Nikon D80 - Canon EOS 30D

[RichNY]

I'm coming into the home stretch on my camera purchase. I've eliminated the Rebel XT/XTi because of physical size and the D200 because I've come to the realization that by the time I need (and understand) the extra features this camera offers I'd be better off purchasing what would be the latest model.

This leaves me with two choices- The Nikon D80 and the Canon EOS 30D.
With the Nikon selling at retail plus the cost of the software that Canon bundles the price difference between these two offerings is less than $100.

Aside from the noise factor, what are the relative merits of both of these platforms? If you didn't already have an investment in lenses, which way would you start out?
-Approx. when would the 30D replacement be coming out?

My current thinking on lenses is:

If Canon:10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
If Nikon: 12-24mm f/4, 28-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

(Also please advise if there is a better way to go)

[timmciglobal]

Oh I can hear the flames now.

First thing I think we need to know is what do you plan to use it for? What kinds of shooting? What do you do most/least?

Either is a good camera, you can't pick one globally over the other without knowing those things.

Tim

[RichNY]

Oh I can hear the flames now.

First thing I think we need to know is what do you plan to use it for? What kinds of shooting? What do you do most/least?

Either is a good camera, you can't pick one globally over the other without knowing those things.

Tim

Tim- Thanks for pointing this out- I should have included it in my post. (Although with the other two threads closed down it could have provided some fun for those reading with popcorn at their side)

Amateur use, mostly nature, people, and architecture shots. Little sports photography although I'd like to try my hand at some ice hockey shots- the higher fps would be nice but not a deciding factor. I have an interest in experimenting with macro photography but didn't include a lens with my initial list because combined with a Gitzo 1325 and head I'm already WAY over what I intended to invest and I haven't even begun to purchase imaging software.

(Has anyone else noticed that buying lots of travel postcards and hiring a professional photographer for family photos is a heck of a lot cheaper than shooting your own!)

This is a new hobby for me and I'm planning to continue my learning with some college courses on photography and PP this fall semester. If not for the large $ investment I wouldn't really care about which way to go until after I've made the investment in my own education first.

[Rex914]

This is a really tough call, especially since you're aiming pretty high up the ladder as far as lenses go. You know what the D80/30D differences are. It comes down to...

- Frame rate / buffer size (30D wins)
- Build Quality (30D wins)
- Ergonomics (Tough to say. Nikon ergonomics are a favorite, but the 30D has that rear dial which works wonders. I love it myself.)
- Viewfinder (D80 wins)
- Lens System (Depends on your needs)
- Flash System (D80 wins)
- Price (D80 wins)
- Format (Depends on what you have already.)

Since you seem to be in a similar situation as I am (though I'm actually being forced to wait until I actually graduate to get some proper gear and by that time, the new XXD will have long been out), I would recommend this: start easy and build it up. It's tempting at times to light your path from the start and buy it all at once. Even if you're pretty sure that you know what to get, buy things slowly, one at a time. Buy the standard zoom first, get to know the camera, and then go from there. It's amazing to see how much your decisions can change depending on how your shooting habits actually turn out versus how you think they will turn out.

When I first started the whole DSLR search process almost 2 years ago, my lens wish list was completely different. Shooting more stuff and acquiring more experience has changed my wish list because I know what I shoot now and have a reasonably clear idea of the one lens that I should start out with.

As for myself, if I were buying now (which really isn't the case), I would get a 30D and a 17-55/2.8 IS to start and work with that for a while and then add on a telephoto lens later, but that's entirely based on my needs which probably aren't the same as yours. ;)

If I had to start Nikon, I would start with a D80 and an 18-200 VR and then work from there. With the D80 out and what appears to be most of the D200's functionality intact, I see no reason anymore to get the D200 since the D80's body is "good enough," and I don't need the 5 FPS burst rate. That's not the case with Canon because the 30D has a substantially better body than the the Rebel XT, and I just couldn't bring myself to like the XT's body after handling the 20D/30D so many times.

And on a semi-related note, I got spoiled by the L lens build quality in the camera store when I was handling both the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 last year. Like I said above with the XXD vs. XXXD, it's just that reassuring feeling (or should I just call it heft?) that the kit lens and consumer lenses couldn't deliver for me. :D

[timmciglobal]

You tried the 17-55? Feels consumer to me :p I agree, the L lens build is nice. Of course you pay for it but it's really nice to use a zoom ring that doesn't fight you.

999 for D80 body vs 1200 for 30D body too, part of consideration, depends what your going to spend too. If your looking at those high end lenses I assume price isn't the issue.

I have a D200 and I found it's system and usability just so much better then 20D's. High iso noise just isn't canon level but from the standpoint of using the camera I like the D200 much more.

Oh and I love wireless flash. If you do get a D80 buy a pair of SB-600's and have a ton of fun doing wireless flash combos.



Tim

[Rex914]

You tried the 17-55? Feels consumer to me :p I agree, the L lens build is nice. Of course you pay for it but it's really nice to use a zoom ring that doesn't fight you.

I'll admit that I haven't touched a 17-55 quite yet, but assuming it's similar to the 10-22 and (gulp), the 17-85, it should be acceptable. I'll see next time I pay a visit to the store.

[timmciglobal]

It's not bad but it's not at the level of L or even close. I was very disapointed, especially the focus ring.

Shame too, I think people would of spent the money for the L build.

Tim

[Rex914]

It's not bad but it's not at the level of L or even close. I was very disapointed, especially the focus ring.

Shame too, I think people would of spent the money for the L build.

Tim

I'll agree there. Even given the current price, I would gladly pay $100-$200 more to get the lens hood :rolleyes: and L-class build quality as a standard issue.

[RichNY]

999 for D80 body vs 1200 for 30D body too, part of consideration, depends what your going to spend too. If your looking at those high end lenses I assume price isn't the issue.

"Add the software and the D80 goes up to $1100 and the price difference is less than $100. I'd rather pay for the better lenses up front than purchasing cheaper lenses and then upgrading. Price is a concern, but not the only concern. I don't mind investing wisely but I'm the first to be upset when I waste money unnecessarily."

I have a D200 and I found it's system and usability just so much better then 20D's. High iso noise just isn't canon level but from the standpoint of using the camera I like the D200 much more.

"Do you see this as the case with the D80 also or just the D200?"

Oh and I love wireless flash. If you do get a D80 buy a pair of SB-600's and have a ton of fun doing wireless flash combos.

"I'm planning on buying wireless flash as soon as I understand how to use it. Before worrying about flash, I've got lots of learning to do on light in general"

Tim

Thanks for the continued suggestions- I'm finding everyone's comments quite helpful.

[coldrain]

Rich, do take into consideration that Tim has a big Nikon bias, even though he will not say so.

According to fotomagazin, a german pro photo magazin, the Tokina 12-24 f4 is a better lens than the Nikon 12-24mm. It costs a lot less, so it mightbe worth considering if you decide on the D80.

What I personally do not like about the D80 is the sensor itself. It gives a coarse and uneven impressing in for instance human skin and colour, in shadow gradations and the likes. The blue-ish cast the D200 can give (not as bad as the D70) can easily be compensated for though.

A good example of the problem I have with the Nikon/Sony 10mp sensor is a sample timmciglobal gave himself in a recent thread about the new XTi (he was trolling around there :D ).
You can see the clustering of pixels with same colour, it just makes things look a bit coarse. And it gets worse with higher ISO use. So not only is that sensor more noisy, but I am just not impressed with what it does in certain conditions. I do not know if it is Nikon induced or the sensor itself, that is interesting to investigate with smaples of the Sony A100 or course.

For the rest, the D80 looks like a very nice camera. I personally can not stand the Nikon menu system, and some controls. But that is personal, I like how the EOS 350D does not force my hand to be in a certain way for instance, but many people find the more solid grip of other cameras a lot nicer... also something personal.

You are correct in that Canon supplies the RAW convertor with the camera. It is a very good convertor, but for instance noise reduction and sharpening should be done with for instance photoshop and its plug-ins. The Nikon Capture NX software is also a very good convertor, but is more also a post processing application than DPP from Canon is.

[timmciglobal]

ROFL. Yea, huge fanboi. It's why I had a 20D and an XT. It's why I still recommend the canon's to anyone shooting a lot of high ISO stuff.

Do yourself a favor, look at the pbase galleries yourself and compare like lens and like skill and decide for yourself if what he says is complete BS.

Oh and yes, canon's "Custom Function 04 - AF Engaged - 0/1" is MUCH better then nikon's menu system where it says "CS4- Af engaged by half shutter press, enabled/disabled" becauase the more cryptic something is the better it is. Also damn nikon for having an entire menu bar dedicated to recently used settings so you can quickly go back to last 10 menu items you've changed. I wish it was like canon where I had to go scroll back threw everything. Damn nikon's terrible interface again.

http://www.pbase.com/johnpolston/image/56331538

My god that poor girl, if only she hadn't let someone with a D200 take her picture. It's so unnatural and blue and blotchy. If only she had picked someone with a canon camera her wedding shot wouldn't of been ruined. Yea.

Oh and to actually respond, do you have photoshop? Because I have little value for DPP or capture NX. Photoshop in my mind is a much better producting for image processing either way. NX's interface was slow and DPP's was lacking the sophistication of PS.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

http://www.pbase.com/johnpolston/image/59315554

My god, ISO 800 skin tones look terrible and blotchy. My god.

Look at the lines it left in that's man face!

And the ladies face is distorted by some sort of lace like patern!

Poor girl.

Now honestly, could that shot of looked better noise wise on a 30D? Yeap. If your shooting at ISO 800+ a lot, thats a major issue. I wouldn't say buy a D80 or D200 if you were planing on using ISO 800+ a lot.

Tim

[RichNY]

From reading other threads I came away that Tim had more of a Nikon bias and you have more of a Canon bias (based solely on your use of the word 'noise' in every sentence with the word Nikon;) ) Surprisingly a lot of useful information comes out when strongly opposing viewpoints are made- a simple example was the point about recently used settings in the Nikon interface. (I've also found many useful bits of Canon information buried in your posts)

Tim-One of the challenges of someone new to the art form is not yet having developed a critical eye to notice the differences between different cameras and glass. Sure it's easy to notice the bad cropping where the tip of a building or bow of a boat is missing, but I've got to admit that my skills are such that I've failed to see many of optical issues that people are making critical commentary on.

Photoshop and Post Processing- I have not purchased photoshop or any other tools yet nor do I have ANY experience using them. I'm still at the very beginning of this long learning curve. Are you suggesting that if one has photoshop there isn't a need to purchase NX?

Glass- Aside from the suggestion on the 10-22 lens do I have the right choices for the Canon and Nikon lenses?

Thanks again for everyone's input- this is an important decision for me and the feedback has been quite useful.

[coldrain]

Different sources are a bit mixed about the Nikon 12-24mm. It is very expensive, and some like it a lot, others don't find it special.

This is true about all the wide angle lenses though... I even found a not so positive review of the EF 10-22mm.
So, it is hard to say objectively whether or not the Nikon 12-24 is a better choice, or the Tokina 12-24.

All 70-200 f2.8 lenses have a good reputation, so you hardly can go wrong there. Do take into consideration their weight though, you have to know what you will be lugging along.

If you (like me because I like to take my camera always along) think that will be too heavy, there are not many alternatives.

The Canon EF 70-300 IS USM springs to mind. In the long end it is not very light sensitive (f5.6), but it makes up for that a bit with IS.
It is ridiculously sharp though, equaling the EF 300mm f4 IS.
It is by far the best of the 70/75-300 breed, without doubt. Short in supply though.

[timmciglobal]

I'd say if you have photoshop NX isn't that usefull. NX has some batch processing but I tend to use adobe camera raw one by one for my shots (though you can also batch process in Photoshop)

The 70-300 nikon is indeed a nice peice of glass. The nikon 70-300 Vr2 is yet unknown quality but looks very interesting at 499 online.

As far as critcal eye I agree. The differences between an 18-200 VR and a pro lens in non critical aspects may be very similar in appearence. The "bad" lenses today often are from from bad but suffer from CA or reduced edge sharpness or slower AF or are softer when viewed >50% magnification. Rarly today (though some are) will you see a really poor lens from the OEM lens company (nikon or canon)

Tim

[coldrain]

I'd say if you have photoshop NX isn't that usefull. NX has some batch processing but I tend to use adobe camera raw one by one for my shots (though you can also batch process in Photoshop)

The 70-300 nikon is indeed a nice peice of glass. The nikon 70-300 Vr2 is yet unknown quality but looks very interesting at 499 online.

Where do you get from that the 70-300 nikon is a nice piece of glass?
the 70-300 G version is famous for being crap. The D version is ok but not better than the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. The Ef 70-300 IS USM from canon is in a whole different league. Comparing them is a laugh, Tim.

And I know you do not believe that because you think Nikon on it makes it good, but people that actually know about lenses know that the Nikon 70-300 lenses are nothing great. And that the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM is uhmm.. well.. great.
And my guess is that the 70-300 VR will not be something special optically either, because the 105mm f2.8 VR macro is not optically better than the old 105mm VR... and the 90mm Tamron, 105mm Sigma and 100mm Tokina beat it. SO my guess is that the 70-300 will perform like the D version... there is a reason for the higher price of the Canon. The glass elements used.

Lets hope I am wrong.

And nothing converts so well for Nikon RAW as Capture NX. That is one of the reasons Capture was such a popular product.

[D70FAN]

I see that you all are spouting the SOS.

Sorry I came back for a look-see.

Bye.

[Warin]

I see that you all are spouting the SOS.

Sorry I came back for a look-see.

Bye.

The SOS? Same Old (bovine) Scatology?

I will admit I also have a Nikon preference, but if you are a high ISO guru (over 800 all the time) you are probably better off with the Canon.

Nikon's ergonomics are, simply, superior. Pick up a 30D, toss it into manual and try adjusting aperture and shutter speed. Do the same thing with a D200. You will generally find that your hand stays in a more stable shooting position with the Nikon, because the control dials are positioned where your hand falls while gripping the camera. With the 30D, you need to move your thumb down to manipulate the rear dial, and your index finger cants back behind the shutter release. Is it that big a deal? Well, if I started with the 30D I wouldnt mind, but after shooting with an F80/D70s/D200 over the course of the last 4 years or so... I find it clunky and annoying.

I will give the best advice I can tho...

Go to a shop that carries both models. Pop a card into each. Make test shots with the lenses you are considering. Look at them at home.

Look at things like compatible speedlights if you are considering a lot of studio/portrait work. I've been playing with an SB 800 and SB 600, and the Creative Lighting system is awesome. I am not sure Canon has a comparable system (even though I sell Canon, I spend more time with the Nikon gear! :D)

Look at the glass you want as well. However, Nikon's AF-S lenses comparable to the L glass are similarly priced, and generally as you look at them you can hear your wallet scream! ;)

So... I prefer Nikon. But I dont really think you can honestly go wrong with either system.

But...

Buy Nikon! :D

[timmciglobal]

When I typed the 70-300 I meant to type "canon" not nikon, hence why the next comment about the nikon 70-300 being unknown.

As far as the 105 macro, your out of your god damn mind. It's far better then the sigma, tamron and tokina offerings. No one who's used it has had any negative to say about it with the exception of "it's not as sharp as the nikon 105" which was considered by many the best macro lens ever made.

Really. BS.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

Oh and yes, the 70-300 G is a peice of crap. The 55>200 G isn't that bad for a junky plastic fantastic though.

The 70-300 VR has ED glass in it, which may prove to make it a decent lens.

Tim

[RichNY]

Coldrain- When would be the earliest you think Canon would announce a step up from the 30? (In the 30 price range, not a 3D type camera)

[coldrain]

As far as the 105 macro, your out of your god damn mind. It's far better then the sigma, tamron and tokina offerings. No one who's used it has had any negative to say about it with the exception of "it's not as sharp as the nikon 105" which was considered by many the best macro lens ever made.

Really. BS.

Tim

Tests do show a different side of the 105mm Nikkor. My guess is everyone being to positive about it never compared it to another lens. It is not a bad lens, but just nothing special.

Old Nikkor 105mm f2.8 Micro D:
Edge sharpness 880/996 LP/IH (aperture open/ stopped down 2 fstops) (line pairs / image height)
Center sharpness 1006/1090 LP/IH
Contrast 32.5 points
Vignetting wide open 0.5 f-stops
Total points of test: 70.5

New Nikkor 105mm f2.8 G IF-ED VR Micro D:
Edge sharpness 938/968 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1006/1065 LP/IH
Contrast 34 points
Vignetting wide open 0.9 f-stops
Total points of test: 70.5

The rest:

Tokina AT-X f2.8 100mm macro
Edge sharpness 977/1019 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1075/1105 LP/IH
Contrast 35.5 points
Vignetting wide open 0.5 f-stops
Total points of test: 77

Sigma EX 105mm f2.8 DG macro
Edge sharpness 960/1039 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1039/1126 LP/IH
Contrast 36 points
Vignetting wide open 0.4 f-stops
Total points of test: 75.5

Tamron AF 90mm f2.8 SP Di macro
Edge sharpness 1006/1049 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1100/1139 LP/IH
Contrast 38.5 points
Vignetting wide open 0.4 f-stops
Total points of test: 78.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 60mm f2.8 micro D
Edge sharpness 975/1040 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1067/1141 LP/IH
Contrast 37 points
Vignetting wide open 0.4 f-stops
Total points of test: 77

Sigma EX 50mm f2.8 DG macro
Edge sharpness 952/1017 LP/IH
Center sharpness 1051/1119 LP/IH
Contrast 38 points
Vignetting wide open 0.5 f-stops
Total points of test: 77


All the lenses tested in 2 big group lens tests on a Nikon D200, in ColorFoto.

The 2 105mm Nikkors were the only macro lenses not to get a recommendation of the macro lenses. The new 105 Nikkor and the new Tokina were tested in the 2nd test.

(Old nikkor 105mm) The Nikon-tele does not reach to the other fixed focal lenght lenses, although the sharpness is already good at open aperture, the contrast values althogether are a bit too low.

(new nikkor 105mm VR) The Nikon-Macro tops the competition with image stabilization and ultra sonic motor, for which although also almost 800 euro are billed. The optic performance does not quite follow its full featureset. Although the image quality over the whole is very even, the clearly less expensive Tokina is a bit ahead in resolution and contrast.

No, I did not say that the 105 VR does not impress out of spite, or because the Nikon name is on it. You always seem to think that I am against Nikon for some reason. Tests show the 105 is just nothing special, and the 60mm Nikkor IS something special as you can see from these figures... and all other macros just are a bit better than the 105mm Nikkors.

I can't help that.

And if you for some reason do not trust the measurements from ColorFoto, a highly regarded german magazine, you can compare their measured results to what photozone measured. They have resolution measurements of the old 105mm Nikkor, the 60mm Nikkor, the 90mm Tamron, the 105mm Sigma and the 100mm Tokina.

[coldrain]

Coldrain- When would be the earliest you think Canon would announce a step up from the 30? (In the 30 price range, not a 3D type camera)
Anyones guess is better than mine... I would not hold my breath for it.