difference between d40x and d80? does anyone know the difference between the d40x and the d80? I am trying to decide....thanks!
1346985
I have been wondering the very same thing... perhaps the lack of timely replies is and indicator that nobody really knows... is there really a difference beside price? What about weight?
1346986
d80 offered a bit more but i don't is worth it unless budge is not your problem. D80 has same spec as d40x in most area except that older lens life the af and prime lens that can do auto focus in d80 while d40/d40x only manual, which is important if you wanted shoot in portrail then d80 might have advantage since it can use more lens in auto focus. Also d80 has better body has metal material mix with plastic but result more heavy. Also i think shuttle speed is longer in d80 then d40/d40x. U shoud invest lens like 18-200mm vr over d80 body because it does more for your bucks.
1346987
One of the most important differences is the auto focus motor location. The D40X does not have an auto focus motor in the body of the camera. Therefore, you must buy the very pricey lenses with an auto focus built into the lense itself. The body of the D80 has an auto focus motor built right into the camera body. Also, the D80 usually comes with a 18-135 lense instead of a 18-55 that the D40X has. I hope this helps! :-)
940337
S120 ;) (sorry don't know anything about the Nikons so I really have nothing objective here, but, I love this camera, love it). This camera is worth it's weight in my pocket for what it does when I need it to. Unreal quality and speed, and the video is on par with my 6D if not better in the same conditions.
165052
Check out the D300s - if it's beyond your budget, get the D90, not the D300- It's outdated. The D90 is an awesome camera. I have it. With the extra cash left, you can buy a lens ;)
660620
The difference for me was the group focus feature, it seemed to lock in focus quicker and track subjects better. Low light is just awesome I have always hesitated cranking up the ISO too high because of the noise potential. It is simply amazing how you can take clean shots in low light situations like bars, parties, sports arenas. If most of your shooting involve low light venues you will see a difference. Wether this is enough to drive an upgrade is up to you. Regarding general picture quality I can't say there is a significant difference other than low light situation I mentioned. I own a d800 as well and use it when picture quality is absolutely critical. These are the 2 cameras in my bag and handles every situation I am faced with. If pic quality is what you seek you can grab a used d800 for under 2k. You will not be disappointed. Just my opinion.
512490
I shoot event (moving) and museum exhibits (static) and have nothing but praise for Nikon. The D800 has made my work MUCH easier. The three dimensional (51) focus is dead on most of the time, and it is fast. More importantly, color temperatures are much more accurate than my old D3x. In mixed lighting the D800 is just a better "guesser" than older bodies.I personally don't know anyone who had the focus problem, but most of the folks I know we smart enough NOT to buy the D800 until the reviews were out and the problems fixed. Moral of the story, "If you want to be the first in line... expect some problems." I shoot event (moving) and museum exhibits (static) and have nothing but praise for Nikon. The D800 has made my work MUCH easier. The three dimensional (51) focus is dead on most of the time, and it is fast. More importantly, color temperatures are much more accurate than my old D3x. In mixed lighting the D800 is just a better "guesser" than older bodies.I personally don't know anyone who had the focus problem, but most of the folks I know we smart enough NOT to buy the D800 until the reviews were out and the problems fixed. Moral of the story, "If you want to be... » Read More I shoot event (moving) and museum exhibits (static) and have nothing but praise for Nikon. The D800 has made my work MUCH easier. The three dimensional (51) focus is dead on most of the time, and it is fast. More importantly, color temperatures are much more accurate than my old D3x. In mixed lighting the D800 is just a better "guesser" than older bodies.I personally don't know anyone who had the focus problem, but most of the folks I know we smart enough NOT to buy the D800 until the reviews were out and the problems fixed. Moral of the story, "If you want to be the first in line... expect some problems." « Show Less
1548081
I have a D80 and it is working great on that. I can't keep up with all the numbers, but the I think the D50 and D80 basically share the same DNA. The D80 has a few more bells and whistles ($$$) but that's about it.
11394
Hi Jana, Here a site that provides comparison information: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5200 (just copy and paste the link into your browser) The format on the site is easy to understand and very complete. I chose the D5200 because it seems to be a little closer to a "pro" camera but still within my budget, and I'm very happy with my choice. Be prepared to go through the learning curve because this camera(s) have a lot of features (fun). Blessings to you. ~ Michael
512489
I shoot event (moving) and museum exhibits (static) and have nothing but praise for Nikon. The D800 has made my work MUCH easier. The three dimensional (51) focus is dead on most of the time, and it is fast. More importantly, color temperatures are much more accurate than my old D3x. In mixed lighting the D800 is just a better "guesser" than older bodies. I personally don't know anyone who had the focus problem, but most of the folks I know we smart enough NOT to buy the D800 until the reviews were out and the problems fixed. Moral of the story, "If you want to be the first in line... expect some problems."
1247175
FX(D800/D610/D600...) is full frame and DX (D7100/D7000/...) is crop. Full frames have larger sensor, hence lower signal to noise ratio which can result in better quality at same resolution. Usually FX family has better lens, body and over all feature set and made for semi pro who are looking for quality in RAW images, while DX are more for photography enthusiasts who think camera should be packed with features they may never use. D7100 is packed with many features but AF is not working properly (Read my review).
284748
Its interesting that you should ask. I have a friend who owns a D800 and has both DX and Full Frame lenses. He says his DX lenses work just fine on the camera automatically (no adjustment). I would think that the D600 does the same. The only thing I'm not sure of is the effective pixel reduction (if any) because a smaller amount of the sensor is being exposed. NIKON must have some literature on this and I've found that Thom Hogan ("ByThom") is really good at responding to questions like this. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and it produces spectacular images on my D300. The question is whether you are willing to sacrifice the effective range with the crop factor that would still happen regardless of whether the camera you are using is full frame or DX -- that is the effective DX range is 16.5-24. You could just buy one of the other excellent 12-24 lenses out there and have the full frame wide field. But those are a lot more expensive and as Rockwell has pointed out, this is the sharpest lens in its class and having used it for some time, I think he's right.
751703
Just bought the D40x two weeks ago, and spent the weeks before that researching the D40x vs. the XTi. I'd go with the D40x... you can't go wrong with a Nikon, and the kit lens that comes with the XTi is terrible. I bought the D40x, and have since added a few accessories. I feel like I made the right decision and I am totally thrilled with the purchase... No regrets at all. Plus, Nikon makes a longer-lasting camera. D40x!!!
940340
I cannot offer a nikon/canon comparison however I upgraded from a S90 to the S120 and am VERY VERY impressed. Amazingly fast user interface, bright rear screen and long battery life are some of the high points. Low light performance is AMAZING compared to my S90. The difference is almost like the change from T2I to 6D full frame in my canon SLR! The bad? Still no RAW converters out there, not even DXO though they report one coming later this month.
2106054
Canon vs Nikon is a personal choice. I would say that it's like using windows vs Mac OS. In terms of quality, they take pretty much the same. This canon is as good as it looks, and you'll probably be pleasantly surprised what you can do with it. In the hands of a good photographer you can get amazing results. I personally would go with canon as I feel that there is more literature written about it. More community support, etc. I would be more apt to research if I was going into the higher end cameras, but make no mistake... Professionals use this camera and write a ton about how they were able to pull of their shots. There is a great book for the T5i by Jeff revell which you can purchase for amazon. I think the new book for the T5i comes out this month, but the one for the t4i is essentially the same in terms of operating the camera. On a final note about your question as to the more advanced camera... The 60d and the t5i are essentially the same camera. The 60d leans more toward strictly photography, while the t5i is more of an all in one package. I've heard from most reviews that the 60d has a slightly better picture, but most of these stats are on paper only and not necessarily anything you'd be able to see a difference in from one photo to the next. I would say what you're looking for is the t5i. The other great thing about buying a t5i is... If you maxed out your technique and were dying to upgrade in the future... Your lenses, filters, accessories will carry over. And you'll only need to upgrade to a better body. I think this is hands down the camera to get. Even if you want a better one in the future... Spend the time juicing this one for all it's worth... So that your eye picks up to the subtleties of the differences between this and the next body up. That's just something that's harder to gauge the higher up you get. Like anything in life, the higher up you move, the more subtle the difference between(save the price.) I hope this helps.
1361717
Do not know about the D80. I have a D5100. Regardless you have to use hand focus not auto.
1192315
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise.Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1761731
I just received my D800 a couple weeks ago. Almost all my images are out of focus, even with simple portraits. I haven't contacted Nikon yet because I'm attempting to return the camera.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.