Pros: Compact body, bright and large viewfinder, easy to use, decent low-light performance
Cons: Matrix Metering *different* than other Nikons like D70s or D200
The Bottom Line: D80 is probably the best offering Nikon has at the moment, dollar for dollar. D40 and D200 are next (below and above it). Matrix Metering and ISO1600 notwithstanding, great camera!
kocho's Full Review: Nikon D40 Digital Camera with 18-55mm lens
EDIT 7/13/2007. I've learned some more since I wrote this review, particularly in terms of noise performance of the current Nikon offerings. Most sites will show JPG noise performance out of camera in default settings. When compared this way, the best to worst are D40x, D40, D50, D80, D200, D70s, D70. I would agree with this, only if you like the rest of the image characteristics and you do not do much more with the image.
However, when compared at settings that produce similar visual results (rather than at "matching" camera settings), the gradation is different.
For JPG I find the best in terms of high-ISO noise to be D40 and D50; D40x, D80 and D200 following with more noise but all 10MP are about the same compared to each other; finally the D70/70s trailing at the back with the poorest high ISO noise in JPG.
For RAW, it is the D40 and D50 about the same and leading the pack, D70s almost at the same level, then D40x, D80, D200 10MP models just about equal to each other but all noisier than the 6MP models.
Here is a link to my unscientific comparisons:
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/test_d40_d40x_d70s_d200
Why compare this way? Because I like shooting RAW and I like shooting in such a way that my images look in a certain way (quite different from what comes out of camera, with the D200 being the closest to what I like in default mode). So, when compared at settings that produce what I like, I found that the cameras need to be configured with settings that do not match one to one: "normal" on the D40x is different from "normal" on a D200...
Finally, the 10MP models do outperform the 6MP models in terms of resolution and detail and especially where there is moire on the 6MP models. So, if you need resolution - 10MP it is. Even with the added noise (seen even when 10MP is downsampled to 6MP), they are still more detailed and "smoother" or less "digital looking" to my eyes.
Original posting follows:
=======================================
I've had a D80 (in fact, three of them) for about 5 months. Prior to that I had a D70s for more than a year and now I have a D200. So my comparison would cover relative differences b/w these models as well as the D50, D40, and D40x. Will look at the performance of the several “kit” lenses offered as well as I’ve used all of them extensively.
The good: the D80 is a very capable camera and is a nice upgrade from the D70/D70s in almost every respect. Auto white balance, color accuracy and overall image quality is better. In particular, gone is the often seen moire, which manifests itself in the current 6MP Nikon offerings (D40, D50, D70/70s). This comes at the expense of slight loss of “per pixel” image sharpness of the D80 (as well as the D200 and D40x) compared to the 6MP models. However, downsizing the 10MP image to 6MP in software would make them of nearly the same sharpness and still without the moire artifacts. The 10MP files also seem to respond nicer to sharpening in post processing with less sharpening artifacts visible when you are done and finer noise pattern.
The D80 is significantly faster in operation than the D70s was. This is especially evident when using flash and particularly with flash in commander mode. Commander mode is more sophisticated too, meaning you can control more flashes as well as have the built-in flash contribute (not the case with D70s and the D50 nor with the D40/40x as far as I know). Most importantly, the delay in using flash is much smaller, resulting in capturing the moment easier and with almost no “blinkers” – closed eyes of folks/animals who blink during the mandatory preflash sequence when using remote flash and also regular flash in most modes. The D200 is similarly good in this respect though the D80 seems even better, subjectively. The D80 has 3 frames per second and the D200 – up to 5 but that is separate from the flash and otherwise responsiveness of the camera. The D200 is still faster in most modes, but not by much.
D80 and D40x have 1/200s flash sync speed compared to 1/500 for D50/D70/D40 and 1/250 for D200. This is important in daylight fill-flash use where the 6MP models give significantly more latitude to use flash as fill light and still maintain high shutter speed to freeze motion. This difference is not important if the subjects are still as the 10MP models go to ISO100 compared to the ISO200 of the 6MP, effectively eliminating the gap. Also not important in very dark environments (for light coming mostly from flash and not ambient light), where the shutter speed really does not matter as the flash is so fast it freezes motion regardless of shutter speed used (within limits of course). D80 and D200 have high speed flash sync up to the maximum supported by the camera (1/4000s and 1/8000s respectively) when used with optional flashes such as the SB-800 or SB-600 (may be with SB-400, not sure). This comes at the expense of useful flash output however, so it decreases the max shooting distance with flash as the speed increases.
Another welcome improvement over the D50, D40, D70/70s is the ability to shoot in RAW and store a Large Fine Quality JPG at the same time (previously it was only “basic” JPG with low quality).
The LCD is nicer and more importantly offers 100% zoom (in fact more than that, but then things get pixellated). Again, the D40, D50, D70/70s do not offer this. The LCD is easier to use due to a slight rearranging of the controls as well. The D200 has a one-click 100% zoom which the D80 does not have but which is very handy. It takes several clicks on the D80 to get to 100%.
D80 has three-color histograms + luminosity, the D50/D70 have only one (luminosity). Very good to judge exposure accurately: where only one channel is overexposed it won’t necessarily show on the single channel histogram on the older models and would result in skewed/washed-out colors in the overexposed areas, particularly ugly on skin tones.
D80 has faster and more reliable autofocus than D70s, particularly in low light situations. In my experience it was able to better track running kids, where I had trouble with this on the D70s in low light. Using “fast” (wide aperture lenses) helps too. One drawback is that the D80 has larger/wider autofocus sensors and this may result in misfocusing on complex targets where the D70/D50 might have worked better. On the average though the benefits outweigh the drawbacks here. The D200 autofocus seems to perform similarly to the D80, with some users reporting a stronger autofocus motor on the D200, which is important if using “screwdriven” lenses without AF-S (I have conclusion one way or another as I did not get a chance to compare too much for this).
The D80 seems to have taken noise reduction a step further than D70 and D200 with lower high-ISO noise (when shooting in dark places), especially in the shadow areas where it matters most. D40 and D50 are still a little better bit for bit, but when the 10MP D80/D40x/D200 image is downsized to 6MP, then they perform about the same in terms of noise. D80 seems to beat the D200 a little over ISO400 and seems to be about the same from ISO100 to ISO400 (not a large difference but is there, especially when shooting JPG).
D80 has different preset values for image customization than D200, so the same “normal” settings give more saturate, more contrasty and perhaps more sharpened image. So when comparing, one needs to be aware of this.
My only real issue with the D80 (and to similar extend the D40) was the way Matrix Metering is tuned. Just search the web for D80 Overexposure and you will find tons of threads on this. Suffice it to say that Matrix Metering on the D80 places a lot of emphasis on what’s in the center of the frame and tends to ignore what’s towards the edges. This means that subjects in the center are well exposed and things off-center may be overexposed (if bright) or underexposed (if dark) relative to the center. This is *good* for most point and shoot users who do not care to post process their images much. They get a well exposed center of the frame and what’s lost is lost off-center but does it matter? Well, for many people it does – when you want to preserve a nice color or detail off-center it is often *impossible* to do in Matrix Metering mode without exposure compensation of some kind. While this “workarounds” are fine in many cases, depending on shooting style you may not like it. For instance, if you place your subject a little off-center or if you do not have time to compensate exposure manually, then you can’t rely on the meter in many high-contrast brightly lit scenes – the D80 will generally blow (overexpose) many areas beyond recovery in post processing. Using Center Weight metering in these cases is a partial solution but still no substitute for the way Matrix Metering works in the D70s or D200 (and some other cameras). This was one of the main reasons I decided to let go of the D80 and get a D200 – and the results are what I expected: “proper” (e.g. preserving highlights) exposure with Matrix Metering.
So, what to get? D80, D40x, D200, D40?
- The main difference b/w the D40/40x and D50/80 is the lack of “screwdriver” autofocus in the 40 series. This means that you only can use many lenses in manual focus. And that is not easy for several reasons (relatively smaller and dimmer viewfinders compared to D80/D200, plus tracking moving targets in manual focus is all but hopeless in most cases).
- The 10MP models produce much better detail but you will see this only on prints above 11x14 or when cropping heavily. This is at the expense of almost doubling the file size and prolonging the post processing times and storage needs.
- Noise seems a tiny bit better with each newer camera. The D40 and D40x seem to have the lowest noise and the best JPG processing. D50 and D40 are still the best for low light, followed by D40x, D80 and D200 as far as I’m concerned. Of course, looking at Canon 20D/30D and 5D is what you should do for serious low light work, as I find the results above ISO800 of the Nikons fall short compared to these Canons (not by much but loss of detail and increased noise is progressively more noticeable when you go above ISO800 and print large and expecially if you do not nail the exposure right at the scene).
- Viewfinders on the D80 and D200 are the best of the bunch. The D80 does not show the ISO used, until you press a button; the D200 does.
- The D200 is more comfortable to hold even though it is heavier and larger
- The D80/D40x/D200 will put your lenses as well as your hand-holding ability to the test – the 6MP models are more forgiving. Also, diffraction-limited softness kicks-in sooner (about 1 stop or so) than with the 6MP models. What was sharp at F/16 at 6MP gets softer at 10MP and you would need to use F11 instead, but that would result in more shallow dept of field (DOF).
- D80 has worse battery life than D70s had for me (almost by half). Still it is better than what D200 offers, again almost by half.
- The D50/D70s are probably still the best choice if you can live without some of the great features that D80 offers.
- If you are only going to use AF-S lenses and want a small camera that is easy to live with, the D40 is the best from any manufacturer at present (better than the Canons in the price range). Believe me, 6MP is a lot easier to process and store than 10MP and looks just as good if not better for almost all web and print use an amateur would encounter. Having one of the best low-light performances available from any manufacturer in a very small body and offered at probably the lowest cost for a DSLR does not hurt either.
- D40x is an odd-ball: expensive for not having a screwdriver lens support and for lacking the better autofocus of the D80 and other fieatures (deidcated buttons etc.) Again, if you get a good deal on it and do not plan to use non AF-S lenses, it might be OK if 10MP is what you want with minimum fuss otherwise and in a very compact body.
Kit lenses (18-55, 18-70, 18-135, 18-200 VR). You can look-up the results from SLRGear.com, photozone.de and other sites to see it graphically evaluated. Their results seem to confirm what I observed:
- Sharpness: 18-135 is the sharpest in the center at almost all focal lengths, softest in the corners. The 18-200 VR is almost as sharp in the center and has better corners. The 18-70 trails by a little in the center and leads by a little in the corners. The 18-200 softens-up a little above 100mm focal length compared to the very good sharpness below 100mm but still remains usable. Having VR is a great plus (see my review of that lens). The 18-55 is considered pretty good at the 18-35mm range and in my opinion is worse than the other three towards the 55 end.
- Distortion. 18-135 is the worst, followed by 18-200 then the 18-70 and the 18-55, which is the best in terms of distortion. Will be noticeable in shots where there are horizons or straight lines like architecture or trees near the sides of the frame.
- Light fall off in the corners: similar to distortion. Will be noticeable on all lenses with sky or water shots.
- Focus speed: all three focus silently and quick. The 18-70 is the fasted, then the 18-200 then the 18-135. Neither will keep you waiting long. The D80 may take a noticeable amount of time to focus if you let it chose the autofocus point for you – set the focus point yourself and it is much faster (does not depend on the lens that much).
- Build quality: Best is the 18-200, 18-70, 18-135. Only the 18-200 will “creep” meaning it will extend/contract on its own when pointed up or down. Even if it does not do it initially, it will most likely begin to do it with time.
- Size: 18-55 is obviously the smallest and lightest but I would trade this for the extended range and better center sharpness of the other lenses, unless I plan to use it exclusively at the 18-35mm range where it is better (in this range it is a cheap $100 great wide angle alternative if you have for example a 28-75 or a 28-200 lens as your main lens).
Compared to faster (F2.8, constant aperture) third-party lenses such as the 17-50 Tamron, the 18-50 Sigma macro (latest version), 28-75 Tamron, 24-60 and 24-70 Sigma, the kit lenses do not hold much water, except in center sharpness where they come close in some cases, extended zoom range, and having AF-S (not necessarily faster, but more handy to override focus at times). In all other aspects they trail the mentioned lenses and most importantly – they lack the fast aperture. Nikon makes a few pricier alternatives as well and there are the great and relatively inexpensive older designs such as the 35-70 AF-D.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 800 This Camera is a Good Choice if You Want Something... Easy Enough for Anyone to Use
Nikon D40 Digital SLR Camera Kit 18-55mm FREE SHIPPING -25420 To Pay By Credit Card or to ask questions about the product please call : 1-888-368-7573...More at eBay
Nikon's new D40 Digital SLR camera, with a 3X Zoom-Nikkor Lens, is thesmallest and easiest-to-use Nikon D-SLR ever. D40 Inherits Incredible Picture Qu...More at BuyDig.com
Extraordinary Nikon Image Quality Easy Operation with Intuitive Controls Nikon s Smallest Digital SLR Ever! At just over 16 ounces Fast Startup with I...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.