I'm having to think hard about the D80. We need several to back up our D2X's, but that SD card has us stymied a bit. I bridle a bit at carrying (and buying) both SD and CF cards, along with readers.
If the SD card is the "next new thing" for cutting weight and bulk in dSLR's as some claim, has anyone heard of plans for Canon to follow that route?
Hank,
I read the following interview this morning. http://photojpn.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=772 It is someone's translation of an interview with the director of Canon's camera development center. Four paragraphs from the bottom, he states that they will keep the SD option open for discussion.
Hi Prashant,
I respectfully disagree...the D80 has a better body, otherwise they are on the same level. (Actually, the Canon has slightly better image quality, and a fantastic LCD screen)
That said, I'd suggest to stay with the 350D until you get the 5D...
I guess I had better quick bucking and take the bit in my mouth. The good news for all is that the moment Canon starts getting beef about the D80 being "better" than the 400D, they'll start ginning up a better competitor for their line.
Hey,
juza after having investment in canon lenses I can not think of going back really. Have to wait till I can afford the 5D. Or may be a better 500D comes out.
Well, for me the important things are
1. viewfinder
2. body
3. image quality
from what I have seen I was sold on d80's viewfinder and body. Image quality can not be inferior to 400D.
I even suggsted my colleague to get a D80 than 400D. HIs only problem is lenses. There is nothing like 4Ls from Nikon. May be Hank knows.
One thing is sure if I was to buy a digial camera on budget today, it would be D80. Only lenses of interest to me are 24mm, 35mm and 85mm. I don't need IS/VR and such stuff.
BUt...
In my direct experience and opinion, Canon's L lenses spank Nikon in terms of weatherproofing and toughness. Nikon's DX series (at least the 24-120mmVR we use so much) are pretty "cheap" feeling and prone to collecting dust and moisture. Image quality is fine, but the lenses are pretty fragile for our uses. Yet there is nothing in their line of pro quality with comparable zoom range! The Canon 24-105 ROCKS, and may be enough to make me pick up a Canon body simply on its strengths compared to Nikon.
On the other hand, Canon has nothing comparable to Nikon's 12-24mm, which is my second most-used lens in multiple daily pro shoots.
I would feel pretty foolish carrying Nikon and Canon simultaneously, but at present that would be required if I assembled the perfect kit for my needs.
It's around $900 over at B&H, but they're listing both the US and Import as backordered. Dave U over at TPN is using another make (Tamron, Tokina or Sigma, I don't remember which) on his Canon gear and speaks highly of it. His results certainly speak for themselves!
That zoom range is such a useful addition to a DSLR that I can't imagine being without one, almost without regard for who makes it!
Nikon's DX series (at least the 24-120mmVR we use so much) are pretty "cheap" feeling and prone to collecting dust and moisture.
That's really interesting. I've had the 24-120 D (not the DX/VR lens..its film body predecessor) for nearly five years and it is anything but cheap feeling.
I also have the 12-24 Nikkor DX and concur--it's an outstanding performer. I'd guess I use these two lenses roughly 75% of the time. The rest of the time its the 80-400 VR or the 200mm macro. That's all the glass I own.
I haven't used the 24-120D, but the DX is plastic, especially compared to all our d series lenses. With it extended to 120, really prone to damage when banged around. Of course we generally paid more for the D series lenses, but I'd be very happy to pay more to get a beefier version. Especially if it was an f/4 or f/2.8 and used 77mm filters like so many other lenses we use. We own four of the 24-120mmVR's, simply in order to have two on hand at all time in case of failures. My wife and I both use the model so extensively that it's a terrible disruption to ship one off for repair and wait for its eventual return. We're hard on gear, but not THAT hard on it.
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 23, 2006 at 8:14 PM
Hank--
The main advantage for SD cards is there are no little pins to eventually break off. The tiny size is secondary.
Thanks Kent. My biggest grump is the stack of CF cards we already own.
BTW- Harking back to the origin of this thread, Fuji has just announced the S5, next generation after the S3 and available "in February 2007." They're honking on the sensor and onboard processing and a "D200" alloy body, but being coy about buffer, write speed and price. We paid for a commercial building and lots more with several S2's and have no qualms about image quality, but the buffer and write speed issues with the S3 forced us to buy D2X's instead. Might pick up the S5 as backup for the D2X's even if our issues aren't resolved but the price is competitive, but it depends a lot on whether Fuji lives up to that "February 2007" forecast.
I only bring up the S5 because even their S2 image quality is superb, S3 is even better, and S5 is proclaimed to be even better. It's definitely worth any Nikon user holding off a little bit in buying any new body until a little more is known about the S5.
Discussion
15 repliesNikon, compared to 400D, is a lot of camera for less money.
Damn, I hope to win a lotto this weekend. Then I can shop for 5D.
Haha, sorry, couldn't resist.
Basil
I must say atleast at this level of camera D80 is miles ahead of 400D.
If the SD card is the "next new thing" for cutting weight and bulk in dSLR's as some claim, has anyone heard of plans for Canon to follow that route?
I read the following interview this morning. http://photojpn.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=772 It is someone's translation of an interview with the director of Canon's camera development center. Four paragraphs from the bottom, he states that they will keep the SD option open for discussion.
Jeff
I respectfully disagree...the D80 has a better body, otherwise they are on the same level. (Actually, the Canon has slightly better image quality, and a fantastic LCD screen)
That said, I'd suggest to stay with the 350D until you get the 5D...
juza after having investment in canon lenses I can not think of going back really. Have to wait till I can afford the 5D. Or may be a better 500D comes out.
Well, for me the important things are
1. viewfinder
2. body
3. image quality
from what I have seen I was sold on d80's viewfinder and body. Image quality can not be inferior to 400D.
I even suggsted my colleague to get a D80 than 400D. HIs only problem is lenses. There is nothing like 4Ls from Nikon. May be Hank knows.
BUt...
On the other hand, Canon has nothing comparable to Nikon's 12-24mm, which is my second most-used lens in multiple daily pro shoots.
I would feel pretty foolish carrying Nikon and Canon simultaneously, but at present that would be required if I assembled the perfect kit for my needs.
That zoom range is such a useful addition to a DSLR that I can't imagine being without one, almost without regard for who makes it!
That's really interesting. I've had the 24-120 D (not the DX/VR lens..its film body predecessor) for nearly five years and it is anything but cheap feeling.
I also have the 12-24 Nikkor DX and concur--it's an outstanding performer. I'd guess I use these two lenses roughly 75% of the time. The rest of the time its the 80-400 VR or the 200mm macro. That's all the glass I own.
I haven't used the 24-120D, but the DX is plastic, especially compared to all our d series lenses. With it extended to 120, really prone to damage when banged around. Of course we generally paid more for the D series lenses, but I'd be very happy to pay more to get a beefier version. Especially if it was an f/4 or f/2.8 and used 77mm filters like so many other lenses we use. We own four of the 24-120mmVR's, simply in order to have two on hand at all time in case of failures. My wife and I both use the model so extensively that it's a terrible disruption to ship one off for repair and wait for its eventual return. We're hard on gear, but not THAT hard on it.
The main advantage for SD cards is there are no little pins to eventually break off. The tiny size is secondary.
Kent in SD
BTW- Harking back to the origin of this thread, Fuji has just announced the S5, next generation after the S3 and available "in February 2007." They're honking on the sensor and onboard processing and a "D200" alloy body, but being coy about buffer, write speed and price. We paid for a commercial building and lots more with several S2's and have no qualms about image quality, but the buffer and write speed issues with the S3 forced us to buy D2X's instead. Might pick up the S5 as backup for the D2X's even if our issues aren't resolved but the price is competitive, but it depends a lot on whether Fuji lives up to that "February 2007" forecast.
I only bring up the S5 because even their S2 image quality is superb, S3 is even better, and S5 is proclaimed to be even better. It's definitely worth any Nikon user holding off a little bit in buying any new body until a little more is known about the S5.