400d vs. D80...different perspective

[Elbee19]

Many on this forum may have seen this already but here's a link to the 400D vs. D80 comparison from the DCView angle. This seems to be a more accurate comparison weighing in all of the differenct aspects of both cameras.

http://http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80-review.htm (http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80/Canon-Rebel-XTi-Nikon-D80-review.htm)

[condyk]

This seems to be a more accurate comparison weighing in all of the differenct aspects of both cameras.

Seems a fair review but I am surprised you US people are paying more for the Nikon than we are here, but somehow paying quite a lot less for the Canon than we do. I can only guess prices there reflect that the D80 is so new and so not yet settled.

Personally, having owned a 350D and handled a 400 and a D80 there is no comparison which I would buy. The Nikon and with their decent kit lens, or even better with their superb 18-200mm VR, which is about the best bang per £ around at the moment IMO. However, if my main interest was long lenses then I would go with the Canon.

[Billginthekeys]

much better review than the cnet one, and there's no doubt the D80 is a nice camera, with quite a few nice options (11AF points, spot metering, 1/3 stop ISO, ect). but its price, feature set, and quality level pin it more against the 30D i still feel.

[condyk]

... there's no doubt the D80 is a nice camera, with quite a few nice options (11AF points, spot metering, 1/3 stop ISO, ect). but its price, feature set, and quality level pin it more against the 30D i still feel.

So you can get a camera equal to the 30D for a lot less ... cool!

As I keep saying, spend the cash you save over a 30D on a decent lens and I reckon you will get better shots that you'll get spending the same amount on a 30D and a kit lens, or similar .... and I have a 30D!

[Billginthekeys]

So you can get a camera equal to the 30D for a lot less ... cool!

As I keep saying, spend the cash you save over a 30D on a decent lens and I reckon you will get better shots that you'll get spending the same amount on a 30D and a kit lens, or similar .... and I have a 30D!
here in the US they are priced almost the same, dont know about on the other side of the pond. at B&H the D80 body is $975, and the 30D is $1050. the XTI on the other hand is $799 ($719 if you can deal with silver!), so you tell me which is the bigger difference.

[red hot sheep]

From warehouseexpress:

Nikon D80: £551
Canon 400d: £464
Canon 30d: £743

So in Uk, D80 is nearly £200 less.

[condyk]

here in the US they are priced almost the same, dont know about on the other side of the pond. at B&H the D80 body is $975, and the 30D is $1050. the XTI on the other hand is $799 ($719 if you can deal with silver!), so you tell me which is the bigger difference.

Cheapest, give or take, that I can get them in UK delivered to my door is:

30D £713.99/US$1354.17
D80 £568.99/US$1079.15
400D £459.99/US$872.41

So, significantly closer to 400D price than 30D price here. Possible in the UK the Nikon is a better buy and in the US the Canon.

[Billginthekeys]

wow. thats quite an overall price difference. i think the D80 is a fine camera if you are just getting into photography and dont have a brand preference.

[The Hardcard]

I don't know why, but Canon pics look better than Nikon pics invariably to me, even in comparisons designed to show that the Nikons are better. This is true even for ISO100 pics and even when the Canon's are the lower rez cameras.

Maybe Canon did something to my eyes. But to me, that is the trump card.

[steved110]

Pretty much all the new crop of DSLRs from all the manufacturers have good noise levels at low ISO - it's at high ISO that noise starts to become an issue.
they also have pretty much got very good metering syustems. where Canon and Nikon stand out from cameras like the Sony Alpha and the Oly's is in things like AF speed and accuracy, buffer size and write times, and FPS. Also things like the number of RAWs you can take ina burst, and how long it takes the camera to catch up.

Unless you are already bonded to a make, the field is widening. I would have a hard time choosing between Canon and Nikon right now, though a year ago it was easier - the D70s never really cut it IMO. the D200 is a great camera, but it slots in above the 30D and below the 5D - does anyone else think these gaps have been left deliberately???

For me the main plus for Canon was that I was used to the Eos system, had a reasonably good set of consumer zooms and liked the extensive range of accessories and lenses in the EF system. It was not till I joined POTN that I started to get educated right into the poorhouse.

But I am still glad I have Canon gear.

[lakiluno]

Wow...the D80 has 23 fps - its practically a 10 Megapixel video camera!

[condyk]

I don't know why, but Canon pics look better than Nikon pics invariably to me, even in comparisons designed to show that the Nikons are better. This is true even for ISO100 pics and even when the Canon's are the lower rez cameras. Maybe Canon did something to my eyes. But to me, that is the trump card.

People post shots here that are hopelessly OOF or badly oversharpened and over saturated but they feel they are great shots and others also agree with them. People develop a sense of what a good shot looks like. Any deviation they see as worse. That isn't necesarily the case. So, to me at least, what you say isn't a trump card but rather that you may need to look at how you are seeing. I doubt very much that you are right and all those Nikon owners are just plain wrong.

[steved110]

Anyone know why the Nikon 18-200 VR is so very good? Is it just the addition of VR to a consumer zoom like the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses , or is it really something special?

Apparently there is a massive waiting list for this lens in the UK - at least the last time I looked a month or 6 weeks back . I must admit I was rather hoping Canon would bring out something similar.

[SimonG]

Anyone know why the Nikon 18-200 VR is so very good? Is it just the addition of VR to a consumer zoom like the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses , or is it really something special? ...
Maybe people just really like the hefty distortion throughout the zoom range? ;)

Seriously though, people like it because it has a very convenient zoom range (similar to that of many compact digital cameras) and the image quality is pretty good all considered. The VR / IS is just icing in the cake methinks. Canon would be smart to release a lens in this class, as it would probablly appeal to many.

[grego]

much better review than the cnet one, and there's no doubt the D80 is a nice camera, with quite a few nice options (11AF points, spot metering, 1/3 stop ISO, ect). but its price, feature set, and quality level pin it more against the 30D i still feel.

Nikon always sticks more into its cameras than Canon. That's a fact you have to live with. Canon only started with 1/3 ISO in their lower body with the 30D. They've had the 1/3 ISO in their other bodies for a while, now.

Seems a fair review but I am surprised you US people are paying more for the Nikon than we are here, but somehow paying quite a lot less for the Canon than we do. I can only guess prices there reflect that the D80 is so new and so not yet settled.

Personally, having owned a 350D and handled a 400 and a D80 there is no comparison which I would buy. The Nikon and with their decent kit lens, or even better with their superb 18-200mm VR, which is about the best bang per £ around at the moment IMO. However, if my main interest was long lenses then I would go with the Canon.

Dave, that's how it is here. Nikon products tend to be priced a little higher, even if they are in direct competition with each other, while the Canon's tend to be less. The brand lens by each company are like that too. When you jump to 3rd party like Sigma, then the advantage goes to Nikon mount.

[Billginthekeys]

Canon only started with 1/3 ISO in their lower body with the 30D. They've had the 1/3 ISO in their other bodies for a while, now.

Yea, i never figured it was a big deal till i got my 1D. definitly a great feature.

[grego]

Yea, i never figured it was a big deal till i got my 1D. definitly a great feature.

That's where Nikon excells. they throw in a lot more. However, you pay more. So there are tradeoffs in everything. It pretty much comes down to what you prefer, after that.

[aLFaDaRK]

I love the little mistake they made with the nikon, "23 fps", heh if it was that fast, it might as well have a super high res video mode. :P

[Jon]

Yea, i never figured it was a big deal till i got my 1D. definitly a great feature.
Funny, it bugs the Hell out of me! I wish it were a selectable option.

[fWord]

My Dad is actually in the market for a new DSLR and is starting from scratch. Initially, I had been a strong advocate of the 400D because Canon was a brand I'd known and come to love since photography was in its infancy for me.

Back in the days when I first entered the DSLR arena and got a 350D, I felt it was a fantastic buy, and to me, a clear winner above the D70. Now I have to read these reviews with as open a mind as possible since it's buying for my Dad, not myself.

And for better or worse, Canon seems to have lost out slightly now in this match. The 400D is no longer a clear winner or an immediate first pick. In fact, despite the higher cost of the D80 I might have gone for this if I were starting afresh. Moreover, we might have to factor in a kit lens replacement for the 400D if my Dad is not happy with it. With the D80 I'm considering just getting the body alone and then shopping for the old 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (?) rather than getting the 18-135mm lens, which I heard is crap.

Anybody has any advice on this matter? How much brighter is the D80 viewfinder? My Dad's eyesight is going, so I think he's going to appreciate the larger VF of the D80 as well.

[grego]

My Dad is actually in the market for a new DSLR and is starting from scratch. Initially, I had been a strong advocate of the 400D because Canon was a brand I'd known and come to love since photography was in its infancy for me.


He's starting from scratch, but how often do you see him. I'd advise going Canon just because you could let him borrow stuff or likewise. That's why I like having friends who have Canon equipment, because then i can borrow stuff. Also, for the simple fact of explaining stuff, if he has a question, you'd have more familiarity with Canon. If you were a Nikon user, i'd say go Nikon.

[fWord]

He's starting from scratch, but how often do you see him. I'd advise going Canon just because you could let him borrow stuff or likewise. That's why I like having friends who have Canon equipment, because then i can borrow stuff. Also, for the simple fact of explaining stuff, if he has a question, you'd have more familiarity with Canon. If you were a Nikon user, i'd say go Nikon.

Good point. I was considering that too...he could borrow my lenses on the occasions that he needs it. Trouble is that I don't see him all that often, not these days anyway. He's in Australia, and I'm in Singapore, conscripted in the military. Subsequently I don't even know if I'd end up working in Singapore, or if I'd fly back to Australia. Even then he's staying near the city and I might be working in the countryside. :confused:

Once I get the 1D on Tuesday (pray, oh pray, if everything goes well), I'll be using a 28-105mm as a walkaround, which my Dad won't exactly find useful on a 400D I reckon. And the 300mm, well, doubt if he'd want to use that. So currently it appears that the idea of sharing lenses might be out of the window, so the comparison between each brand gets even more stiff.

But you're right in saying that I'm more familiar with Canon and can help him if anything goes awry. Heheh...funniest thing is that he'll be getting the camera on the first day of our New Zealand holiday when I next see him in mid-November. I bet he'll be needing a lot of help to tweak that camera so he can use it. :lol:

*sigh* Decisions...descisions...anyway, I'm awaiting a quote from a local shop on the prices of the 400D and D80 packages. Still, if the difference is just a couple of hundred Singapore dollars, it's not an important factor for my Dad either. I just need to make sure my conscience is clear, and get him a camera he'd really enjoy. I've told him that he can pick either one and still be very happy, but we're not really the 'flip-a-coin-and-decide' type.

[Dewpoint]

My Dad is actually in the market for a new DSLR and is starting from scratch. Initially, I had been a strong advocate of the 400D because Canon was a brand I'd known and come to love since photography was in its infancy for me.

Back in the days when I first entered the DSLR arena and got a 350D, I felt it was a fantastic buy, and to me, a clear winner above the D70. Now I have to read these reviews with as open a mind as possible since it's buying for my Dad, not myself.

And for better or worse, Canon seems to have lost out slightly now in this match. The 400D is no longer a clear winner or an immediate first pick. In fact, despite the higher cost of the D80 I might have gone for this if I were starting afresh. Moreover, we might have to factor in a kit lens replacement for the 400D if my Dad is not happy with it. With the D80 I'm considering just getting the body alone and then shopping for the old 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (?) rather than getting the 18-135mm lens, which I heard is crap.

Anybody has any advice on this matter? How much brighter is the D80 viewfinder? My Dad's eyesight is going, so I think he's going to appreciate the larger VF of the D80 as well.

I'm not sure why these cameras get compared. The XTi is a step down from the D80 and yet does really well when compared against it. Both are nice but IMO the D80 is not $400 nicer when comparing kit to kit against the XTi.

I see a lot of comparisons, stats and facts but nobody says much about the "feel" of the images between the two. IMO XTi is better.

-r

[grego]

I'm not sure why these cameras get compared. The XTi is a step down from the D80 and yet does really well when compared against it.

Step down? It's in the same category as the D80. It joins the Sony Alpha and Pentax and Sigma models that are also out there aimmed at the DSLR entry level consummer.

[Dewpoint]

Step down? It's in the same category as the D80. It joins the Sony Alpha and Pentax and Sigma models that are also out there aimmed at the DSLR entry level consummer.


IMO the D80 and XTi are not the same level of camera. The D80 being slightly higher quality with more features and much higher price.

-r

[grego]

IMO the D80 and XTi are not the same level of camera. The D80 being slightly higher quality with more features and much higher price.

-r

Nikon is always like that. They always charge more for their brand products, but give more in the lower end stuff, compared to Canon.

Only just now did Canon put 1/3 ISO stops and spot metering in the 30D. Previously that level lacked it while way way back, the Nikon D100(which is the rival for the 10D) had those things.

I love Canon, but that's probably one of my few complaints about them.

[fWord]

In the past, back in the days when the Rebel XT pretty much owned the entry-level IQ street, the difference between the XT and D70/ D70s image quality was very clear. Based on the noise levels in the samples alone, I already made my decision.

The XT was just so much smoother and cleaner. Now it gets a bit harder to choose because Nikon seems to have closed the gap. The D80 exhibits less chroma noise than the XTi, though at the expense of some details.

There might be other differences too, in color and the like, but off the top of my head now I really can't be sure.

Dewpoint is definitely right in saying that the D80 is significantly more expensive. I'm also not sure how the kit lens compares to the one on the 400D. In the world of photography, things get exponentially more expensive even with a little bit of improvement, so maybe that's why we see this price gap.

Man...tough decision. Worse, it's my Dad I'm buying for. If it's myself and I make the 'wrong' decision, at least it's only me that suffers. :(

No point for me to post another D80 vs 400D thread here anyway, since we know who's homeland we're in. ;)

EDIT: I bet my Dad would have really liked a Pentax K10D, but that one's delayed unfortunately, and we need the camera by mid November.

[Dewpoint]

I'll ramble some more perhaps it will help. :)

I chose the XTi over the D80 and I could have purchased anything in the store. I'm not bragging it's just that the practical side of me won over, I like Canon images and I wanted a small DSLR that makes great images. I am one of the few that likes the small size I think. My wife and I travel a lot and I don't do hardly any indoor or flash stuff at the moment.

Let me tell you where the D80 lost out. At the time I was shopping I could only find kits of both cameras - no bodies anywhere. :( But I did not want the 18-135 kit lens on the D80 and I liked the D80 in so many ways.

D80 $1299.00
XTi $899.00

I oohed and aaawed for weeks before going to the store and just picking the XTi. It was a toss up. With the money I saved I purcashed Adobe PSE, a case, my online gallery subscription and the rest will go toward a lens.

I really really like my XTi and it was the best decision for me. So let me say something really contradictory. If I were buying for someone else, (I think FWord is) especially a gift, I would get them the D80. It has wow factor. At the moment, it has features and a quality to it that would make the owner WANT to possess and use it. It's the one that says buy me and grow into using me well. :)

I don't regret my personal choice however, it's my first DSLR.

I hope that doesn't sound too strange. I need more coffee.

-r

[fWord]

It's true though...the price difference is very steep. At the local store they're giving away freebies with the 400D while there is none for the D80. By doing that they've made the actual price difference seem to be a lot less but it is still there.

The D80 really does have the 'wow' factor. It seems to have the right stuff...no, not stuff that my Dad would use tomorrow, but perceivably within a year or so. The bigger viewfinder is something he'd enjoy immediately though. I love small cameras too, which explains why I had a 350D in the past. My Dad didn't complain about the size either, so I expect the same positive response about the 400D.

It's not actually a gift for him, but it's his cash, just that I am buying it for him in Singapore since electronics are way cheaper than they are in Australia.

Over here the difference is S$400, and a 1GB and a tripod (not sure what kind...if I'm guessing right it might even be a Manfrotto 055Pro). Maybe I'll convince him to save the money and put that towards buying a better lens to replace the kit, though I suspect that will be sufficient for him for a while. It was, for me too.

[Dewpoint]

One thing I've noticed when people comment about why they purchased the D80. "It just feels better...I really like the viewfinder..."

I liked the viewfinder too but I must say I don't miss not having one like it on the XTi. I never even think about it until I read it again somewhere online.

I've never heard a single person ever mention that they really love the images from the D80. They always just mention stats and physical characteristics of the camera.

This all leads me to say something which perhaps isn't fair. Many people purchasing a camera at this level are buying an object. They are going at it much like they might shop for a automobile. My observations are that they are thinking more about a thing than they are about images they can make with it.

I'm not trying to sound elitist or snobish it's just something I've noticed.

-r

[fWord]

Well, yes that might be a valid point as well. I'd admit straight away that initially I bought a camera solely on the basis on the quality of images it'll give. I was after ultimate image quality...build and handling was something I didn't consider. I didn't even test the camera at the store to see if it was right for me, and many people suggested I do that even before handing over the cash.

Over time I've come to appreciate handling and build even more though, and while it's far from 50-50 with image quality, I would say it's something I'll take into consideration from now on. Not that light cameras are bad. They're great for travel. But I enjoy holding something that's weighty and not heavy...you know, something with some 'meat' on it.

However after taking everything in I guess I might recommend that my Dad take the 400D. He's moving up from an ultra-compact camera...one of those IXUS type things. I'm sure he'll appreciate the lightness.

[rbush83]

I didn't want to make a new post to air dirty laundry so I will slip this in here. There are some more than insignificant rumblings about the D80's matrix II overexposing erratically from 0.3 to 1EV. Do a little digging in the obvious places and you will see what I mean.
I entered into the dSLR realm with a D50 and I've been very happy with it. I feel both companies make good stuff, and when I bought, a D50 was $550 while a Rebel XT was $720. A significant difference to a strapped grad student. I also am more open to value lenses right now from the likes of tamron and sigma's best, so Canon's excellent lenses were are a moot point for me, for now. I alsok new that if I needed to sell off and switch systems, I wouldn't mind taking the hit 2 years in the future when my financial situation will be drastically different.
So anyway with the announcement of the D80 I was very excited. It's feature set is awesome, like a baby D200. But in reading up on it this problem has reared its ugly head and it's pretty significant IMO. Opinions run the gamut from those defending it's metering handling outright, to those say %80 of their shots from some outings need serious tweaking to be salvaged. It is simply overexposing and/or blowing out highlights like there's no tomorrow. Something in its metering algorithms seems amiss or something. I guess the D70 is pretty well known for underexposing, and there's speculation that Noink may have overcompensated or otherwise screwed up somehow.
So anyway I guess I'd just bring that to the attention of the board.

[condyk]

An example of the worst kind of 'internet amplification'. Someone 'helpfully' pontificating based on what they read from other people who are doing the same and not what they know from experience or, even, from authoritative sources. Then expecting people to go searching around to find some confirmation. How about a few links so people can judge validity? They're probably comments from people who never move their camera out of fully auto mode! A couple of weeks ago I read one of the UK's leading magazines review the D80. Outstanding. Based on that I had a second good play with one. Excellent value. About as good a camera as anyone will ever buy at its price point.

[farrukh]

Wow...the D80 has 23 fps - its practically a 10 Megapixel video camera!

Typing error. Its 3 fps actually.

[AdamJL]

I'm not sure why these cameras get compared. The XTi is a step down from the D80 and yet does really well when compared against it. Both are nice but IMO the D80 is not $400 nicer when comparing kit to kit against the XTi.
-r

Agreed. The 400D should be compared to the D50.

Then it's 30D vs D80 vs Alpha

[grego]

Agreed. The 400D should be compared to the D50.

Then it's 30D vs D80 vs Alpha

Why? The 10mp rivals in the same generation are the 400D for Canon, Nikon D80, Pentax, Sony Alpha, and soon to be Sigma. The specs fit in very similar in terms of the ones that they target at the consummer. 10mp, 3fps. The 30D fits more with the D200's model as the D200 was the answer to Canon's 20D that was out for a long while.

The D80 seems to be a better camera. Ooh, Nikon has a better camera. wooo!! Not going to make the photographer better.

Nikon charges more. That's a fact. However, they throw in more features, so are those features and the Nikon brand worth it? It depends. For some, yes, for some no. There are always preferences that fit each individual. Canon brand bodies and lens go for less. Although 3rd party makers like Sigma make less expensive mounts for Nikon.

[condyk]

Kinda agreed ... as I have pointed out a number of times the D80 is much closer in price to the 400D in the Uk (if you shop around a tad rather than pay full retail!!) Seems to me that that if I was buying a fresh then I would want to stretch the little extra in the Uk to the D80 AND if I was looking at the 30D price I wouldn't want to pay the extra for the 30D and get no useful benefit. Nikon have been clever in how they position over there.

[AdamJL]

Why? The 10mp rivals in the same generation are the 400D for Canon, Nikon D80, Pentax, Sony Alpha, and soon to be Sigma. The specs fit in very similar in terms of the ones that they target at the consummer. 10mp, 3fps. The 30D fits more with the D200's model as the D200 was the answer to Canon's 20D that was out for a long while.

So because they all have 10mp, we should compare them? Hey, let's throw in a few 10mp P&S cameras as well while we're at it.
The target market should be the main driver for comparisons, not specs. The 400D is aimed at beginners, and might tempt a few people from the 30D market. The D80 is aimed at the higher market and might tempt a few people from the beginner area.

The D80 seems to be a better camera. Ooh, Nikon has a better camera. wooo!! Not going to make the photographer better.

I've no idea why you said this, I didn't even allude to this at all...
Jumped to conclusions there I think.

Nikon DO make excellent cameras. And if I didn't want to invest in Canon's lens system, then I would have chosed a Nikon instead. Not everyone thinks of Nikon v Canon in black and white, so don't assume I do.

[AdamJL]

Kinda agreed ... as I have pointed out a number of times the D80 is much closer in price to the 400D in the Uk (if you shop around a tad rather than pay full retail!!) Seems to me that that if I was buying a fresh then I would want to stretch the little extra in the Uk to the D80 AND if I was looking at the 30D price I wouldn't want to pay the extra for the 30D and get no useful benefit. Nikon have been clever in how they position over there.

Spot on. Nikon have definitely thought out their price-points, and have really made their cameras appeal to the right crowds.

[grego]

So because they all have 10mp, we should compare them? Hey, let's throw in a few 10mp P&S cameras as well while we're at it.
The target market should be the main driver for comparisons, not specs. The 400D is aimed at beginners, and might tempt a few people from the 30D market. The D80 is aimed at the higher market and might tempt a few people from the beginner area.


The target market is first time buyers. The 10 MP will attract the entry level consummers. Most veteran Nikon user, if upgrading would jump to d200, if they had a d100 or d70 or d50.

All the 10 MP cameras are targeted at the new digital photography crowd. Obviously, others aren't excluded, but for like the XT(which was Canon's former entry level, they produce the bigger profit).

Nikon's bodies have always been more than Canon's at the same market level. D100 was more expensive than the 10D. Heck, even when the 20D was relatively new, the D100 was near the same price.

Canon has been nice in terms of price. Their D30 went to D60 and price dropped. Then when the 10D came out, they released it at an even nicer price. Then the 20D when it came out in the US started at 1499, which was the lowest starting for a Canon.

Now because of the D200, because Nikon took their time(they had the D100 out for so long), they beat the 20D and beat the 30D, in terms of the overall package. Canon's way of trying to win, was by lowering the price even more, especially since they didn't change the processor.

The D200 is a hybrid because the D2h has not been as successful. So they gave it a little extra.

Most people if going higher will buy the D200 or D2x. Nikon has finally found their bearings and found a way to offer to each level, high quality stuff.

Canon has gone too "P&S" with the Rebel series(or at least sticking to a similar film version.

Price
D2Xs/D2X > 1DMKIIn/1DMKII
D200 > 30D
D80 > 400D


I've no idea why you said this, I didn't even allude to this at all...
Jumped to conclusions there I think.

Nikon DO make excellent cameras. And if I didn't want to invest in Canon's lens system, then I would have chosed a Nikon instead. Not everyone thinks of Nikon v Canon in black and white, so don't assume I do.

My point, not necessairly directed at you. More in general is, that Nikon is winning in this area, so people say, it's not a fair comparison. That's why. They use the "price" as a way to say, they Nikon's camera is better, because its more expensive. But it is their new camera that goes up against the Sony, the Canon, the pentax, the Sigma.

[rbush83]

Well I will start this post by saying there are definitely a LOT of happy D80 owners out there. It really is a nice camera. Some people, ranging in experience from those new to dSLRs to very experienced have noticed that when using matrix metering in admittedly tough lighting conditions, the camera tends to favor exposing for the shadows and blowing out significant portions. Maybe it's a preference thing, maybe not. Everyone knows the D70 leaned towards underexposing, and a lot of people just dial in +0.3 - 0.7 EC and were happy with it. People right now are saying that they get better results with -0.3 - -0.7EC on the D80. In a lot of the threads I read you will find quotes along the lines of "hi I found this forum after searching for d80 overexposure after being disappointed with most of my shots from a recent outing" etc.
Now, I really hate to mention KR, we all know where is comments come from, but I figure anything negative he has to mention about Nikon might have a tiny bit of merit to it. I think we can agree he knows how to get what he wants out of a camera too.

"Oddly my D80 seems to overexpose about a half stop. This is bad - it ought to be right on. I need to work more to see it it's simply a matter of having to leave the compensation at a constant -2/3 stop, or if it's inconsistent, which would be a big problem." - KR

Is the D80 a nice camera? For sure. Is the metering issue real? I believe that it is in fact acting a little quirky in some situations from what I have read. It seems it's happening in relatively difficult high contrast situations were something will have to be compromised in either the highlights or the shadows to preserve tones in the other. A lot of people aren't happy because they feel the D80 is blowing out the highlights in order to preserve shadow detail. They argue that once the highlights are blown, they are gone, and that shadows can be saved in PP. That could just be a preference thing.
Is it a deal breaker? Certainly not. It is something to think about though and be aware of. A lot of D80 users are aware of it and are able to work with it. You just need to know how your tools are going to react in a given situation.

I don't want to post any of the test shots and galleries others have done here. They could probably be found if anyone were so inclined by doing a little searching, but I'll just leave at that because I don't want to endorse any of the methods or anything. People are free to build their own conclusions (assuming they even care enough to check it out, I understand why this wouldn't matter to anyone here :) ). I'll be watching to see if the issue becomes a non-issue and goes away or otherwise.