i am thinking about getting a dslr which is going to be my first one, and i wanted to know id d80 worth it. i like the d90 but its to much and i dont need a camera that can record movies. i liked around and the price was 950 for a new one is it worth it? i saw on craiglist for 680 for just the body and wanted to know if that is a good price
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
is d80 worth it?
- Thread starter daesup45
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I went for the D80 3 months ago instead of the d90. I got it for 350 and I'm still enjoying it!! 
The D80 is obviously not superior to the d90 but it's a nice camera to begin with. Because I got it for such a low price, I also had some money left to buy some accessories. I would recommend a D80 and some nice glass.
The D80 is obviously not superior to the d90 but it's a nice camera to begin with. Because I got it for such a low price, I also had some money left to buy some accessories. I would recommend a D80 and some nice glass.
i own a D80 for a year and a half and still enjoy it. But today I would look for a D5000. The cmos captor is obviously better for low light and the body is smaller than the D80.
The D80 is an excellent camera, no doubt. As many who know what they are talking about on here, it is not really the camera but the glass you use that will get the results, with the talent pressing the shutter release.
However, don't make the mistake thinking that the D90 is a D80 with a video function. That is far from the truth. In fact of all the D90 users, I wonder how many of them actually use it.
The D90 is the technological upgrade of the D80. If I owned a D80, I would NOT upgrade to a D90, rather a D300 or D700.
In my case, I opted to buy the new D90 rather than the older D80 and I am really glad I did.
However, don't make the mistake thinking that the D90 is a D80 with a video function. That is far from the truth. In fact of all the D90 users, I wonder how many of them actually use it.
The D90 is the technological upgrade of the D80. If I owned a D80, I would NOT upgrade to a D90, rather a D300 or D700.
In my case, I opted to buy the new D90 rather than the older D80 and I am really glad I did.
The D90 is good, but the cmos sensor needed for video, produces a different picture quality image that I'm still finding hard to get used too and like!
I would recommend the D80 or the D3000! It's got the arguably better CCD sensor,D-lighting, 3d focusing, small size like the D40 & Cheap price.
(A compact more up-to date D80).
I would recommend the D80 or the D3000! It's got the arguably better CCD sensor,D-lighting, 3d focusing, small size like the D40 & Cheap price.
(A compact more up-to date D80).
I agree. I started out with a D80 and recently upgraded to a D300. The D80 is a really great camera and I was very satisfied with it the entire time I had it. The only reason I upgraded was because I got a killer deal on a used D300. If you compare the pictures from the two its really not that noticeable of a difference at their base iso. The 2 megapixle difference between them is pretty trivial unless you are doing a lot of croping. The image quality difference between the ccd and cmos sensors is a little different. I like the cmos but just like mentioned above I am also finding it hard to get used to. The ccd sensor in the D80 produces great colors and contrast and looks really good. For the price its really hard to pass up the D80 and I would def choose it over the D90.
The sensor in the D90 is the same base sensor as in the D300, and it was designed for photography- video was an additional feature added in firmware, not a driving specification. The fact that it's a stock CMOS imaging sensor is apparent to anyone doing motion video, since CMOS gives you the "Jellocam" effect because the sensor is read pixel by pixel rather than all at once. The D90 essentially takes the live view image and records it, which is why you don't get to play with settings when you shoot video with it. Liveview is the feature that made video possible on the D90, and all Nikon did was to increase the frame read rate to get to video, not put some weird or different sensor in the camera. It's a stock Nikon still imaging platform and there's nothing speicial about the sensor for video. Nikon moved to CMOS in the D2x well before video was an idea for DSLRs, the CMOS look is only a little different, and not really that noticeable unless you're doing side-by-side comparisons.
It is essentially a generational update of the D2x sensor, and it's got a typical Nikon tonal response curve, with very good dynamic range compared to the venerable D2x- so I'm not sure what there is to "get used to." While I don't own an D90 or D300, I've processed raw images from them, and they don't have anything to "get used to" from my perspective, so I'd suggest you look at how you're processing the images or your lens/lenses- because I've got 13x19 prints on the walls that don't scream CMOS from both the D2x and D3x.
Increasing the read cycles on the sensor in liveview mode does not affect the still image at all (other than potentially adding a bit of thermal noise if you're doing a lot of liveview/video beforehand, as that will heat the sensor up a bit over straight still image shots.) But that should be the only real potential downside from the video stuff.
Paul
There's no argument about it, the CCD sensor in the D80 (the same one in the D3000) is clearly and universally inferior to the CMOS sensor in the D90. Noise levels at base ISO do not differ much but the D90's sensor has expanded dynamic range. At high ISO there is no contest. The D90 sensor runs circles around the D80 (which is one of Nikon's worst performers in terms of high ISO).
It does not really have as much to do with CCD vs CMOS rather the D90 tech is a generation newer and hence is superior. The CCD vs CMOS sensor stuff is old hat and the differences were equalized long ago. Back in the day CCD was more sensitive to light (because it did not have A/D circuitry on every pixel) but more expensive to produce hence why better old cameras used CCD and the cheap ones used CMOS. Now CMOS technology has matched (or surpassed) CCD and the cost advantages make it the better choice.
Also CCD and CMOS don't really give a particular "look" to the image either, this is long before any conversion and processing take place.
I say this as a D80 owner myself. It's not a bad camera by any means, but to say it is better than the D90 is just untrue.
If it's going to be your first camera, why not just buy a D40 or D60?
I can see on adorama.com that you could get a refurb D60 for $350. I don't think anybody here would sniff at a D60 as an entrée into the DSLR world, even if it's not technologically up to date with its replacement (the D5000).
You could put the remainder of your budget towards a kit lens and have a little left over for a spare battery, memory cards, a bag, and all the other things you may need to start out.
I can see on adorama.com that you could get a refurb D60 for $350. I don't think anybody here would sniff at a D60 as an entrée into the DSLR world, even if it's not technologically up to date with its replacement (the D5000).
You could put the remainder of your budget towards a kit lens and have a little left over for a spare battery, memory cards, a bag, and all the other things you may need to start out.