do not get me wrong, full frame sensors are seriously great and nikon should adopt that in their models, but hey...it's not a reason to shy away from nikon or gravitate to canon.

To the OP:
I would not do the d50 but I would do the d40 because the images are amazing. I would personally not buy either because they do not fit my needs, but the d40 sounds right up your alley. I'm not sure about the battery deal, but I guess that could be researched.

Yes professional and semi-pro's would prefer a camera with a full frame sensor, but then so would most serious landscape photographers (if they can afford it)

Happy Christmas

Dave :)

[wwooden]

Sorry if I am stealing this thread a bit but I have been looking pretty seriously into getting a decent camera. I've always enjoyed photography and took several courses in high school, but haven't done anything serious in years. I've used point and shoot cameras since then with ok results but never over satifying.

I found this add in my news paper this week, they have a Nikon D50 plus 2 lenses and a $50 gift card for $700. It's in the middle of the picture to the left. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, what does everyone else think? Would those two lenses be a good balance for each other? I figure I can use the $50 card to get a case to hold it all, I have plenty of memory cards already.

[coldrain]

Sorry if I am stealing this thread a bit but I have been looking pretty seriously into getting a decent camera. I've always enjoyed photography and took several courses in high school, but haven't done anything serious in years. I've used point and shoot cameras since then with ok results but never over satifying.

I found this add in my news paper this week, they have a Nikon D50 plus 2 lenses and a $50 gift card for $700. It's in the middle of the picture to the left. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, what does everyone else think? Would those two lenses be a good balance for each other? I figure I can use the $50 card to get a case to hold it all, I have plenty of memory cards already.
Well, I would disregard that "offer". The 70-300 G nikkor offered is quite crap... and the 28-80 isnt very amazing, being an old standard kit lens of film 35mm slr days.

Get the D50 with its 18-55 kit lens, that one will give you the wide angle you lose with the old 28-80mm (with the 1.5x crop factor, the 18-55 is an exact equivalent to that lens on a film SLR). The 18-55 is superior optically.

Then consider getting a Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens. It will put you a bit over the $700 probably, but it gives a LOT better results than that Nikkor 70-300 offered... and it gives you a 1:2 macro ability for free!

And about the above poster, the D40 images are nothing amazing, in fact very similar to the D50's images and Pentax K100D for instance.
The D40's drawback (a LOT of lenses are not compatible with it) is a big minus, making the D50 a lot nicer proposition.

[EastCoastFlyer]

I can confirm coldrain's assessment of the 70-300. In fact, I bought this exact kit 6 months ago, and almost never use that lens. I have spent my lens money on primes and wide-angle. A good telephoto zoom is next on my list. If I had it to do over I would have bought the body alone, then invested in good (at least better) glass.

[ChrisA]

I found this add in my news paper this week, they have a Nikon D50 plus 2 lenses and a $50 gift card for $700. It's in the middle of the picture to the left. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, what does everyone else think? Would those two lenses be a good balance for each other?

Looks to me like they are trying to unload some otherwise un-sellable lenses. Not many people would buy those two.

What I always tell people just getting into SLRs is to shop for the lens(es) FIRST. Don't worry to much about the SLR body they are all basically the same. Lenses mater and ar NOT basically all the same. You want first a lens that goes as wide as 18mm. The best deals or the kit lenses that come with the D50, D70 and D80. The 18-55 is good as are the 18-70 and 18-135. then the next one to buy depend on what kind of shots your first lens is causing you to miss. Beginners always think they will want a long telephoto like the 300mm They are mostly wrong. You will likey want to go wider or faster. the 135 may be as much "reach" as you will ever need unless you get into specialized photography like wildlife or sports and then expect to spend four digit prices.

Buy one of the three kit lenses (yes you can buy the D70s or D80 kits lens with a d50) and after you shoot 1,000 frames look over your work and see what you missed. Buy the lens that gets you those missed shots Don't go out and buy a cheap 300mm zoom just because it is cheap.

[coldrain]

Buy one of the three kit lenses (yes you can buy the D70s or D80 kits lens with a d50) and after you shoot 1,000 frames look over your work and see what you missed. Buy the lens that gets you those missed shots Don't go out and buy a cheap 300mm zoom just because it is cheap.
I would almost agree with ChrisA, but not totally... the 18-135 kitlens from teh D80 is actually quite a dog! Not sharp, CA problems, disappointing contrast... not a nice lens to have. If you do want more reach than 55 or 70mm, consider the Sigma 18-125mm. A much better lens optically.

Both the 18-55 and 18-70 kitlenses are better propositions (I prefer the 18-55), and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (try if it focusses correctly on your Nikon!) and the upcoming Tokina 16-50 f2.8 are all very good "standard" lenses to start with. Do keep in mind that lenses without internal motor (like that Tamron, not sure about the Sigma and Tokina) do not work on the D40 (I would not recommend that D40 to anyone, for that reason alone).

[Curren~Sea]

Thanks for getting back on track with this post. While I enjoy the occasional spirited debate, the Canon vs Nikon topic is irrelevant to me. The Nikon simply feels better in my hands.

Speaking of feel, the kit lens that I got with my D50 is the 18-55. It’s the all plastic model and is very light. The whole package of camera and lens is extremely comfortable, which means that it’s just a joy to reach for every time I think of it.

As for going into minutiae about obscure features and effects, that too is mildly enjoyable to hear. But the bottom line is that compared to any point and shoot digital that I’ve had in the past, this camera blows them all away in quality of image, speed of startup and focusing, and even ease of use (while you’re picking up, turning on, focusing and snapping a shot with your credit card sized digital, I’ve taken 10 gorgeous perfectly exposed shots with my D50 :) )

Now… the journey for me is learning how to become a better photographer. I think my equipment is just fine and I appreciate everyone’s input on the subject.

Would those two lenses be a good balance for each other?

For what it’s worth, the camera shop guy I talked to said the 28-80 is not an ideal lens for a digital camera. It’s a throwback from the film days. I think you’d be much better off with the 18-55.

Also, I don’t have any personal experience with it but the 70-300 Nikkor lens (the plastic lightweight one) might actually be a good fit for you. Factor in how much of an enthusiast you are with the price you’d have to pay for a similar but “higher quality” lens along with the additional weight and worry of a much more expensive lens. My guess is that if you’re a casual photographer who just wants to take some great shots, then you would be very happy with the Nikkor 18-55 and the 70-300, which would be all the lenses you would ever need until at some point in the future you decide to dedicate yourself to taking some classes or studying photography and working on your technique until your skill warrants better, more expensive equipment.

At least, those are my thoughts for what they’re worth.

[840quadra]

Congratulations!

I hope you really enjoy your new DSLR camera! I have been overjoyed with mine, and too love the solid feel of my new DSLR! (from the other camp).

The learning experience has been quite enjoyable so far, and I find myself attempting more challenging shots than I ever did with my Point and shoot, or my Prosumer.

Have fun learning the camera, just in time for some great holiday shots! :)


For what it’s worth, the camera shop guy I talked to said the 28-80 is not an ideal lens for a digital camera. It’s a throwback from the film days. I think you’d be much better off with the 18-55.

Also, I don’t have any personal experience with it but the 70-300 Nikkor lens (the plastic lightweight one) might actually be a good fit for you. Factor in how much of an enthusiast you are with the price you’d have to pay for a similar but “higher quality” lens along with the additional weight and worry of a much more expensive lens. My guess is that if you’re a casual photographer who just wants to take some great shots, then you would be very happy with the Nikkor 18-55 and the 70-300, which would be all the lenses you would ever need until at some point in the future you decide to dedicate yourself to taking some classes or studying photography and working on your technique until your skill warrants better, more expensive equipment.

At least, those are my thoughts for what they’re worth.

I am not sure about the Nikon camp, however classic throwbacks from the 35mm era on canon bodies, can be absolute gems.

There are quite a few amazing reviews of some old canon glass, on new DSLR cameras. I would assume that the same would be true with a few select Nikon lenses.

Be weary of a salesman in some cases. Many cannot make money by making suggestions that are out of production, as they cannot sell them to you and make money. The salesman I work with, and does my extended family, is open and honest with good classic lens choices that really do work.

[Curren~Sea]

throwbacks from the 35mm era on canon bodies, can be absolute gems.

Totally agree with you and I’m looking forward to possibly exploring the many options, which is one of the reasons why I chose the D50 over the D40. However, my understanding is that between the two, the 18-55 is a better lens than the 28-80 for a DSLR.

Also, my camera shop guy is the same person who talked me out of a much more expensive D80 that I was ready to pay for, because he listened to what I was saying and knew what would match my expectations the best. Right now, with the D40 and D80 out, it’s a very good time to buy the D50 at close-out prices. Just be realistic about what you need (as opposed to what you think you want).

I bought a D50 with a Nikkor 18-55 lens and a SB400 Speedlight. I’m sure that I’ll take a few hundred pictures over the next week or so. I’ll come back and post a very unprofessional highly subjective review after Christmas.

[Irish Dave]

Totally agree with you and I’m looking forward to possibly exploring the many options, which is one of the reasons why I chose the D50 over the D40. However, my understanding is that between the two, the 18-55 is a better lens than the 28-80 for a DSLR.

Also, my camera shop guy is the same person who talked me out of a much more expensive D80 that I was ready to pay for, because he listened to what I was saying and knew what would match my expectations the best. Right now, with the D40 and D80 out, it’s a very good time to buy the D50 at close-out prices. Just be realistic about what you need (as opposed to what you think you want).

I bought a D50 with a Nikkor 18-55 lens and a SB400 Speedlight. I’m sure that I’ll take a few hundred pictures over the next week or so. I’ll come back and post a very unprofessional highly subjective review after Christmas.

Congrats on the new camera .... enjoy.

The 18mm - 55mm lens is by far the best choice as it's equivalent to 28mm - 80mm (approx) on a 35mm camera. This is the most useful range of focal lengths and is ideal for most subjects
i.e. Landscape, architecture, head and shoulders portraits and general photography.

The 28 - 80 on your digital SLR would be the same as 42mm - 120mm (approx) meaning better telephoto but NO wide angle !!

Dave :)

[Curren~Sea]

Big smiley happy faces all around. Love my new camera!

:)

[Abstract]

C
Now back to whether a D80 is overkill: while its sensor is not as nice as the 10mp one of the Canon 400D/XTi (more noisy... same sensor as the D200 and Sony A100, they just filter out noise and that translates into less detail), it is a good camera. It has some silly options (in camera image editting stuff), and its kitlens (18-150?) is a dog so avoid the kit.

If you compare the performance of RAW images rather than JPEG, the differences aren't in the sensor. It's just in the way Canon handles noise as opposed to Canon.

I know I'm going to sound like a Nikon fanboy when I say this, but I like how Nikon handles noise in the D80 more than in Canon's 400D (when shooting JPEGs). Why? This is because of the type of noise. I don't like chromatic noise, and Nikon gives me less of it, while the overall noise isn't much different. Nikon JPEGs at high ISO lose some detail though, so I can see why you don't like the D80 as much as the 400D in this respect.

Oh, and I don't really buy into the thinking that FF sensors produce less noisy images. I understand that they SHOULD, as I do understand the concept entirely (and I deal with radiation sensors all the time,.....MOS sensors at that), but the difference hasn't proven to be staggering, or even noticeable, although this could be due to the extra pixels Canon crams onto the 1Ds on the larger sensor.

And of course pros would want a FF sensor, but I'd think only the ones who do landscape photography. I like landscape photography, so surely I'd appreciate one. However, it's not good for anybody who wants reach, and telephoto lenses are MUCH more expensive than wideangle lenses. If you need reach for any reason, I don't see why you shouldn't stick to APS sized sensors. I don't see much benefit in terms of photo quality by going FF.

And Nikon is now switching to AF-S motors in the lenses. But still there are nice lenses without AF-S, and that makes the choice for the D40 not so smart. Especially if you want some nice primes. I agree with this entirely. I don't know how many times people are going to have to hear that same argument, but I guess you (and people like me) will just regurgitate this for a long long time. The only time I'd recommend the D40 is if the person buying it is clearly not going to spend money on lenses, as they're only looking for better image quality, not to be pros or even hobbyists. However, this means NOT buying lenses from companies like Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina, since the large large majority of their lenses would never AF on the D40, and I don't think many D40 customers are willing to MF.

[Passante]

Hi,
SNIP
Two of our local newspapers, who had been Nikon users for years have recently changed to Canon for this very reason.


Greetings from Ireland
Dave :)

Hugh?????

[sjl]

I decided on the Canon system myself too, but I do not want to make this Nikon thread into a Canon fanboy flame war ;)
If you try a full frame Canon body and any wide angle, you WILL notice vignetting/light fall off towards the corners.

You'll get that on any wide angle lens, especially at full aperture, regardless of the body or sensor size (remember: when I say wide angle, I'm talking wider than around 24mm, 35mm equivalent FOV - eg, 10mm on a 1.6 crop body). It's the nature of the beast. I've no doubt you'll get vignetting on the Canon 10-22mm, the Nikon 12-24mm, etc., etc. - simply because getting all the light even on such a wide spread is hard. If you manage it, you've probably compromised some other nice-to-have quality in the process.

The only way you can reduce the vignetting problem is to stop the lens down, with all that that entails.

[Abstract]

Well I think he's saying that vignetting on APS sensors is relatively low, while it would be very high on FF sensors.

[Irish Dave]

You'll get that on any wide angle lens, especially at full aperture, regardless of the body or sensor size (remember: when I say wide angle, I'm talking wider than around 24mm, 35mm equivalent FOV - eg, 10mm on a 1.6 crop body). It's the nature of the beast. I've no doubt you'll get vignetting on the Canon 10-22mm, the Nikon 12-24mm, etc., etc. - simply because getting all the light even on such a wide spread is hard. If you manage it, you've probably compromised some other nice-to-have quality in the process.

The only way you can reduce the vignetting problem is to stop the lens down, with all that that entails.

I remember my old (now very very old or more probably dead!!) photography tutor saying:

"No lens gives it's best performance fully open or fully closed ..... best performance is found somewhere in the middle"

You have a chance of vignetting at the Maximum aperture and diffraction at the minimum aperture. This I believe is still true.

Personally, I will generally set the aperture about f8.
Most lens MTF graphs show f8 to be a good choice.

Depth of field with ultra wide angle lenses is never a problem at f8 when using the hyperfocal distance.

Dave :)