dpreview Just posted complete D80 review

Yea I know this is a Canon forum! LOL

Just thought since there was a lot of debate over the 400d and the D80 that I would post the review here since they have comparisions between the two cameras including high ISO.

As usual dpreview has done an excellent job with the review, the 400d review should be online in the next few days.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/nikond80/

Read it, good review as usual. Still keeping my Rebel XTi

I don't agree.

Phil's ISO test photos of a flat, shadow-free, evenly illuminated stamp don't put a camera's real-world high ISO ability to the test at all, given that noise problems manifest themselves, in the main, in shadows and unevenly lit areas.

If his tests involved 3 dimensional scenes with shadows and crappy, uneven light (ie real world situations) I can guarantee that his impressions of noise performance (and ours) would be wildly different from what is gleaned by those stamp photos.

Well its not a shot of just a stamp, those are crops of a standard test chart with stamps in the middle as seen here: http://www.dpreview.co​m …/Noise_Measurem​ent_01.htm

he compares the middle grey and black for luminace and chroma noise, and uses the stamp as a reference for the loss of detail due to NR.

You wont find a more complete and unbiased review, not to mention that he test and uses dozens of different cameras each year so his comemtary regarding real world usage are quite informative as well.

You can always compare the sample shoots : http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/nikond80/pag​e30.asp between cameras to get a "real world" comparison of IQ including ISO. He has not posted the 400d review yet so no sample shoots available yet. He shoots a variaty of different subjects for the samples but usually the same ones from test to test.

Reviewing the D80 to the 400D is wrong and intentionally misleading.

The review should have compared the D80 to the EOS 20D as both sell for the same price and both represent one step up from Nikon and Canon's product lines.

RichNY wrote in post #2032030
Reviewing the D80 to the 400D is wrong and intentionally misleading.

The review should have compared the D80 to the EOS 20D as both sell for the same price and both represent one step up from Nikon and Canon's product lines.

Yes, I'm sure dpreview is out to intentionally mislead the consumer.



But, since you feel it was intentional, perhaps you could explain how it would be beneficial to intentionally mislead someone...

my buddy just upgraded from his D50 to this D80...its nice..and the viewfinder is SOOOO much nicer and much larger then my XT..its a nice camera..I still stick with wanting the 30D though

In real world performance, the resolution and the noise levels are about same I'd say. I guess competition has caught up with Canon in terms of IQ. Personally if I was getting into a dslr, I would consider the Pentax K10D or a Nikond D80 more than the Canon.

Tee Why wrote in post #2033181
...... Personally if I was getting into a dslr, I would consider the Pentax K10D or a Nikond D80 more than the Canon.

LOL.
Maybe. Its tragic, but newbs don't look ahead far at all; they don't look to the "system", ie, the glass, the accessories, the pool of general knowledge "on tap" on the net... but far and away its always the glass and focus engineering.

Hmm, maybe I'm a redline snob. But from an objective POV, I'm correct.

Just scanned thru the review and it looks like a pretty nice piece of equipment with some nice options. I'll hold the image comparisons until my eyes are in better shape.

I actually got to handle a D50 for a bit tonight, nice enough but they still twist the lens on and off backwards from Canon. I guess you'd get used to it.

Tee Why wrote in post #2033181
Personally if I was getting into a dslr, I would consider the Pentax K10D or a Nikond D80 more than the Canon.

Do you believe then that they have better glass than Canon?
I think Nikon has definitely caught up, body-wise...and surpassed in several areas (meaning they are making things affordable...weatherpr​oofing and the like) but while I know the big N has several good lenses, I thought canon far outdistanced them for the most part. This is a genuine question too, not an alternative opinion....I'm wondering if you think Nikon's lenses are as good as or better than canon?

(The lenses were the major reason I went canon in the first place...)

Peregrin wrote in post #2033449
Do you believe then that they have better glass than Canon?
I think Nikon has definitely caught up, body-wise...and surpassed in several areas (meaning they are making things affordable...weatherpr​oofing and the like) but while I know the big N has several good lenses, I thought canon far outdistanced them for the most part. This is a genuine question too, not an alternative opinion....I'm wondering if you think Nikon's lenses are as good as or better than canon?

(The lenses were the major reason I went canon in the first place...)

I'd say, optically, they are about the same or even better than Canon. Plus Nikon and Canon are both big enough that you can get third party lenses without a problem, which is what I do anyway. I look at lenses from each category individually, e.g. ultrawides, not by brand name bases. All lens makers make stinkers and gems.

Personally, if someone took the same shot with comparable level og a lens and made a prints with a D80 vs XTi vs XT vs 40D, I don't think I'd be able to tell which was from which. Maybe at iso 1600, but I'd doubt you could tell on a reliable basis.

Face it. Nikon has pretty much caught up compared to before in terms of noise handling. The D80 results are much better than how it was before.

Yes, there is obviously loss of detail but this is because the consequence of how they actually go about handling the noise. The loss of detail however is hyped up more than it should be. Many try to make it seem like the images are unusable even though they definitely are.

A lot say that the tests are dumb, but theres many other reviews out there that illustrate how the D80 performs in "real world" shots. The results are similar to what was concluded in the DPreview review.

I personally still think that I'd keep the detail over the noise, but it's pretty dumb to be ignorant about their accomplishment. I used to use Nikon religiously before I switched to the 30D awhile back and the images I see from the D80 definitely shows significant improvements in their high ISO shots.

Looks a good option. Great competition at that kinda price point now. I would get the Nikon over the Canon 400 now if I was looking. The Sony I would wait to see how the system starts to fill out and the mkII comes along. All good for the consumer. D200 has fallen a lot in price too, but still a decent lens price above the 30D for not that much gain IMO.

I'll admit I chose the 300D when I first bought a DSLR because it was the least expensive and had good reviews on dpreview and other sites. With that said, given that there are essentially no DSLRs that get less than "Recommended," to the beginner (that doesn't currently own lenses for their film SLR) the least expensive is most advantaged. At first one tends to think that the "whole system" thing doesn't really matter too much since one does not exactly anticipate spending money on all the expensive lenses. I once thought it was quite an expense to have to spend a few hundred dollars for a consumer grade telephoto zoom. Anyway, little did I know at the time that I would later spend thousands of dollars on lenses and accessories. I wasn't expecting to buy more than the kit lens when I go the 300D, so I never really looked at the "whole system" when I purchased the camera. And then a while later I got my first part-time job, my DPI grew, and I started reading the forums... But that's another story.
So I guess my point is, most people starting out in DSLR photography probably don't consider the fact that Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 compared to Nikon's f/1.4, that Canon has more IS and USM lenses, or that Nikon has a 200mm f/2 VR and Defocus Control lenses.