decided D80 but still some questiones

Personally, for beginner lenses I would get the 18-55 VR and the fabulous 55-200 VR.

The more I use the 55-200 VR, the more amazed I am by it. It has as good (if not better) image quality than my $1700 70-200 VR.

I do not care for the 18-135 because it isn't VR. VR is a big deal.

Another lens to add to the list is the $100 50mm f/1.8


Ive never seen a post I ever disagreed more with.

If you think the 55-200 VR is better than the 70-200 VR, then you have no business owning the 70-200. Why would a noob own such an amazing lens. Give it to me if you dont like it.

The 70-200 2.8 VR is one of the best lenses Nikon has ever made. I agree, the 55-200 VR one of the best lenses for the money today but it does rank number 4 for Nikon in this same Focal length range. Nikon also makes a 70-300 VR, a 80-400 VR, and the blessed 70-200 2.8 VR.

Also, VR is a great tool, but its not THAT big of a deal. Photographers have been shooting for almost 200 years without it. With a D3, the need for lenses with VR is almost completely eliminated. I just cant justify upgrading the kit lens to a version with VR. VR is most effective on TELEPHOTO lenses.

I recommend the Tamron 18-50 2.8, the Nikon 55-200 VR, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM, and the Nikon 50 1.8.
 
Just goes to show how good the cheap consumer grade glass is. Stopped down at about f/8 during daylight shooting I bet you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between the two. Obviously the 70-200 is far more rugged, 2 stops faster, and has real AF-S. That's what you get for 7 times the price.

As for the 18-55, my 18-55VR equals the performance of my 17-55DX f/2.8 at night. The VR system makes up for the slower aperture so I no longer need to carry around my f/2.8 in a strange city at night if I don't want to. And stopped down during daylight shooting I can't tell the difference between the 18-55VR and the 17-55DX either. The 18-55VR was actually a bit sharper in the far corners! :lol:

BTW, I can pull off sharp shots at 300mm on my 70-300VR at only 1/5s and f/5.6 in the last fading light of sunset before it goes completely dark out, and only needed iso400. I would have had to crank a D3 all the way up to iso6400 if not higher to pull that off without VR and no tripod, and I bet the iso400 image would have looked far better.
 
I know you say you're "decided," but seriously why would you choose a D80 over one of the many mint used d200's available on ebay for the same $$?
 
well the biggest reason is because i can pay for it w/credit so i wont have to pay for it all at once. also i prefer to get something thats new, mostly cause i can be kinda of a worry word. and ive done alot of research on the D80, and im a noob at DSLR's so i see the D80 as a good starting point to grow with for years
 
well the biggest reason is because i can pay for it w/credit so i wont have to pay for it all at once. also i prefer to get something thats new, mostly cause i can be kinda of a worry word. and ive done alot of research on the D80, and im a noob at DSLR's so i see the D80 as a good starting point to grow with for years

Also spend a bit more for an extended warranty. Any problem with it send it back, let them fix it. Than when the warranty come to an end, sell it for another new camera.
 
BTW, I can pull off sharp shots at 300mm on my 70-300VR at only 1/5s and f/5.6 in the last fading light of sunset before it goes completely dark out, and only needed iso400. I would have had to crank a D3 all the way up to iso6400 if not higher to pull that off without VR and no tripod, and I bet the iso400 image would have looked far better.
Hang on, I'm gonna go get my waders out of the closet. :lol:
 
Hang on, I'm gonna go get my waders out of the closet. :lol:


HAHAHAHAHA!!


Right, I can almost smell the bull****.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to get an equally sharp shot at 300mm and 1/5 at 5.6.

Unless youre dead and inanimate.
 
[size=+1]70-300VR: 240mm, 1/3s[/size]

Full photo:
DSC_5819_D40-vi.jpg


100% crop:
DSC_5819_D40crop-vi.jpg


EXIF:
DSC_5819EXIF-vi.gif





[size=+1]70-300VR: 300mm, 1/5s[/size]

Full photo:
DSC_5818_D40-vi.jpg


100% crop:
DSC_5818_D40crop-vi.jpg


EXIF:
DSC_5818EXIF-vi.gif



See any hand shake blurring? I don't.
 
See any hand shake blurring? I don't.
:hail::hail::hail:

I would have had to crank a D3 all the way up to iso6400 if not higher to pull that off without VR and no tripod, and I bet the iso400 image would have looked far better.
I was actually heading for the D3 comparison as it was an untested opinion. :mrgreen:
 
:hail::hail::hail:


I was actually heading for the D3 comparison as it was an untested opinion. :mrgreen:
1/5s - iso 400 <--- my D40 / 70-300VR shot
1/10s - iso 800
1/20s - iso 1600
1/40s - iso 3200
1/80s - iso 6400 <--- D3 shot @ 300mm w/o VR?
1/160s - iso 12,800
1/320s - iso 25,600

I'll be generous and say that you would have been able to squeeze at least one sharp shot off at 1/80s w/o VR on a D3 at 300mm. From all of the high ISO comparisons out there I'd have to say that while the D3 still looks surprisingly good at iso6400, it's still a lot grainer, and that given the neutral/flat background of the sky the D40 with VR and only having to go to iso400 would have taken the better photo for A LOT less money. :mrgreen:
 
WOW, Mav, those are some excellent shots! What can you handhold down to without VR? Less than 1/300 at 300mm, I imagine.

Fantastic.
 
[SIZE=+1]70-300VR: 300mm, 1/5s[/SIZE]

Thanks Mav for the shot samples. So Nikon boasting that the VR is equavalent of 4 clicks has some weight by the look of it. Your 1/5 was equivalent of 1/80, shooting at 300mm. I tell you man you have very steady hands, worse than mine.

And this midget D40, I feel good to have it really, I am vindicated :lol::lol::lol:.
 
HAHAHAHAHA!!


Right, I can almost smell the bull****.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to get an equally sharp shot at 300mm and 1/5 at 5.6.

Unless youre dead and inanimate.

I love it when people make statements of INCONTROVERTIBLE truth and then get proven wrong :lol:
 
Oh silly me! Here it is! The ones above were not even the best examples. :lol:

[size=+1]70-300 VR: 300mm, 1/2s[/size]

Full shot:
DSC_5770_D40-vi.jpg



EXIF:
DSC_5770_D40EXIF-vi.jpg


Look sharp to you? It does to me. Actually it's not quite fully 100% sharp. At 100% on my screen you can see just the slightest bit of hand shake slur in the street sign, but that's pixel peeping and the equivalent of viewing a 30" wide print at a distance of 1 foot, which nobody does. Moving back a few feet or reducing magnification slightly your eyes lose the ability to resolve at the level needed to see the very slight amount of hand shake blur and you can no longer tell. So at any reasonable print size viewed from any reasonable distance, this is a sharp photo. Or more correctly, "serviceably sharp".

I took three photos of this while figuring out what I could get away with on this thing. This one was at 1/2s, and the other two were at 1/3s. Two out of three were sharp. Oddly the one that wasn't sharp was at 1/3s, not the 1/2s shot. So with an average of 1/2.5s for the two sharp shots, that's a full stop beyond "IMPOSSIBLE". :lol: Geez I coulda just left my ISO at the D40's base of 200 and fired away at a half second, but I was trying not to push my luck too much. :p
 

Most reactions

Back
Top