[Radiohead]

Key features
10.2 megapixel DX format CCD (1.5x FOV crop)
Image processing engine (similar to D200 / D2X)
3D Color Matrix Metering II, 420 pixel sensor (same as D50)
11-area AF system (new version of Multi-CAM 1000, similar to D200)
Auto ISO (selectable maximum ISO, minimum shutter speed)
Configurable high ISO and long exposure noise reduction
Mechanical only shutter (maximum 1/4000 sec, flash sync to 1/200 sec)
Quoted 80 ms shutter lag (short viewfinder blackout; 160 ms)
Larger, brighter pentaprism viewfinder (x0.94 magnification)
Support for SD-HC (SD cards over 2 GB in capacity)
In-camera retouching
D-Lighting (shadow / highlight enhancement)
Red-eye reduction
Trimming
Monochrome and Filter
Small picture
Image overlay
Multiple-exposures
Compact body (smaller, lighter than D70/D70s)
Improved menu user interface (same as D200)
Higher capacity EN-EL3e battery (provides detailed information, same as D200)
Wireless flash integration (same as D200)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/

£699 body only, £949 or so with the new 18-135mm kit lens (RRP's)

[stevegreen]

Nice to see a ISO-100 capability, but you'd expect it with a £700 body only price tag.

[richard plumb]

when it says wireless flash, does that mean it'll trigger speedlites?

That'd be good if only to persuade Canon to build it into the 450d

other than that, it seems a nice competitor to the 30D

[midtones]

Reads just like a mini D200

But with Sony releasing Alpha, and the shared CCD, do you think future releases will be biased towards Sony?

K.

[barongreenback]

Will be interested to see a head to head with the 30D, especially as Calumet were selling this for £699 body only fairly recently. In terms of the new to DSLR crowd though, I have to say that Nikon seem to have one over on Canon at all levels apart from full frame.

[Jamiewalshe]

Originally Posted by barongreenback

I have to say that Nikon seem to have one over on Canon at all levels apart from full frame.

which nikon arent interested in for the time being. and if they were, canon wouldnt stand a chance

this looks like a great little camera, cant wait to give one a go.

[Bristol Pete]

I so wish I had gone for Nikon now

Too much spent now though and I am well happy with my 30D +lenses and cant wait to buy that 1dns bfg whopper thing next year.

Pete.

[Valleyman]

It seems like a nice little upgrade to the D70.

A couple of things I'm not so sure about though. I'm dissapointed the flash sync is 1/200. Can't quite undertand why it's not as good as the D70. Could be an issue for those with an sb600/800 ontop of the camera all the time as a fill in flash in sunlight. The other thing being the size and weight. The D70 can feel a little small in big hands as it is, cutting down the size is by no means a positive thing in some peoples book.

Apart form that it seems a substantial upgrade. Has a couple of features that I wasn't expecting, and am pleased about.

I like the ISO 100 settings, improved noise reduction, the auto ISO settings, improved autofocus, multiple exposures, improved LCD and histograms. Not so bothered about the 10.2MP, but i guess thats for the public perception than the actual improvement in image quality.

Nice to see the D70 has a worthy replacement.

[Shimmyhill]

Originally Posted by Jamiewalshe

which nikon arent interested in for the time being. and if they were, canon wouldnt stand a chance

this looks like a great little camera, cant wait to give one a go.

You mean Sony are not interested/capable of making a FF sensor - nothing to do with Nikon. if Nikon could do one they would. Have you ever seen a pap with anything but a Canon ??? Nikon are in real danger of being replaed by Sony as number 2 in the camera world - they are so far behind Canon in units sold and Sony obv now have hooks into the DSLR market.

All the Canon/Nikon bashing is silly its all to do with the photographer not the system they use !

Back to the D80. Few things

Good: Battery grip at long last, nice big screen, sensor with decent low iso performance (however as the Sony a100 reviews under the D70 im interested in iq results)

Bad : Size - why make it smaller ? SD cards - makes it a pain for 2nd camera. Flash sync - *** ? only reason i would move to Nikon is for better flash sync and they drop it to canon level ?

[richard plumb]

Originally Posted by Valleyman

I like the ISO 100 settings, improved noise reduction, the auto ISO settings, .

how does the auto ISO work? can you set thresholds and then if you adjust the shutter too far it'll bump up the ISO for you? I'd love that in the 350 (or any canon DSLR)

Not sure I agree that its a canon killer though. Both sides seem to have 'similar but different' bodies and lenses. And if anyone is getting pixel envy, don't forget all that time the Nikon guys were saying you couldn't tell the difference between 6 and 8mp when the 350d came out :P

[midtones]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

how does the auto ISO work? can you set thresholds and then if you adjust the shutter too far it'll bump up the ISO for you? I'd love that in the 350 (or any canon DSLR)

Yeah you just set max limits, it's really useful. Wish the 30d had it

K.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Shimmyhill

You mean Sony are not interested/capable of making a FF sensor - nothing to do with Nikon. if Nikon could do one they would.

FF is an anachronism, and an expensive one at that. Aside from some marginal DOF advantages, cropped sensors offer so much more to most shooters it's not true. Now we have ultra-wides for them it's not so relevant. Show me a wildlife pro shooting Canon and I'll show you one shooting Canon because of IS in their long glass, not FF. Nikon would make one if they thought it worthwhile. It isn't yet and remains uncertain whether it ever will be. What is FF anyway, an arbitrary measurement itself based on half the size of a previous FF measurement. For many people coming into photography it means nothing. FWIW I know 4 pros, 2 wedding and 2 press. 3 shoot Nikon and 1 Canon. None of them give a toss about FF.

Originally Posted by Shimmyhill

Have you ever seen a pap with anything but a Canon ???

Erm yes, quite a few. That's a ludicrous statement.

Originally Posted by Shimmyhill

Nikon are in real danger of being replaed by Sony as number 2 in the camera world - they are so far behind Canon in units sold and Sony obv now have hooks into the DSLR market.

Sony have released one consumer DSLR, a rebadged KM body with a few additions. That's a hell of a way from knocking Nikon off their perch. They have really got their work cut out. The D80 shows just how serious Nikon are about keeping that spot.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Bristol Pete

I so wish I had gone for Nikon now

Too much spent now though and I am well happy with my 30D +lenses and cant wait to buy that 1dns bfg whopper thing next year.

Pete.

Nah - you'd be doing as well as you are with a Holga Pete.

[Shimmyhill]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

FF is an anachronism, and an expensive one at that. Aside from some marginal DOF advantages, cropped sensors offer so much more to most shooters it's not true. Now we have ultra-wides for them it's not so relevant. Show me a wildlife pro shooting Canon and I'll show you one shooting Canon because of IS in their long glass, not FF. Nikon would make one if they thought it worthwhile. It isn't yet and remains uncertain whether it ever will be. What is FF anyway, an arbitrary measurement itself based on half the size of a previous FF measurement. For many people coming into photography it means nothing. FWIW I know 4 pros, 2 wedding and 2 press. 3 shoot Nikon and 1 Canon. None of them give a toss about FF.

Yes like iso doesnt matter on a Nikon, MP doesnt matter on a nikon - well until a new camera comes out with these improvements and suddenly its all important. I know many Wedding photographers - most shoot medium format, Nikon 35mm and Canon digital. Same for a few landscapers i know. As for press, dont know anyone personally but all you ever see are white lenses and that tells its own story. Nikon have no choice in the FF market - they dont make sensors, if Sony make one Nikon would use it until that point they will roll out the same PR line. Its a standardisation of lens measurement that goes make many years, people want to have a lens at 35mm that is actually 35mm, they want an image that is the same format as they have had for years. If FF was affordable we would all use it.

Cropped sensors help cheap lenses and this is a benefit and of course the price is vastly better. It adds too much confusion, it we are not all heading to full frame lets label the lenses properly and do away with the silly crop factor that most think makes the lens suddenly reach further - all it adds is confusion.

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Erm yes, quite a few. That's a ludicrous statement.

Well of course some do but Canon dominate the pap/sports photographers

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Sony have released one consumer DSLR, a rebadged KM body with a few additions. That's a hell of a way from knocking Nikon off their perch. They have really got their work cut out. The D80 shows just how serious Nikon are about keeping that spot.

The D80 is an numbers update - it offers more mega pixels and a smaller body with a consumer mem format. As i said before many say the D70s out perfored the sony 100 so using that sensor with d50 metering and losing some flash sync ability is strange - imo it lowers the D80 in the range. The D70 imo punched above its price where the D80 has been made for a price bracket.

I like Nikon gear, only reason i dont own a D200 is because Nikon dont have a mid range lens selection - the pro lenses are awesome but serious cash and the other Nikon glass is random. Having had various sigma EX lenses i would pick canon over them everytime. As for Sony well they have a huge share of the compact and phone market, some very good prosumer camera's and now starting a DSLR attack. Some people will always buy Nikon, some always Canon but there is a far bigger market for prosumer/consumer DSLR - look at how well the 350d + D50 have done. Sony want this bit of the market and the name alone will mean more to many people than Canon or Nikon so they have a good start. Market share is decided here and not in the higher end where Canon + Nikon will be very hard to beat.

Anyway not trying to get into a Nikon/Canon flame - i actually prefer many things in the Nikon world but im too tied into the Canon system to swap over for anything less than a really special Nikon Camera + lens setup.

[Bristol Pete]

Personally, I think that the Sony Alpha will appeal to Joe Public much like the Playstation did and coca cola does in that branding to the untrained masses is critical. It will sell by the truckload I think.

As such, the keen snappers will shoot Canon and the cool cats will shoot Nikon (Though I am also cool, much like everyone here )

[Radiohead]

Some head to heads at varying ISO's against the Alpha 100

http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

The Nikon appears to destroy the Sony at higher ISO's.

[ush flynn]

The D80 has made me finally want to go for a dSLR for myself, The d200 would have been nice, and a used body would have been nice but ive never really committed to getting one.
The comment about paps using canons is a bit pointless, nearly anyone can be a pap. Its not exactly mastering the art of photography is it, its getting an expensive camera with long lenses that pretty much guarantee a decent shot every time with very very basic skills.
Sports photographers are largely the same. Take enough photos of football players taking shots on goal with a long lens and one is likely to look good. Theres no particular skill in it, just learn to be aware and be good at panning.

I also dont think this nikon was designed to make people switch from canon to nikon all of a sudden. Same as i hardly think the 350d or 30d would make myself or Radiohead switch to canon

[Bristol Pete]

Originally Posted by ush flynn

The D80 has made me finally want to go for a dSLR for myself, The d200 would have been nice, and a used body would have been nice but ive never really committed to getting one.
The comment about paps using canons is a bit pointless, nearly anyone can be a pap. Its not exactly mastering the art of photography is it, its getting an expensive camera with long lenses that pretty much guarantee a decent shot every time with very very basic skills.
Sports photographers are largely the same. Take enough photos of football players taking shots on goal with a long lens and one is likely to look good. Theres no particular skill in it, just learn to be aware and be good at panning.

I also dont think this lens was designed to make people switch from canon to nikon all of a sudden. Same as i hardly think the 350d or 30d would make myself or Radiohead switch to canon

Sorry but beg to differ here. Having spent some time with pro sports snappers I cannot help but feel that there is a world of difference between good and average sports snappers. Some are good, some are great. Simple as that – though I do agree that having an 8 frame per second camera and nailing one shot in one hundred is not talent.

Do know what is funny? On the weekend I was up in Birmingham shooting the Aztecs for the BBC and I decided to leave the sideline and stand at the end-zone. In the very next play the Aztecs ran in a 40 yard TD and I got it all, even Eric carrying the ball over the line.

Photographer’s intuition, luck or knowing the play book? Not sure but it made for some great pictures.

[barongreenback]

Gah, I had visions of this turning into a Nikon vs Canon thread.

Radiohead - one thing I would disagree with is your assertion that FF is an anachronism. Fitting more megapixels into a smaller sensor size has its disadvantages, as we've seen with the compact market.

As for Sony's attempt to get market share from Nikon, that is a possibility but remember in terms of audio, Sony never really made an impression in the high end consumer market despite huge resources.

Pros using Canon or Nikon? Both in equal measure although the Canons have the edge in sports photography it would seem.

[Valleyman]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

how does the auto ISO work? can you set thresholds and then if you adjust the shutter too far it'll bump up the ISO for you? I'd love that in the 350 (or any canon DSLR)

Currently the D70s has an auto ISO setting that can be useful in low light, and indoor shooting. Basically changes the ISO from 200 to 1600 to get a good minimum shutter speed.

Unfortunatly in every day shooting it can be a pain in the ass, as most photographys often set aperture and shutter speed so that we get a good depth of field with a shutter speed garuanteed to give no shake, right?

The way the D70 is set up is that it's hard to know when it's auto changing the ISO. So you often end up with an ISO setting of 1600, which pretty much everyone hates. Ultimatly you end up turning off auto ISO and manually changing it to get the best compromise. It's not exactly a time consuming hinderance, but hardley ideal.

This D80 solves this by setting thresholds. It's lovely to shoot in ISO100, but if you can't you can set the camera to go up to ISO400, but no further. Basically you can keep the auto ISO setting on 24/7, giving you the flexibility auto ISO should. Not the image quality busting D70s option.

[ush flynn]

Originally Posted by Bristol Pete

Sorry but beg to differ here. Having spent some time with pro sports snappers I cannot help but feel that there is a world of difference between good and average sports snappers. Some are good, some are great. Simple as that – though I do agree that having an 8 frame per second camera and nailing one shot in one hundred is not talent.

Do know what is funny? On the weekend I was up in Birmingham shooting the Aztecs for the BBC and I decided to leave the sideline and stand at the end-zone. In the very next play the Aztecs ran in a 40 yard TD and I got it all, even Eric carrying the ball over the line.

Photographer’s intuition, luck or knowing the play book? Not sure but it made for some great pictures.

The biggest criticism i had was of paps using canons, These are the ones with no real skill other than hunting and sneaking around! I mean have you ever seen a pap shot composed well, thought about background, facial expressions. No they want to catch the worst of people. When i moved on to sports photography i said it was largely the same. Meaning that a large number of sports photographers rely on the cameras AF and metering and fast FPS coupled with IS and a long lens. Some sports photographers are superb, i have a book of amazing American Football photos, some shots of the heat haze from sweat evaportating from hulking linebackers shot into the sun are amazing!
But... Lined up on the side of a 2nd or 3rd division football match all you have are people with nice equipment and not much thought goes into it as far as im concearned. Unfortunatly these make up the majority. I have nothing against good sports photographers though so dont get me wrong! A work collegues best mate won Sports photographer of the year in 2004/5 as i remember. It could have been with Canon as he was given a 350d as part of his prize