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.
Nikon D80 or Canon 40D?
- Thread starter Shacklebolt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Between the two... it'd be 40D. Come on.... the 40D is definitely better than the D80 no matter how you slice it. The 30D was better than the D80 as well, but the D80 came close. Now if you want to compare the 40D and D300 then you have something going on there. Honestly, if it's between just those two, and you have no brand loyalty then go for the Canon and you won't go wrong.
If you have up to $2000 and maybe some extra cash ($300 or so) for glass then grab the D300 when it becomes widely available. It's worth the wait, just like many cameras on the market.
If you have up to $2000 and maybe some extra cash ($300 or so) for glass then grab the D300 when it becomes widely available. It's worth the wait, just like many cameras on the market.
But that's not MLU. MLU lets the photographer dictate shutter release, not a computer timer. Also, my understanding is that the D80 has a 0.4" delay after raising the mirror before the camera records the image. Can you point to a documentary URL for the 2 and 10 second delays?
In your opinion. The reality is, it's much more complex.
What if I don't do flash photography? Is it still important?
Is that why 90% of the cameras in the pits at professional sports are Canons?
Yes, it's a good thing that Canon invented the ultrasonic motor. Where would all the other companies be without it? Also, does Sony/Minolta/Konica have any lenses with in-lens stabilization yet?
If I'm doing portraiture, then I'm using a set of Alien Bees or something. Heck, any flash system will work so long as they are consistent on their output. Flash portraiture is more about understanding lighting angles, hardness/softness, and output. It takes years of practice to become expert at it.
I'll take 4 stops in-lens over 2 stops in-camera anyday. Nikon and Canon have it right, IMO.
Why don't you include the the 1DmkIII? It's weather sealed, too. Besides, who wants that yucky 4:3 aspect ratio of the Olympus.
That's funny, I picked up a couple of Nikons and they felt kind of weird, too.
So, I guess we're back to where we started. OP needs to decide on which system suits him best, and simply avoid paying attention to all the over generalizations espoused on this thread.
Gosh, I wish I known that when I was shooting in Celestun last August. From your post, I'm really lucky my 30D survived Hurricane Dean.
In your opinion. The reality is, it's much more complex.
What if I don't do flash photography? Is it still important?
Is that why 90% of the cameras in the pits at professional sports are Canons?
Yes, it's a good thing that Canon invented the ultrasonic motor. Where would all the other companies be without it? Also, does Sony/Minolta/Konica have any lenses with in-lens stabilization yet?
If I'm doing portraiture, then I'm using a set of Alien Bees or something. Heck, any flash system will work so long as they are consistent on their output. Flash portraiture is more about understanding lighting angles, hardness/softness, and output. It takes years of practice to become expert at it.
I'll take 4 stops in-lens over 2 stops in-camera anyday. Nikon and Canon have it right, IMO.
Why don't you include the the 1DmkIII? It's weather sealed, too. Besides, who wants that yucky 4:3 aspect ratio of the Olympus.
That's funny, I picked up a couple of Nikons and they felt kind of weird, too.
So, I guess we're back to where we started. OP needs to decide on which system suits him best, and simply avoid paying attention to all the over generalizations espoused on this thread.
Gosh, I wish I known that when I was shooting in Celestun last August. From your post, I'm really lucky my 30D survived Hurricane Dean.
I really hope this thread doesn't get locked on the count of Canon and Nikon Fanboys throwing rocks at each other. It seems it may be heading there pretty soon though.
As for this question; I have the answer for it. Nikon goofed with the D2h. Just the right camera, at just the wrong time. Perfect in every way except for image quality and resolution. The battery life was amazing, the CLS was amazing, the build was outstanding and yes.... in many many cases held higher than the 1DMKII, the LCD was reasonable, as where every other camera's, but the 2.5" LCD was there to stay and trickle down to the other companies. It was a dream come true for a Nikon shooter almost a year and a half before it came out. At the same time, Canon had already had the 1DMKII at 8MP and 8.5 FPS.
That's the biggest reason there are Canon bodies on the sidelines. As for the internal motor for lenses in AF.... it was a nice advancement, but at the time didn't improve AF speeds that much, and Minolta created AF as well as wireless flash and had the first SLR with internal VR. Canon is great at taking many already advanced technologies from other companies and putting them to use in their cameras, often times not as effectively as the original company. Like Liveview... that was done with an Olympus SLR first, and the camera could autofocus while it was in use. Canon took it and kinda messed it up, it's useless on the Mark IIIs. But they will fix it I know.
Both companies have their pluses and minuses, the OP will pick the good with the bad no matter which body and brand he chooses. The best thing for the OP to do is find that one thing that they can't live without on their camera, a lens, flash, feature, feel, something, and find the company that gives it and go that route.
p.s. Olympus is kinda goofing up as well. I don't know why they think a huge amount of photogs will find the 4:3 format worth sacrificing performance and IQ over. The same with Fuji. Dynamic range on their body is wonderful, but to pay a premium to get it and lose just about every feature that makes the D200 a great camera isn't what many are willing to do.
Argh. This keeps coming up.
You may think the answer to your question is obvious; but the obvious answer may be wrong. Canon supposedly sold lenses at cut rates to pro sports photographers for many years (old rumor from the film days), because they knew it was good marketing to have most of those people out there in plain sight using Canon lenses. So the answer you're so blatantly implying may very well be blazingly wrong.
Tell me this - perhaps as high as 90% of the big name pro landscape photographers shoot Nikon (I'm completely serious - check it out for yourself). Why do you think that is? Are Nikon lenses and cameras somehow magically better at landscapes? No, but Galen Rowell - the guy who generally gets credit for creating the role of "professional 35mm format landscape/nature photographer" - shot with a Nikon; so most of those who followed in his footsteps also decided to shoot with a Nikon. It's simple as that.
People love simple arguments supporting their preconceived biases; but those arguments often don't stand close scrutiny.
In terms of built quality and such, the 40D is better, but that comes at a price (not an unreasonable one, mind you, but the Canon simply is more expensive). The 40D costs about $1.8k at bhphoto including 17-85 mm kit lens, about $700 more than the D80. For that price, I'm sure you can find a D200 with kit lens somewhere. So I think you should either compare the 40D to the D200/D300 or think about going for the D80 + one nice lens + external flash.
The D80 is a really nice camera (I love mine). I really don't need 5/6.5 fps instead of 3, 10 MP are plenty and I generally prefer Nikon's UI concept over Canon's. Try both cameras *
The D80 is a really nice camera (I love mine). I really don't need 5/6.5 fps instead of 3, 10 MP are plenty and I generally prefer Nikon's UI concept over Canon's. Try both cameras *
hah
I would go with the Canon but the nikon seem to have a better more accurate color calibration.
ONLY because I'm a Nikon fan... go for the D300.
(Canon makes good cameras too, I hear)
Edit: In response to JFreak's comment, I have a question to the more experienced out there that might help the OP as well... Do either Canon or Nikon really have that much of an edge on the other as far as high quality lenses go?
I would go with the Canon but the nikon seem to have a better more accurate color calibration.
I think the entire argument is getting a bit silly.
First off, to the OP- you are comparing apples to oranges when you try to compare the D80 to a 40D in terms of features and MP, or sealing, and this that and the other thing. In that sense, they simply aren't in the same category.
It's been a bit strange how the Nikon and Canon markets have staggered over the last couple of years.
At the low end you have the D40 < 350D (XT) < D40x ~ 400D.
Midrange models are the D80 < 40D ~ D300.
Pro Models (as designated by the manufacturers) 5D < Speed Cameras (I'm not touching that one) (1D and D3) and top of the lines like the Nikon D2X and the 1Ds.
Though I may also get flamed about this, I would have to agree with Abstract in part, and say that when you're comparing images from cameras in the same category, you're not likely to see that much of a change in the image quality. Yes, the 400D is "better" than the D40, in that it has 4 million more pixels, focuses and meters fine with all Canon lenses, and also costs about twice as much. Yes, the 1Ds is an infinitely better camera than the 5D, with it's superior AF, and its weather sealing, the 17MP (now 21MP) sensor, interchangeable screen,... I could go on. The point is that when you look at an image taken with either the 5D or the 1Ds with the same lens, printed on an 8 x 10, you'd be hard pressed to tell which is from which, assuming you know what you're doing.
So to answer your question, you are likely to get equally bad results from either the 40D or the D80 at the beginning of your photographic career. As your skills improve, you will be able to tell whether your gear is limiting you, and will have a better understanding of what you need to improve your pictures in terms of gear. As of right now you can't go wrong with either system. Both offer the same types of glass at about the same prices, and are about as good as the other. The sole exception to that is if you're a macro professional and need that MP-60, or if you need the Canon TS lenses. If you have no idea what either of those things are, then go to the store, hold each, change the aperture and shutter speed of the cameras, and get which ever feels more intuitive. Don't forget to pick up a thrifty 50 on the way out (that's a 50mm f/1.8 ~ it's under a hundred dollars US).
Alright, now I'm ready to let the kids flame this post.
First off, to the OP- you are comparing apples to oranges when you try to compare the D80 to a 40D in terms of features and MP, or sealing, and this that and the other thing. In that sense, they simply aren't in the same category.
It's been a bit strange how the Nikon and Canon markets have staggered over the last couple of years.
At the low end you have the D40 < 350D (XT) < D40x ~ 400D.
Midrange models are the D80 < 40D ~ D300.
Pro Models (as designated by the manufacturers) 5D < Speed Cameras (I'm not touching that one) (1D and D3) and top of the lines like the Nikon D2X and the 1Ds.
Though I may also get flamed about this, I would have to agree with Abstract in part, and say that when you're comparing images from cameras in the same category, you're not likely to see that much of a change in the image quality. Yes, the 400D is "better" than the D40, in that it has 4 million more pixels, focuses and meters fine with all Canon lenses, and also costs about twice as much. Yes, the 1Ds is an infinitely better camera than the 5D, with it's superior AF, and its weather sealing, the 17MP (now 21MP) sensor, interchangeable screen,... I could go on. The point is that when you look at an image taken with either the 5D or the 1Ds with the same lens, printed on an 8 x 10, you'd be hard pressed to tell which is from which, assuming you know what you're doing.
So to answer your question, you are likely to get equally bad results from either the 40D or the D80 at the beginning of your photographic career. As your skills improve, you will be able to tell whether your gear is limiting you, and will have a better understanding of what you need to improve your pictures in terms of gear. As of right now you can't go wrong with either system. Both offer the same types of glass at about the same prices, and are about as good as the other. The sole exception to that is if you're a macro professional and need that MP-60, or if you need the Canon TS lenses. If you have no idea what either of those things are, then go to the store, hold each, change the aperture and shutter speed of the cameras, and get which ever feels more intuitive. Don't forget to pick up a thrifty 50 on the way out (that's a 50mm f/1.8 ~ it's under a hundred dollars US).
Alright, now I'm ready to let the kids flame this post.
I said it was a factor. Obviously this implies that the user has to consider whether it's important for him or not, and it's why I asked what he wants to shoot. If he's going to be shooting often with flash, then yes, it's definitely a factor, and Nikon's flash system is much better.
As for studio portraiture, you're right that you'd be using professional lighting. However, if you're required to be more mobile and have a flash system that suits your mobility, then the flash system does matter.
What does your response have to do with what I said. It doesn't.
Definite Canon fanboy response.
In-body image stabilization has its place, and is important for many shooters. In-lens stabilization is better by 1-2 stops, but it doesn't matter if the feature is deemed important to him....important to have with every lens he attaches to his camera body. It's important to my friend's father, who's getting up there in age and can't hold his hands as steady as my friend and I.
Why don't you include the the 1DmkIII? It's weather sealed, too. Besides, who wants that yucky 4:3 aspect ratio of the Olympus.
Wow, and the OP would only have to pay a minimum of $4500 for a Canon weather-sealed camera. I think his budget is $2000. And besides, the E-3 probably has no widespread focusing issue.
Yes, actually, you sort of are. I'd rather have a body that's weather-sealed in those conditions.
But I guess with such a biting reply, I'm guessing you don't do regular shooting near an ocean or boat. If you do, then you should know that just shooting near ocean water isn't good for lenses or the body, particularly zoom lenses. Heck, some tour operators who aren't photographers give warnings to those DSLR users who were shooting and don't know better.
Many lenses have been sealed by Canon, Nikon, etc, but without a lot of fanfare. I guess it's because the bodies had to catch up in that department.
Consider Canon for a second. They have some weather sealed lenses (mostly their L lenses), and yet the 400D, 40D, and 5D aren't weather-sealed. Why bother? Maybe when the 50D replaces the 40D, Canon will splurge put in actual weather-sealing into their best crop camera.
Nikon needs to put weather sealing in more of their lenses, and make more of a fuss about it. They never say anything about it. What's the point of making them weather-sealed if they don't tell us which ones are? The old 18-70 mm kit lens was sealed near the mount, while some of their more expensive models don't.
Agreed. It's what I was trying to say, but I really should have elaborated more.
People talk about image quality and noisy, high ISO shots all the time, but the slight differences in the cameras is more than tolerable. Again, it's so minimal that it may not be worth talking about. Things like good AF are more important. Why? Because if your shot is not perfectly in focus, who cares how much or how little noise there is at ISO 800. It's out of focus!!
I suggested the D80 because I like the ergonomics and build quality more than the 40D, and it's something that Nikon is famous for, as you can see from the other responses only in this thread. The other reason is that the D80 is much cheaper than the 40D, and while they're both within your $2000 budget, you'll have more money left over for sweet new lenses for that D80.
A good camera body with a bad lens attached = not worth the money.
A slightly older camera model with much better lens(es) attached = sharper, better built lenses and a more pleasing experience for the photographer.
"People talk about image quality and noisy, high ISO shots all the time, but the slight differences in the cameras is more than tolerable. Again, it's so minimal that it may not be worth talking about. Things like good AF are more important."
AF is definitely important, but being able to shoot 5 frames per second at high ISO also means the difference between getting a shot, and not getting anything at all.
And this isn't just about shooting sports, it's obvious, taking more shots means a higher chance of getting a good one.
High ISO, low noise images mean that you're able to shoot at night, or without flash.
A large buffer means you can keep shooting without waiting for the camera to catch up, and missing your shot.
CMOS sensors allow the camera to process images quickly and easily.
Mirror lockup allows you to do things like attach your camera to a telescope and eliminate the problem of vibration. (so called black card trick).
I honestly don't see how this could be irrelevant unless your shoot only landscapes and only in bright sunlight. Or portraits in a very controlled studio environment.
If you're on the move, the better more advanced camera will let you walk away with a good shot.
A great lens with an inferior camera is also a total waste of time and money.
AF is definitely important, but being able to shoot 5 frames per second at high ISO also means the difference between getting a shot, and not getting anything at all.
And this isn't just about shooting sports, it's obvious, taking more shots means a higher chance of getting a good one.
High ISO, low noise images mean that you're able to shoot at night, or without flash.
A large buffer means you can keep shooting without waiting for the camera to catch up, and missing your shot.
CMOS sensors allow the camera to process images quickly and easily.
Mirror lockup allows you to do things like attach your camera to a telescope and eliminate the problem of vibration. (so called black card trick).
I honestly don't see how this could be irrelevant unless your shoot only landscapes and only in bright sunlight. Or portraits in a very controlled studio environment.
If you're on the move, the better more advanced camera will let you walk away with a good shot.
A great lens with an inferior camera is also a total waste of time and money.
The type of sensor (CMOS or CCD) doesn't play that much of a role in how fast the images is processed. The CMOS did offer lower power consumption at the expense of noise, while the CCD offered the reverse. Also, the CCD was cheaper. Now however, that's become a moot point. CMOS sensors have finally reached a usable price and have much better noise handling. Much of the image processing goes on in the stuff behind the sensor and in the chip inside the camera.
As for IQ, it has become something of the past to compare. Most Canon shooters claim they can shoot comfortably up to ISO 1600, but any shooter that knows how to shoot can walk away with shots taken at that ISO with any camera. And for the most part DSLRs all take the same image if shot at ISO400 and lower with JPEG compression (which is what a lot of shooters do)
To be fair to the Canon side of the fence, the company has gotten ergonomics right with the 40D. The Rebel is another story. And speaking of putting a great lens on an inferior body, I have seen some amazing shots taken with Digital Rebels sporting L series lenses. It does make the difference, and the lens truly matters a lot more than the body.
I think 3 fps (which even smaller models offer these days) are plenty for 95 % of us. Ditto for MLU (which I've never used). These are just relevant criteria if you have something very special in mind. I also think the OP should rather invest in some lenses and a flash already rather than spending everything on his body.
All of the points you mention aren't really relevant for a beginner. The D80 has a large viewfinder (much larger than the current Rebel) and I'd even suggest that he tries the 18-135 kit lens before investing anything. I think a D80 + 18-135 kit lens + SB-400 flash is a very good starter kit. A 40D is overkill.
All of the points you mention aren't really relevant for a beginner. The D80 has a large viewfinder (much larger than the current Rebel) and I'd even suggest that he tries the 18-135 kit lens before investing anything. I think a D80 + 18-135 kit lens + SB-400 flash is a very good starter kit. A 40D is overkill.
Actually, I like the SB-400 as well. The SB-600 is obviously a better flash in terms of range (and the ability to bounce the light off a ceiling when holding the camera in portrait view), but if the size, and inconvenience of carrying it around means he won't carry it with him, then he may as well get the SB-400. It's small, light, fits in any bag or pocket, and is still a good flash. I guess you just have to weigh practicality vs. quality. A flash he'll never use is worse than a weaker flash that he WILL use. I'm a fan of the SB-400 for most uses, although it'll depend on what the OP wants.
I meant that there's very little difference in terms of photo quality and noise levels, and that these differences are tolerable. If you need 5 fps, you would probably know beforehand and should only look at cameras that shoot 5 fps and faster. And once you've narrowed it down to 5 fps DSLRs, I still don't think the image quality between cameras is that great.
Even being able to shoot at 6 fps, I'm not going to use it for my shots.....not unless I'm in very particular situations, which don't arise frequently.
A Canon 40D + the new 18-55 mm IS lens (does it come in the kit yet?), and some sort of telephoto zoom would also be nice. You'd have less money for lenses, but I guess that's your choice.
The SB-600 is obviously a better flash in terms of range (and the ability to bounce the light off a ceiling when holding the camera in portrait view), but if the size, and inconvenience of carrying it around means he won't carry it with him, then he may as well get the SB-400. It's small, light, fits in any bag or pocket, and is still a good flash. I guess you just have to weigh practicality vs. quality. A flash he'll never use is worse than a weaker flash that he WILL use. I'm a fan of the SB-400 for most uses, although it'll depend on what the OP wants.I meant that there's very little difference in terms of photo quality and noise levels, and that these differences are tolerable. If you need 5 fps, you would probably know beforehand and should only look at cameras that shoot 5 fps and faster. And once you've narrowed it down to 5 fps DSLRs, I still don't think the image quality between cameras is that great.
Even being able to shoot at 6 fps, I'm not going to use it for my shots.....not unless I'm in very particular situations, which don't arise frequently.
I think OreoCookie is right that a D80 + 18-135 mm (+ SB-400 flash) is a good setup for a beginner, or possibly a D80 + 18-200 mm VR lens. Amazingly, it's still within the OP's budget! There would still be money left over for something like a Sigma 30 mm f/1.4, or Nikon 50 mm f/1.4 or f/1.8.OreoCookie said:
A Canon 40D + the new 18-55 mm IS lens (does it come in the kit yet?), and some sort of telephoto zoom would also be nice. You'd have less money for lenses, but I guess that's your choice.
I am happy with my new 40D, I used to have a 350D with the kit lens, BG-E3 grip, 85mm F1.8 and 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 and a 430EX for 2 years
this year, my wife get me a 17-40 F/4L as my birthday gift. and after 1 occassion, I feel that i want to get a new body, as my peer pressure mention about a 40D purchase, so tried it at store and love it. so end up, bought the new 40D and sold my 350D and kit lens and the BG-E3 grip. then also just get a 580EX II
well, I think you have to try it on your hand and take a few shot. each person have their preference. so Canon can be right for me but you may not like it, you just have to try it out!!!!
this year, my wife get me a 17-40 F/4L as my birthday gift. and after 1 occassion, I feel that i want to get a new body, as my peer pressure mention about a 40D purchase, so tried it at store and love it. so end up, bought the new 40D and sold my 350D and kit lens and the BG-E3 grip. then also just get a 580EX II
well, I think you have to try it on your hand and take a few shot. each person have their preference. so Canon can be right for me but you may not like it, you just have to try it out!!!!