D80 vs D90

BoostedHoo · Aug 3, 2009

i have D60 currently which i desperately want to upgrade because the limitation of the lenses i can use. now i've been looking at d90 but the price of a used one is a bit steep. so im starting to look at d80. is there anything i would be missing by going with the d80? i'm semi serious hobbyist and looking for versatility in using different lenses. any comments will be appreciated!

PhotoXopher · Aug 3, 2009

Nothing as far as lenses are concerned, but my path took me to the D90.

D40 / D80 / D200 / D90 to be exact.

If you can, I'd get the D90 for low light performance alone, not to mention the video feature, Live View, Quick Menu and GPS capability if you're into that.

BoostedHoo · Aug 4, 2009

Thanks for your response!
i think im debating between D200 and D90 now. i do not care much for liveview/move/geotagging but the low light performance of the d200 is holding me back. i held both cameras and played around with them and i love the solidity of the d200 which will help to put my mind at ease when i take it fishing with me and such. but i also want a versatile camera that i can take landscape shots and then come home, go to a wedding and take shots in a dark church.
is the low light performance of D200 that hindering?
given the price difference (gently used D200 for $600 and refurbished D90 for 800) it may seem to save little bit more for the d90.
how does D80 high iso performance compare to D60?

PhotoXopher · Aug 4, 2009

D200 high ISO sucks, it's the reason I returned mine and got the D90.

My story in a nutshell:

Bought D40

Sold D40 and bought D80 for the dual command dials and commander for off camera flash.

Sold D80 and bought D200 for GPS capability (was only $599 at Best Buy at the time).

Returned D200 and bought D90 for high ISO ability.

Been happy ever since.

The D90 is far from the cheap plastic camera some might have you believe... it's still got a metal frame and is very solid. The D200 is more rugged, but it really depends on what your shooting environment will be. You can get around some of the ISO limitations with fast glass or flash but not always. At 100 or 200 ISO the D200 was absolutely beautiful however.

This is a bad example, but it's shot at 3200 ISO with my D90, I doubt my D80 or D200 could touch this at even 800 ISO:

kundalini · Aug 4, 2009

IMO, the D80 sucks above ISO400. Up to that point, it rocks. TBH, I don't think the D200 is much of an improvement for higher ISO.... don't own one, but just gleeming from what others' say. Higher ISO performance will come from the newer releases... D90, D300 (have), D700 (have). But as you should have found out already, it's the lens for low light as much, if not more, than the body.... although the sensor design does weigh heavily.

BoostedHoo · Aug 4, 2009

hmmm... is the d200 high ISO performance that bad? even after post processing? i'm thinking the IQ of D200 is similar to D60 as they have same sensor. also i read reviews of D200 from 3 yrs ago and all were raving about its high ISO performance. now i know its old but 3 yrs from now d90 will be in the same situation as d200 is now and if i choose D90 because of new tech then i may get sucked in to the newest tech race fever which i cannot fund...
another and the main thing thats holding me back from d90 is the price difference... my friend is offering me his d200 with about 5000 clicks for 470 and if i were to get D90 its at least 800 dollars refurbished on amazon. do you have any suggestion on where i can get refurb D90 cheaper?

dizzyg44 · Aug 4, 2009

I've owned both the D80 and new D90.

The D80 is quite a nice and very capable camera without a doubt.

I remember when the D90 came out people were claiming the difference between the two wasn't worth the cost.

After having it for a little while I can tell you it well worth the cost!

The ISO capability is light years beyond the D80, the AF is far faster and more accurate. The controls are much better layed out. The meter is much more accurate. The active D-lighting is quite nice (though I find myself using much less as I learn more about exposure but is nice to have in awkward lighting condiditons)

Battery life, awesome on both. I think the D80 is a bit better but can't say for sure as I use the mb-d80 grip and have still never used half the capacity of one battery alone. (1100 shots in one time).

Which ever one you chose you will not go wrong. I'd definitely do it over again.

I can't wait to finally click "checkout" on the D700, damn gov slowness

dizzyg44 · Aug 4, 2009

Forgot to mention, which ever body you chose.....

Your greatest gain will be in your glass investment, and glass almost never become outdated.

I wish I had learned that before all the cheap lenses I went through before I got smart about it.

Sw1tchFX · Aug 5, 2009

If I shot almost exclusively at ISO 100, the D200 IMO is the DX camera to get. It just feels so great in the hands, it's fast, and it's rugged.

lvcrtrs · Aug 5, 2009

I'm amazed at how many times the low light ability of the D90 comes in handy. I've hardly ever used the flash. This is an old thread, but it will give you some examples of what it can do. And I need to tell you, some of these shots were much darker to the naked eye than they look in the photos. I'm guessing the ADL makes them look lighter. All are un touched other than resizing.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/166946-nikon-d90-low-light.html

BoostedHoo · Aug 7, 2009

just picked up a refurbed d90! thanks for your input!

blash · Aug 8, 2009

BoostedHoo said:
hmmm... is the d200 high ISO performance that bad? even after post processing?

It's all about when noise really starts to show up - noise reduction will get rid of noise but it also tends to smooth out a lot of details in the photograph.

The D60, D80, and D200 all have this previous generation of image processing. It works great at low ISO's - 100, 200, and does decently at ISO 400 - but the noise starts to really show at ISO 800 and I wouldn't shoot at ISO 1600 unless in an emergency. Does that mean that the image is (dramatically) over-powered by a HUGE amount of noise so that you can't see anything? No, but I wouldn't consider it to be a worthy print either.

The D90 and similar new bodies, on the other hand, can do high ISO's like 1600 with virtually no noise.

I shoot film and I shoot ISO 50 film on a normal basis. No, I'm not going to be shooting candids indoors with this film, but it gives you a good idea of how much ISO you really do need for certain environments. ISO 400 film outdoors was giving me rather quick 1/250 shutter speeds and better with mid-wide apertures... dunno why you'd really need anything better. Indoors, for professional quality results you need off-camera flash most of the time anyways - high ISO almost seems like a crutch to me.