# Nikon D80 announced.



## editor (Aug 9, 2006)

With ten megapixels, keenly priced (£700 body-only), loads of new features, SD card support and a bigger viewfinder/LCD screen this looks to be a good 'un - but there's no anti shake or anti dust like the Sony Alpha.


So whaddya reckon folks?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080903nikond80withpreview.asp


----------



## Nikkormat (Aug 9, 2006)

It looks gorgeous and I want one.

I know nothing about digital though. Aren't Nikon handicapped by only being able to use a smallish sensor due to the F mount, while Canon can use 24x36mm?

It's all beyond my tiny brain.

*cradles dusty FM2*


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Aug 9, 2006)

It smells like a higher-res version of the D70, which is more than welcome.


----------



## Firky (Aug 9, 2006)

It is a Nikon so it will be the dogs bollocks and be perfect. End of story.

It has the same metering matrix as the D50, it looks a little like it has taken the new bits of the D50 that weren't on the D70 and bolted them onto a new camera. Some new things on there that are not on either the D50 or D70. I quite like the sounds of multi-exposure. As for anti-vibration, that's what tripods and walls are for. It be handy to have but if I was in a situation that I was wobbly I'd probably use a compact for size anyway (thinking of festivals, gigs n parties), if I am doing a 'serious' shot I'd use a tripod.

Megapix means jack shit if the camera aint up to the job.

Get one for review, ed!


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> As for anti-vibration, that's what tripods and walls are for. It be handy to have but if I was in a situation that I was wobbly I'd probably use a compact for size anyway (thinking of festivals, gigs n parties), if I am doing a 'serious' shot I'd use a tripod.


Nah, anti-shake is a real useful thing, particularly when you're using a long lens in an environment where a tripod can't be used. 

That's why pros shell out so much for anti shake lens.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 10, 2006)

I'd still buy the Sony (with Zeiss lens).

Hardly a major leap forward in electronics.

My guess is that all the big players still see the future money being optics and accessories. Zeiss and Nikon making for Sony. Nikon making for Zeiss... the list goes on. I think the electronics are going to become so cheap and become redundant so quickly that it will hardly be worth the big companies money in R&D or, marketing. Optical quality and build quality will be the main selling points. Although, the Sony anti-shake and anti-dust features are good.

I fear Leica are going to suffer some serious image damage. The second hand market is already full of crap little cameras that no one wants with the Leica badge on them.

I saw someone using a 5MP Leica the other day. He was almost embarrased when I started asking questions about the receptor. Even the expensive ones of just two years ago are shit today!


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I'd still buy the Sony (with Zeiss lens).


It's almost certainly the Sony sensor in the new Nikon, although the build quality didn't look too hot on the Sony I saw (albeit through a window).

But anti-shake and anti-dust are two very big plus points to me.


----------



## Firky (Aug 10, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I saw someone using a 5MP Leica the other day. He was almost embarrased when I started asking questions about the receptor. Even the expensive ones of just two years ago are shit today!



That comes with any electronic product, computers, TVs, etc. all have a short life span of X years. I sometimes wonder if they sit on new technology until they have recouped and made a profit on their current goods.

I personally think in a few years they'll be a film revival, just like there was with vinyl!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's almost certainly the Sony sensor in the new Nikon, although the build quality didn't look too hot on the Sony I saw (albeit through a window).
> 
> But anti-shake and anti-dust are two very big plus points to me.



Build quality is a big plus for me. Even so, I would possibly take the Sony simply for the Zeiss lens option. I'm just a sucker for Zeiss optics. 

The whole market is getting a bit homogenous. Everyone sharing each others bits! 

If I had serious money to spend on a camera it would be spent on a film camera. Even now. That beatiful little Zeiss RF possibly. Or, a big 10 x 8 I could never afford to use. The point is that with digital - things don't need to be built to last. The technology doesn't.


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> With ten megapixels, keenly priced (£700 body-only), loads of new features, SD card support and a bigger viewfinder/LCD screen this looks to be a good 'un - but there's no anti shake or anti dust like the Sony Alpha.
> 
> 
> So whaddya reckon folks?
> ...



that's camera porn for me - I'll have to wait until there's a few knocking around second hand though before I can get one.......


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 15, 2006)

I'm reasonably sure we've reached the plateau for sensor resolution, or we're pretty near to it. 

Two reasons, firstly the top of the line models at least, have reached a level of resolution comparable to film, for all reasonable purposes. Also, once you're at 10mp, adding another 1-3 megapixels doesn't make nearly as much noticable difference as it did from a base of 4mp.

Secondly making higher res sensors isn't the same as making more powerful CPUs or memory chips. You have two constraints which increasingly conflict for higher resolutions at a given chip size, how many sensors on a chip vs how effective the sensors are. You can see that in some of the latest super-high megapixel compacts coming out now, with extremely poor noise handling. 

The only way I can see of getting radically more sensors on a chip and simultaneously increasing their performance is to go for 'medium format' chips that are larger even than the ones in the full-frame Canon SLRs.

That would then require a bunch of new lenses or the adoption of some old MF format for which lenses already exist, so it'd be a massive step to undertake.

My guess therefore is that we've now got a few years of stability around sensor resolutions.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah, anti-shake is a real useful thing, particularly when you're using a long lens in an environment where a tripod can't be used.
> 
> That's why pros shell out so much for anti shake lens.


 In engineering, if not in cost terms, I think it makes more sense to put anti-shake on the lens, because it's complicated and looks likely to break. So if it's in the camera, that's a fundamental and expensive repair that takes the whole camera out of commission. If it's a lens, then it's just that lens that needs repair, not the camera, and it's probably a bit easier 'cos it isn't all tangled up with the sensor mounting the way it seems to be in the Minolta (?)model that Sony have adopted.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> In engineering, if not in cost terms, I think it makes more sense to put anti-shake on the lens, because it's complicated and looks likely to break.


To be honest, I've not heard a lot of complaints about Minolta's anti shake system fucking up.

As for sensor development, I suspect that there will be enticing big improvements in high ISO quality - already seen in some compacts.

And when dSLRs start having digicam-style live LCD previews and decent video capabilities, I can see my wallet creaking open again.


----------



## atitlan (Aug 15, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I personally think in a few years they'll be a film revival, just like there was with vinyl!



I've just bought a D50, but my F80 isn't going to become redundant.  If nothing else, the D50's 18-55 lens can be thrown on the F80 as an ultra-wide angle lens, which I've never had ...


E2A.  The other reason is that a film revival is inevitable is that for black and white a post-processed digital image just does have the same feel as the film equivalent.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <snip> And when dSLRs start having digicam-style live LCD previews and decent video capabilities, I can see my wallet creaking open again.


 Well, I'm definitely not planning to spend more money on camera kit any time soon, but if I were, I think I'd be quite excited by that new Panasonic DMC-L1 for just those kinds of reasons (plus I strongly suspect that it contains some of the DNA for the forthcoming Leica Digital M, if that ever actually appears)


----------



## atitlan (Aug 15, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Secondly making higher res sensors isn't the same as making more powerful CPUs or memory chips. You have two constraints which increasingly conflict for higher resolutions at a given chip size, how many sensors on a chip vs how effective the sensors are. You can see that in some of the latest super-high megapixel compacts coming out now, with extremely poor noise handling.
> ...
> 
> ...
> ...



I think you may be right here.  It seems that the next big thing will be HDR (High Dynamic Range).  Currently there is software that will allow you to take three bracketed exposures to create an image with 32-bit colour resolution.  

The next stage has got to be for the camera sensors to start following suit.


----------



## grimble (Aug 15, 2006)

Talking to somebody about the D80 over the weekend - no doubt it's going to be a good, solid camera.  His point however was that digital camera bodies are going to suffer from rapid supercession when new models come out (and new memory card standards etc).  Also will see rapid price depreciation.  So what we should do is get relatively cheap bodies (e.g. a second hand D50) but spend the budget on quality lenses which will always (hopefully) be compatible.
So maybe when I make the move over to digital SLR I get a D50 body for say £250 (by then), and spend the rest on a lens like this...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm


----------



## Firky (Aug 22, 2006)

I have a D50 and the dog's cock!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 22, 2006)

I've seen rumours circulating that higher Dynamic Range is to be Canon's next move.




			
				grimble said:
			
		

> TSo what we should do is get relatively cheap bodies (e.g. a second hand D50) but spend the budget on quality lenses which will always (hopefully) be compatible.



That's been the case since DSLRs appeared on the market. Buy good glass and it will keep its value, both practical and financial. Electronics have huge obsolescence and deflation - depreciation is probably the major offset against not having to pay for film processing costs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 23, 2006)

^ He speaks wise words.

H


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, I'm definitely not planning to spend more money on camera kit any time soon, but if I were, I think I'd be quite excited by that new Panasonic DMC-L1 for just those kinds of reasons


I *heart* the look, feel and aesthetic of the DMC-L1, but this review suggests it's not as good as I might have hoped:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Panasonic-L1.shtml


----------



## cybertect (Aug 23, 2006)

Interesting read that (but I always enjoy Reichmann's reviews).

The viewfinder and missing LCD would definitely bug me. I wonder if his musings on the future of the 4/3 system have some truth.

I'm a Canon user (I like full frame viewfinders and the low-noise high-ISO performance ) but Nikon certainly have some very attractive camera bodies at good price points, and some excellent lenses. If I'd jumped to DSLR 18 months after I did, I might have been much more tempted to buy one.

What's going to be interesting over the next 2-3 years is seeing how Sony's entry into the DSLR market is going to shake things up, mostly because they supply Nikon's imaging sensors. How will Nikon react to one of their suppliers becoming a competitor and how will their relationship change as a result?

Sony *could* prove a serious challenge to Canon as a major player with their own chip fabrication facilities. If things go sour, that could put Nikon in a potentially tricky place, having to develop new relationships with Fuji or Kodak, or build their own from scratch.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2006)

Reasonably detailed preview of D80 here. 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/D80A.HTM


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 3, 2006)

i think nikon made a big mistake when they decided to commit to the small sensor


full frame is the way forward, and im not saying that just cos i use canon... i dont even like canon cameras


----------



## snadge (Sep 3, 2006)

Herbsman. said:
			
		

> i think nikon made a big mistake when they decided to commit to the small sensor
> 
> 
> full frame is the way forward, and im not saying that just cos i use canon... i dont even like canon cameras




Nikon have no choice but to commit to the crop sensor, sony makes their ccd's and as yet they do not have the capabilities to make FF CCDs wheras canon, using cmos sensors they make themselves have the FF market to themselves and look like they will for the forseeable future.


Nikon would jump at the chance to have a FF flagship to compete with canon, at the moment canon is pulling ahead all the time in this area due to no competition, they haven't upgraded their flagship 1ds mkII for 3 years so far.

Has the D80 got the same focus matrix as the D50? I would have thought it would have been beefed up a bit for the new model with more AF points?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2006)

Looks like it's got the D50's exposure stuff, but the D200's AF stuff.


----------



## snadge (Sep 3, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Looks like it's got the D50's exposure stuff, but the D200's AF stuff.




Ah right, just RS saying it has the same as the D50 which in reality is a cut down D70 AF system, thought they wouldn't go backwards.


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 3, 2006)

seen an add in the paper today £699.99 just the body.

As Im saving for a D50 would it be worth hold out a bit long and for the D80.
what more would it get, for more money other then 10.2 pix 

Have been to N!kno site btu the stats don't mean to much to me.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> Ah right, just RS saying it has the same as the D50 which in reality is a cut down D70 AF system, thought they wouldn't go backwards.


 The nice thing though, is it appears to have the D200's _sensor_ too. So unless you're doing sports and need the extra fps, using ancient lenses that would meter on a D200 but not a D80 or maybe macro and need some features that aren't in the D80, it seems close to equivalent.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 3, 2006)

The D200's weather sealed


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> The D200's weather sealed


 Sure, and if someone tries to nick it, probably solid enough to knock them out with.

Utility in hand-to-hand combat is nice I guess, but not the *first* thing I'd look for in a camera


----------



## mauvais (Sep 3, 2006)

I dunno, I've had to send my D70 in once for water/mud inside the viewfinder, and I'm always bricking it about using or carrying the thing in the rain.

It will be heavier, but provided you don't go sticking a vertical grip on them, the cameras at that level that I've tried are perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm sure the D200 is more robust and well worth the extra dosh to anyone who will give it hard use, but it looks like the D80 is going to be pretty close photographically, which makes it quite an interesting prospect given the price.


----------



## Firky (Sep 6, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> Ah right, just RS saying it has the same as the D50 which in reality is a cut down D70 AF system, thought they wouldn't go backwards.



They haven't gone backwards! The D50 is better than  the D70 in some respects as it is a new generation of camera. There's an awful lot of simlair comments here:

http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic55307.html



> I don't know. I have been waiting for the D80 with quite some excitment, maybe to much because I'm not that thrilled. From what I see, it's more like an upgraded D50. Which isnt all bad but if the pricing in the US is about 1K, I think here in Australia it might ran at $1500 to $1700 body only. I can get the 200 (body only) for $2400. It's gunna be tough save the bit extra but I think the gap between the two is far bigger than the price gap. Dont get me wrong. I love my Nikons and had nothing else since I got my first one in 83 (FE2). That 10 pixel rating sounds good but its the only thing it has, that temps me.





> To be honest, I would be disapointed if it was much more than a D70s. Which would beg the question. Where does the D70s sit now? Maybe the 80 is the upgrade 50 and an upgrade 70 is down the road a bit.
> 
> Alex


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 8, 2006)

jes##### are doing  Nikon D80 + 18-70mm Lens for 799


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 11, 2006)

BTW, What are the main differences between the D50 and D70 in terms of image quality and exposure accuracy?

I thought that the D50 gave better images straight out of the camera, but you could probably get better images from the D70 if you were prepared to put the work in at post-processing.




			
				riot sky said:
			
		

> They haven't gone backwards! The D50 is better than  the D70 in some respects as it is a new generation of camera.



It'll be interesting to see what the big "problem/scare" is about the D80 when it comes out once the DPReview forum crowd start their testing!

Moire, back-focus, banding?

Actually my D70 seems to be very prone to moire.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Sep 12, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Actually my D70 seems to be very prone to moire.



aha, that's what it's called - had similar effects on my D70 - particular when taking architectural photos with loads of patterns - it creates a wierd wave type effect as there isn't enough resolution to cope


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 12, 2006)

Yes, architecture and clothing with weave (if that's right word) are prone to moire/maze pattern.

Quite a few of my pics have moire when you look at them at 100%.  

Occasionally, a bit of gaussian blur in the affected are helps with mild moire in cloth.







			
				disco_dave_2000 said:
			
		

> aha, that's what it's called - had similar effects on my D70 - particular when taking architectural photos with loads of patterns - it creates a wierd wave type effect as there isn't enough resolution to cope


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2006)

I would think that moire pattern is inevitable on any system that uses a grid to produce an image when photographing a subject that has finely spaced lines on it.  Television pictures often show moire patterns if a subject is wearing clothes with fine patterns on them because the image is composed of scanned lines.  

You can make your own moire (sorry can't remember how to do e acute) pattern creator with a piece of clear acetate sheet or similar and a fine black marker pen.

Draw a series of evenly and closely spaced lines right across the acetate sheet.  When the ink is perfectly dry, cut the sheet in half.  Then place one half on top of the other over a sheet of white paper.  Slowly rotate the top sheet and you will see the moire effect occurring.

If you want a better looking effect, produce the parallel lines on a computer and print on to standard photocopier acetate sheet

H


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 12, 2006)

Hocus. Thanks but the last thing I want to see is _more_ moire!

 





			
				Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> You can make your own moire (sorry can't remember how to do e acute) pattern creator with a piece of clear acetate sheet or similar and a fine black marker pen.
> 
> H


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Hocus. Thanks but the last thing I want to see is _more_ moire!



Sorry to intrude on private grief Paul but I thought it might help others to understand what we were talking about.  Anyway have a go at it, you know you want to.


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 12, 2006)

I've started to notice it quite a bit more on TV recently -- like in football goal nettings.

I was wandering round some county shows recently with a camera, and everyone was wearing tweed. Walking moire nightmare!




			
				Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Sorry to intrude on private grief Paul but I thought it might help others to understand what we were talking about.  Anyway have a go at it, you know you want to.


----------



## Firky (Sep 13, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> BTW, What are the main differences between the D50 and D70 in terms of image quality and exposure accuracy?
> 
> I thought that the D50 gave better images straight out of the camera, but you could probably get better images from the D70 if you were prepared to put the work in at post-processing.
> 
> ...



Side by side I find the images less nosier than the D70 and the 350, and the metering seems to be more accurate. I can't really say for sure as I have only played with the D70 for about twenty minutes, but the D50 does seem to take pictures that are considerbly less noisy than the D70 and the 350. I am not sure if this is down to a superior sensor or more aggressive aggressive noise reduction algorithms!

Six and two threes. I can send you some NEF files if you like?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 13, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Six and two threes. I can send you some NEF files if you like?



Send me some RAW please.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 13, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Hocus. Thanks but the last thing I want to see is _more_ moire!



Especially if, like my girlfriend, you're astigmatic. It does really weird things to her head.


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 14, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Six and two threes. I can send you some NEF files if you like?



Thanks, but I'm on quite a slow net connection. 

When I do my pixel peeping, I usually download the full-size jpegs from DP review.

Talking of DP Review, Pentax and Olympus have just announced 10 megapixel SLRs.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 14, 2006)

I love Nikons - this looks great.


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 24, 2006)

The D80 gets a good review on DP Review (posted yesterday).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/





			
				exosculate said:
			
		

> I love Nikons - this looks great.


----------



## lobster (Oct 7, 2006)

Has anyone got one yet? warehouseexpress are selling body only for  £559, i have a nikon f80, so i could just use the lens from that..


----------



## Firky (Oct 7, 2006)

From what I've read there's been quite a slow up take on them, most people seem to be holding onto the D50/D70, or selling their D70 to buy a D50!


Talk of D60s


----------



## exosculate (Oct 7, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> The D80 gets a good review on DP Review (posted yesterday).
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/




Looks excellent. Im sticking with my D50 at the moment though.


----------



## Firky (Oct 7, 2006)

Looks tiny! I want one 

Love the view finder:







But I am more than happy with my D50!


----------



## kerb (Oct 17, 2006)

Having read through the thread with great interest and some confusion i have to ask...

If the D50, D70 and D80 were all released on the market today which one would you buy? 

I picked up the D80 today and loved the feel of it. Its a proper sturdy camera with beautful grip with 10mp to boot. 

As for all this talk of sensors (the part that confused me) im not sure what that means which is kind of why i asked the question. after reading this thread im kind of considering the D50 route and spending the rest on a lens, which seems wise especially since they keep bringing out new models.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2006)

After reading some of the frothing 5 star reviews, I'm changing my mind and getting v-e-r-y interested in this camera.... I wonder how much I could get for my D70?

Hmmmmm <editor goes off to drool a little more over the D80)


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2006)

D70 body... £200 - £250 I'd of thought


----------



## FunkyUK (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm still a little disappointed that the D80 still doesn't offer any metering on manual lenses.

The D200 however, does.  D200 is around £300 more than the D80... (if buying in the US) Maybe i'll save a little more, and wait until late next year.   Value of a D70 body?  around 250 - 300 tops,  and falling fast.


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 31, 2006)

One gripe about the D80 seems to be a tendency to overexpose. 

They were going on about it in the DPReview forum; thought it might just be one of those rumours that spread. But I saw exactly the same point made in a review in one of the printed camera mags today (can't remember which one). 

Seems like Nikon listened to the complaints about the D70's tendency to underexpose, and then went completely the other way.

BTW, DPReview have test shots for the 10-megapixel Olympus E-400 SLR up now. At first glance, the shots look good and the camera apparently handles very well. It's a tiny SLR.

Unfortunately DPReview won't be doing a full review cos the camera won't be available in the USA.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Oct 31, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Unfortunately DPReview won't be doing a full review cos the camera won't be available in the USA.


  Did DPReview explain and/or justify this decision?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> BTW, DPReview have test shots for the 10-megapixel Olympus E-400 SLR up now. At first glance, the shots look good and the camera apparently handles very well. It's a tiny SLR..


I'm loving the small size of the Olympus, but I'm not so keen on having to abandon ship on my Nikon SB800 flashgun and collection of Nikon lenses.

It's not as if the Olympus dSLR will work decently with any of my old Olympus lenses either...


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 31, 2006)

Yes -- 60% of DPReview's audience is in North America, so they can't justify the time/resources to review a camera (Olympus E-400 SLR) that most of their readers won't be able to buy!




			
				DarthSydodyas said:
			
		

> Did DPReview explain and/or justify this decision?


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> One gripe about the D80 seems to be a tendency to overexpose.



There seemed to be a few teething troubles with the first shipment to the US too, a lot of dust on the sensor. Hopefully that was just one batch and the rest should be alright.

I may be getting a small windfall from a trust fund in the New Year, and I'm toying with the idea between:

D80 and buying some glass
Stick with my D50 and buy loads more glass 
Buy a mac and buy some glass
Pay off debt 

Probably going to pay off debt


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Nov 1, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Yes -- 60% of DPReview's audience is in North America, so they can't justify the time/resources to review a camera (Olympus E-400 SLR) that most of their readers won't be able to buy!


  That sounds like a lemon.  People *will* read it, and some might even go ahead and import it if the camera has strength.

In any case, why would it concern him whether people buy this camera or not...?   Is it affecting the guys advertising rates or something? :/


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2006)

AP magazine has the Olympus on the cover with the caption, "the new OM1?"

Curse them for making me sit up want the thing now!
Olympus OM1/OM2s rock the mighty massive one in my world.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 1, 2006)

Hear hear editor.  I still have two OM1s and an OM2 that are waiting to be taken out for a walk.  Why couldn't they have made the bayonet fitting backwardly compatible?


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2006)

Woohoo! I've just sold two photos, so that D80 could be mine!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 4, 2006)

If you sell 3 do you go for a D200 though?


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> If you sell 3 do you go for a D200 though?


Nah. the D80 would be fine for me - the smaller the camera the happier I am (hence being tempted by the Olympus).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 4, 2006)

It does look quite tiny in that picture above.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 4, 2006)

I took a look at a D80 in Jessops window yesterday.  It is not tiny at all especially with its kit lens fitted.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 4, 2006)

The D80 is a *bit* smaller than the D70/D70s.

No, it's not what I'd call tiny either. They must get people with huge hands for those pictures!




			
				Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> I took a look at a D80 in Jessops window yesterday.  It is not tiny at all especially with its kit lens fitted.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2006)

I bought it! It's noticeably smaller than the D70 but not that much smaller and the LCD monitor is a HUGE improvement.

Haven't used it yet as the fuckers changed the battery from the D70 so I'm still charging it up.

I also got the Sigma 30mm 1.4 which is definitely bigger than I thought it would be and it weighs a ton too!

<editor prepares to cover eyes when bank statement comes in>


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 4, 2006)

Oooh! <sits on edge of chair waiting for Editor's first pictures to appear>


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2006)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Oooh! <sits on edge of chair waiting for Editor's first pictures to appear>


I don't think I'll be publishing my very first pics - I just surprised Eme in the bath 

The D80 feels great so far and I'm already noticing some real useful improvements - the LCD seems positively _ginormous_ compared to the D70 and the interface is waaaay slicker.


----------



## lobster (Nov 4, 2006)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> One gripe about the D80 seems to be a tendency to overexpose.



A workaround would be to underexpose slightly, its quite common in the film world to do this as films are not always the same plus the shots have more clarity and colour.

I am of the opinion that a camera that does perfect exposure out-the-box takes away the fun out of playing with settings and all the other experimenting.


As regards to the camera ,i am going to wait until january when the sales start and maybe the d200 will come down to the price of the d80 at the moment.


----------



## Firky (Nov 5, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I don't think I'll be publishing my very first pics - I just surprised Eme in the bath



You had a bath?


----------



## Robster970 (Nov 5, 2006)

is the price difference between a d80 and d200 worth it? i've used a d200 and felt that the feedback from the camera was more positive - felt more like a film camera to me. just can't figure out whether the price difference is worth it. would look to buy a d200 body second hand but d80 body new.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2006)

Here's a couple of handheld, hanging-out-the-window shots. All in program mode, 400ISO,  -2.25 exp comp, f1.4 Sigma 30mm. Looks lovely at full res!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 5, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Here's a couple of handheld, hanging-out-the-window shots. All in program mode, 400ISO,  -2.25 exp comp, f1.4 Sigma 30mm. Looks lovely at full res!



Beautiful  

*me wants*


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2006)

I took some pics around town today and have noticed it has a bit of a tendency to over-expose; or rather it gives that appearance by perfectly exposing some parts of the scene at the expense of others.

There's a lot of chat about it on the dpreview forums and it seems that it's just something you've got to get used to because the camera meters differently from its predecessor.


----------



## lobster (Nov 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I took some pics around town today and have noticed it has a bit of a tendency to over-expose; or rather it gives that appearance by perfectly exposing some parts of the scene at the expense of others.
> 
> There's a lot of chat about it on the dpreview forums and it seems that it's just something you've got to get used to because the camera meters differently from its predecessor.



have you got anything to share  as i considering buying the camera.
if you don't mind that is.........


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

Look at this for a howler (and I don't just mean the rubbish composition!).

It's completely over-exposed, despite the scene being relatively flat-lit. I think I'll move over to centre-weighted metering until Nikon come up with some firmware to fix this.






I should point out that only a few pics were over exposed, but there's endless discussion (and fixes) about this issue on the dpreview forums.


----------



## cybertect (Nov 19, 2006)

Was that matrix metering then?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Was that matrix metering then?


Yep. 
I'll post up some more examples later. 

Sometimes you can see why it's over-exposed parts of the scene - you may have the foreground absolutely perfectly exposed at the expense of a complete white-out elsewhere, for example/

It does seem to lean a bit too readily towards over-exposure though.


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 19, 2006)

Ed 
_
as I siad in pm_
over exposed is this ment to be a plus ? or something that will get fixed. 

is this the olny down side so you found on D80?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Ed
> _
> as I siad in pm_
> over exposed is this ment to be a plus ? or something that will get fixed.
> ...


I'm loving it apart from the few images that have come out a bit over exposed. It's a beaut of a camera.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 19, 2006)

Interesting. Particularly if it's not happening consistently, which I'd think would make it more of a problem rather than less of one.

Wasn't the metering the one important thing substantially lower spec than the D200. Using 400 segments vs 1000 or something like that?

I'd think that wouldn't make a huge difference though, if one imagines slicing that shopfront scene into 400 segments, you'd think it'd be easily enough.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 19, 2006)

I just did a bit of digging on the exposure issue. Nikon pundit Thom Hogan suggests that the problem isn't that it's not working properly, but that it's working slightly differently to other Nikons. He suggests that it's predictable once you know what's happening. 





> ... the matrix meter is more sensitive to what's going on in the central area.
> 
> Say what? That's bad news? Yes, it is for those of you who've shot with the D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series, or any of the Nikon film bodies. That's because all those other bodies are remarkably good at not being coerced into changing exposure based upon smallish non-middle gray things in the central area of the frame. The D50 was prone to changing exposure in those situations, and the D80 is even more prone to changing exposure due to middle subject tonal value. If you're not following me, try the following: cut a diamond shape (like the AF sensor pattern) out of white paper, middle gray paper, and black paper. (I'm having you use a diamond shape so that you'll frame them the same.) Now place each of those against a middle gray background, carefully framing so that the diamond exactly fits the AF sensor pattern. Voila: the gray background is underexposed with the white diamond in the center, properly exposed with the gray diamond in the center, and overexposed with the black diamond in the center. It's that last one that's problematic, in my mind. Overexposure means blown highlights that can't be recovered, and the D80 is going to be prone to do just that with the matrix metering system any time you've got darker-than-middle-gray subjects in the center of the frame. <snip>
> 
> The center-weighted and spot meters are their usual excellent selves, and the matrix meter, while a bit different than those that came before it, is predictable once you know what it's doing.


 source


----------



## cybertect (Nov 19, 2006)

But if it's centre-wighting the matrix metering, doesn't that rather miss the point of having a separate metering mode? If you choose matrix, you want to take account of the whole frame


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2006)

Some D80 photos here http://www.urban75.org/london/photos-nov2006.html
I was using the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens so I had to get in close to the subjects, but the camera performed pretty well.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 15, 2006)

I picked a D80 up today with the 18-135 lens, as a relative beginner to photography, it's a fucking daunting beast 

Can't wait to get out and about with it tomorrow


----------



## sajana (Jan 5, 2007)

Have got myself a D80 (finally!) What a camera! cant get over the thrill of holding it in my hands. feeling very very happy 

will be off to gujarat (india) in two days!! will post some pictures once i am back.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

I forgot to mention, here's my review of the D80:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/nikon-d80-review.html


----------



## Kanda (Jan 5, 2007)

No more reviews for a while please Ed... you've cost me a small fortune in the last month


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> No more reviews for a while please Ed... you've cost me a small fortune in the last month




I've been playing with quite a few cameras recently, but I'm sticking to the D80 and Ricoh GRD as my very fave cameras. 

Once you've got used to the DLR-like controls of the Ricoh every other compact feels like a fiddly-feast, and, of course, the D80 rocks!


----------



## Kanda (Jan 5, 2007)

Aye, I have picked up both the Ricoh and the Nikon recently.   Both excellent (even though I am new to photography) cameras.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Aye, I have picked up both the Ricoh and the Nikon recently.   Both excellent (even though I am new to photography) cameras.


I was boring poor old Alef to death last night with the virtues of the Ricoh. Since I've discovered the custom setting for shooting at high ISO, I've been lovin' it even more!


----------



## Kanda (Jan 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Since I've discovered the custom setting for shooting at high ISO



Details??


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

Set contrast to max and colour saturation to lowest in the image custom settings.

Save it off as a custom shooting setting and you'll be able to reach it quickly through the Adjust wheel.

The image quality levels (contrast, sharpness, and saturation) can be found in the SETTINGS function (MENU->IMG SET->SETTING1->etc.).

You're still going to get grain at 1600, but with the right lighting you can get great results - and at least the images are sharp rather than processed into a watercolour-esque mush like other cameras.

Good example here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&message=21069085


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 5, 2007)

Since getting the Ricoh GR-D a few weeks ago I've had mucho fun with it. I have grown to understand the controls and find them so easy now. On my ADJ. button I have ISO, Focus metering, Light metering and something else I forget at present. I use the zoom rocker for EV comp. 

I switched back to my D50 a couple of days ago for some self-portrait work and man, only having the one dial suddenly made me realise how useful the GR-Ds controls are and what people meant when they said they wished the D50 had two. I found it positively cumbersome to try to change settings, having to remember which button to push whilst turning the dial etc. It's still a great little camera, don't get me wrong - but now I'm lusting after the D80.

However, I can see it being a very long time before I could afford one, even if I traded in my D50 first. I'd say a bit of over-exposure isn't a problem seeing as though you will more than likely be shooting RAW and will be putting it through some RAW conversion software when you get it out the camera - exposure is a doddle to correct in RAW.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Since getting the Ricoh GR-D a few weeks ago I've had mucho fun with it. I have grown to understand the controls and find them so easy now. On my ADJ. button I have ISO, Focus metering, Light metering and something else I forget at present. I use the zoom rocker for EV comp.


It's brilliant being able to adjust EV compensation so easily.

I bought an Ixus 850 as a pocket camera backup and the interface is totally shite compared to the Ricoh.


----------

