DSLRUsers.com

Hi guys - have been through a fair bit on the threads on the D200, but haven't seen as much about the D80. It seems that they have pretty much the same guts [same sensor, etc].

How do you compare the two? Why would you get a D200 over a D80, or vice versa?

-F

you are right in saying that they essentially have the same sensor, there are some subtle differences, though. this is by no means a comprehensive comparison... these things were what i considered when recently confronted with the choice of d80/d200 (i had to make that decision last friday... chose the d200)

the d200 feels 'nicer' in your hands though...


d200
- 5fps / 4 channel sensor output
- magnesium body / weather sealing / better build
- larger physical size
- more 'dedicated buttons'
- cf cards (irrelevant if you do not have any other bodies)
- better autofocus
- better metering (i think?)
- jpegs: more noise at high iso (only applies to jpegs, raw output is the same)

d80
- 3fps / 2 channel sensor output
- plastic body / consumer build (having said that, its not bad, but not as rugged as d200)
- smaller physical size
- sd cards (irrelevant if you do not have any other bodies)
- more button mashing (using menus to achieve an outcome)
- less dedicated buttons (buttons that have context, ie when lcd is open the iso button will change how many pictures appear at once)
- jpegs: less noise at high iso (only applies to jpegs, raw output is the same)

Hi James - thanks for your feedback; have decided to go with the D80. Actually, i kind of like the smaller footprint, and if the image quality is pretty much the same, I'm happy.

The only downside for me was the SD card instead of CF - had got pretty comfortable with CF's with the D70, but guess i'll have to adjust!

cheers

Ashley

yeah i was about to say that the feel of the body is pretty subjective, it would really depend on how strong/fit you are and if you are keen to hold a heavier body all day. the size of your hand would also come into it too. i'm blessed with 'perfect hands for playing piano'... which aalso come in handy when mashing buttons!!!

hope you enjoy your camera buddy!

IMHO

If your upgrading from the D70 to the D80 you may have mixed feelings about the D80's image results.

The metering in the D80 is the same as the one in the D40. The D70 and D200 share the same metering and characteristics.

In my experience with the D80 I found that it constantly overexposed - i.e. metered for the subject and overexposed the backgrounds. Exposure compensation and chimping were needed constantly. However this may not bother you or the images out of the box may suit your style of photography. BTW you can get metering with old manual focus AIS lenses on the D200 you can't on the D80.

IMHO there are only two choices Non pro Nikons - the D40X or D200.

$ 500.00 price difference between the D80 and D200 may seem a lot but if you regret your purchase of the D80...

Hi guys - thanks for that [I think ]. So i guess the obvious question is: if the D80 uses the same sensor [does anyone know for sure - is it exactly the same sensor?] then why does it give this overexposure? Is it something to do with 'firmware' or something like that?

Two ancilliary questions come to mind:

1. how serious an issue is it?
2. are there any settings which can do a simple, but effective auto-correct, to get a better balance?

Thanks
F

Wouldn't exposure be determined by the meter rather than the sensor? The sensor is simply recording. If the D80 uses different metering from the D200 I would suspect that is the reason. The metering would need to be tuned to the sensor and perhaps they don't have that correct.

ATJ wrote:Wouldn't exposure be determined by the meter rather than the sensor? The sensor is simply recording.

yep, exactly right.

ATJ wrote:If the D80 uses different metering from the D200 I would suspect that is the reason. The metering would need to be tuned to the sensor and perhaps they don't have that correct.

i am not sure how the meter differs between the d200 and d80. and as i am at work unfortunately a lot of the sites i would consult to check these details are blocked.

having said that, if there is a difference between meters on the d200 and d80, and it has a TANGIBLE effect on the resulting image, there is nothing you can really do about it unfortuantely... perhaps though if you find that the camera consistently overexposes you could run -1 or -2 or - whatever EV to correct the exposure. but imho i think that is more a band aid fix to the problem than a solution.

i guess what this all comes down to is personal preference. go into a store, try out both cameras, see which end result you like. even if you like the d200 picture more, are you more likely to leave the camera at home (because of its larger size and increased heft)? are you planning to take photography seriosuly, or is it just a casual hobby... do you need the d200, do you think you'd ever want the d200?

i suppose what i am getting at is a lot of your decision really wont be about which camera is better on paper... it really matters which one you prefer and which one you think you will enjoy using the most. keep that in mind when purchasing, instead of worrying so much about dollars, cents, and features.

feldy wrote:1. how serious an issue is it?

the exposure 'problem' identified a few posts earlier is not so much an 'issue' as it is someones personal preference with how they like their images exposed.

feldy wrote:2. are there any settings which can do a simple, but effective auto-correct, to get a better balance?

exposure compensation can be used to change the end image from what the camera meters the scene at. like (i think) i said in the above post, say if you thikn the camera consistently overexposes a stop, then set EV to -1. if im wrong, someone correct me, i rarely use exposure compensation.

also if you shoot raw you will get ultimate control over EV. you can take the photo and set exposure compensation after the fact...

jamesw wrote:also if you shoot raw you will get ultimate control over EV. you can take the photo and set exposure compensation after the fact...

Only to a limited extent. You still have to be within an acceptable range. Blown highlights are blown highlights and no amount of adjustment of the raw image will get them back. I know this from experience. The same with underexposed shadows. If the detail isn't in the raw, you have lost it forever.

ATJ wrote:

jamesw wrote:also if you shoot raw you will get ultimate control over EV. you can take the photo and set exposure compensation after the fact...

Only to a limited extent. You still have to be within an acceptable range. Blown highlights are blown highlights and no amount of adjustment of the raw image will get them back. I know this from experience. The same with underexposed shadows. If the detail isn't in the raw, you have lost it forever.

you are right but with care you can avoid this problem. use the histogram to ensure that you do not have lost detail in shadows or highlights...

i do have to admit that sometimes it is just not possible to chimp when your running about, i guess if you do a lot of shooting where you dont have the chance to chimp your shot... well then i don't have a solution... perhaps a d80 user may be able to offer a solution

but i honestly don't think this is a big deal untill you use a d80 and you decide that you don't like the metering.

jamesw wrote:you are right but with care you can avoid this problem. use the histogram to ensure that you do not have lost detail in shadows or highlights...

But that is my whole point. The exposure compensation with raw processing doesn't help. You have to ensure the detail is there when the photograph is taken.

ATJ wrote:

jamesw wrote:you are right but with care you can avoid this problem. use the histogram to ensure that you do not have lost detail in shadows or highlights...

But that is my whole point. The exposure compensation with raw processing doesn't help. You have to ensure the detail is there when the photograph is taken.

i am sorry - and not being an asshole or patronising you - but do you use & understand the in camera histogram? perhaps i do not understand it (not being sarcastic)

my understanding (i have avoided using tech jargon)

as long as the bulk of the histogram sits within the boundaries of the histogram on the camera, you have preserved the bulk of the image. when the histogram goes 'off the edges', you are effectively losing either shadow or highlight detail.

because the stated problem is with d80 tending to overexpose... well then your only looking for lost highlight detail.

and having said that, as long as the detail is not lost on the histogram (ie run off the edges), you can get 2EV's of exposure latitude with raw.

Yes. I understand how to use the camera's histograms. However, the histograms only tell you that you have blown the highlights, they don't prevent it. If the camera overexposes and the highlights are blown (and, yes, the histogram will tell you that), no amount of EV compensation is going to get them back. They are gone. Kaput!

Certainly, using the histograms to review a previous image can help you to fix it for the next image, but it won't fix the already taken image if the highlights are gone.

The whole point I have been making is that if the highlights are gone, they are gone and compensating in the RAW processing isn't going to bring them back.

we are now on the same page

Using the histogram, exposure compensation and chimping are fine for getting the exposure right.

However because my images are mainly portrait my subjects tend too walk off if I'm screwing around trying to get the exposure right - or as I want it.

IMHO the D80's metering is very haphazard and the the exposure is not the same for every situation. - which means that virtually every image must be chimped. Keeping the same exposure compensation wether it be -0.7 or -1.3.
does not guarantee correct exposure.

There is plenty of info on this on the web - just google D80 over exposure.
or just read Thom Hogan's or (heaven forbid) Ken Rockwell's opinions on the D80

kind of begs the question doesn't it... one of the world's largest and supposedly most respected camera companies brings out an excellent 6.1 Mp product and follows up with another well-rated 10 Mp product, both of which seem to have excellent metering, and promptly f**ks up completely with the next one?

-F

ATJ wrote:Yes. I understand how to use the camera's histograms. However, the histograms only tell you that you have blown the highlights, they don't prevent it. If the camera overexposes and the highlights are blown (and, yes, the histogram will tell you that), no amount of EV compensation is going to get them back. They are gone. Kaput!

Certainly, using the histograms to review a previous image can help you to fix it for the next image, but it won't fix the already taken image if the highlights are gone.

The whole point I have been making is that if the highlights are gone, they are gone and compensating in the RAW processing isn't going to bring them back.

This reasoning seem fine if you are talking about an exposure that has already been made without the EV adjustment and then try to adjust exposure in PP, but if you input a -1 compensation (or whatever you decide is the correct compensation) aren't you then adjusting the metering to a similar exposure that you would get using a D200?

phillipb wrote:

ATJ wrote:Yes. I understand how to use the camera's histograms. However, the histograms only tell you that you have blown the highlights, they don't prevent it. If the camera overexposes and the highlights are blown (and, yes, the histogram will tell you that), no amount of EV compensation is going to get them back. They are gone. Kaput!

Certainly, using the histograms to review a previous image can help you to fix it for the next image, but it won't fix the already taken image if the highlights are gone.

The whole point I have been making is that if the highlights are gone, they are gone and compensating in the RAW processing isn't going to bring them back.

This reasoning seem fine if you are talking about an exposure that has already been made without the EV adjustment and then try to adjust exposure in PP, but if you input a -1 compensation (or whatever you decide is the correct compensation) aren't you then adjusting the metering to a similar exposure that you would get using a D200?

Please, please, please take the time to read what I have written. The only point I am making is that if you have lost highlights or dark detail when the image was captured you have lost it. No amount of PP will get it back.

Certainly, if you correct it BEFORE the image is captured and you haven't lost it, you haven't lost it.

Also take note of what Ivanerrol has been saying. The overexposure is not consistent. Sometimes it is 2/3 of a stop over sometimes it is more. If you get the EV compensation right you will save the image. If you don't you may not.

Hi guys - got to play with a D80 and lo and behold, I found in some [relatively inconsistent] situations, some parts of the image were blown out. Managed to change my D80 for an upgrade to a D200 before it was shipped!

feldy wrote:kind of begs the question doesn't it... one of the world's largest and supposedly most respected camera companies brings out an excellent 6.1 Mp product and follows up with another well-rated 10 Mp product, both of which seem to have excellent metering, and promptly f**ks up completely with the next one?

-F

Have to say, would be interested if anyone had a answer to the question i posed a few days ago!!!

-F

feldy wrote:kind of begs the question doesn't it... one of the world's largest and supposedly most respected camera companies brings out an excellent 6.1 Mp product and follows up with another well-rated 10 Mp product, both of which seem to have excellent metering, and promptly f**ks up completely with the next one?

-F

Well,,, Nikon are making a Motzah with the D40/x, they seem to have let their eye go off the ball with the Pro market - (keeping all in suspense with the D3XXXX and or Full Frame)

Now that the D40x is out with the same sensor and metering as the D80. It is hard not to justify buying a D40X over the D80 if you don't have any non AFS lenses. - (If you are in this market).

Nikon's idea of Progression maybe from the D70/s up to the D200 bypassing the D80

The same metering inaccuracies are in the D40, however these don't seem to phase the target customers for this product.

According to Thom Hogans column, Nikon has slipped from third to seventh in the P&S market. This in combination with the threatened loss of the Pro market will surely jog them into producing something good in the near future.

Ivanerrol wrote:Using the histogram, exposure compensation and chimping are fine for getting the exposure right.

However because my images are mainly portrait my subjects tend too walk off if I'm screwing around trying to get the exposure right - or as I want it.

IMHO the D80's metering is very haphazard and the the exposure is not the same for every situation. - which means that virtually every image must be chimped. Keeping the same exposure compensation wether it be -0.7 or -1.3.
does not guarantee correct exposure.

There is plenty of info on this on the web - just google D80 over exposure.
or just read Thom Hogan's or (heaven forbid) Ken Rockwell's opinions on the D80

this is exaggerated to say the least. i read both reviews before buying the d80. it is not anywhere near as haphazard as you make it out to be. nor is it necessary to change EV for every shot. (i don;t know what chimped is btw ! ). it is not that difficult at all to expose correctly and i rarely have blown highlights whether i am shooting portraits, landscapes or macros. i tend to use between -0.3 or -0.7EV most of the time and find it works fine.

it is also unreasonable imo to try and suggest that a 40x is a better or comparable alternative to a d80. no IF motor leads to very limited lens choice, only 3 AF points, lack of 2 command wheels, lower mag viewfinder, lack of top LCD screen, no DOF preview, no dedicated ISO or WB buttons etc etc etc. these are all far more important features to have in a DSLR. particularly the lens motor and AF points. people should forego all of that to buy a 40x as a reasonable alternative to a d80 ? i don;t think so.

unfortunatly you can;t have a cam that has everything you want and gets everything spot on but the pros FAR outweight the cons in this case.

Ivanerrol wrote:According to Thom Hogans column, Nikon has slipped from third to seventh in the P&S market.

Ahh, but he didn't count the D40, thus clearly missing Nikon's strategy here. You can't get system buy-in from P&S buyers. Better convert them to low-end DSLR users, by offering cheap DSLRs.

Cheers
Steffen.

feldy wrote:kind of begs the question doesn't it... one of the world's largest and supposedly most respected camera companies brings out an excellent 6.1 Mp product and follows up with another well-rated 10 Mp product, both of which seem to have excellent metering, and promptly f**ks up completely with the next one?

-F

I think this metering bias is to be more like Canon in their approach. The D70 had been mistakenly criticised for underexposing images in matrix meter mode, and this tradition carried on to the D200 (in comparison to Canon's offerings at the time). The D80, having a more widespread consumer appeal, aka 400D's target market, they saw fit to have the default metering bias set up similar to their competitor's product. In all auto happy snaps mode - to minimise noise, slight over-exposure on a digital sensor will do that. The danger being blown highlights.

It is contrary to the way Nikon usually does things, but keep in mind between the D70's launch and D200's development, there was a stagnant few years where many claimed the sky was falling and predicting the demise of Nikon as they weren't perceived as keeping pace with the competition in prolific releases of shiny new models with no new features. The FUD factor did hurt their bottom line, and they desperately needed to boost their sales figures.

They f***ed it up because they tried to follow Canon formula for success. But it has worked to some degree - the volume of sales of the lower end DSLRs has given them better market share. And once locked into a brand users tend to stick to it as it's very costly to switch.

So Feldy, it seems you're a true Nikonian if you prefer the way the D200 matrix meter exposes by default.

Steffen wrote:Ahh, but he didn't count the D40, thus clearly missing Nikon's strategy here. You can't get system buy-in from P&S buyers. Better convert them to low-end DSLR users, by offering cheap DSLRs.

Cheers
Steffen.

Ahhhh - but its all about market share and therefore related profits. Whats the estimation of sold P&S's this year? - 80 million units. The D40/x is a damm fine camera but can't carry Nikon on into the future only selling around 2 million units a year.

Properly marketted the K100d/Super would give the D40 a real good kick in the teeth - it can cater for old style auto focus and meter with ancient 60's M42 lenses. (The out of camera Jpegs aren't bad either.)

As Tom also discusses there are more than a few Pro/am's also carrying a P&S around in their pocket.

Ivanerrol wrote:Whats the estimation of sold P&S's this year? - 80 million units.

Yes, across all, what, 200 models?

The D40/x is a damm fine camera but can't carry Nikon on into the future only selling around 2 million units a year.

Not bad so far, but it isn't about that model, it's about shifting a paradigm.

Cheers
Steffen.