For another perspective, read Ken Rockwell's "Future Trash" article - he makes a lot of good points about obsolescence in camera bodies.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/obsolescence.htm

I agree that you could probably make your D80 last ten years - I could probably use my D50 for the next ten years, for that matter. The question is - do you really *want* to? You could have spent thousands on a D1X a few years ago and still be using it, but the D70s is a much better camera, for many reasons that have nothing to do with image quality (battery life, ease-of-use), and you could buy one for what people are foolishly paying for a used D1X.

If you have more than one or two lenses, your lens investment will quickly outstrip the amount that you paid for the body. I'm only a semi-serious amateur, and I have an 18-55, a 70-300, and a fixed-focus 50mm lens already, and I'm eyeing one of the 18-200 VR lenses.

In general, used lenses are fine, used bodies are not a good deal, and don't wait for the "next big thing", because the next big thing is always around the corner. The earlier you decide to buy, the sooner you can start taking pictures, and the longer you will have had the camera when you decide to upgrade. If I had waited for the D70s instead of buying my D50, I'd be mentally committed to the D70s for that much longer. As it is, I've gotten enough use out of my D50 that I wouldn't feel bad about skipping the D80 and D70s entirely and going with the D200.

 

I agree in principle with Chows on this. Obviously the body does matter; but, as long as it meets minimum standards, it's significance is far less than lens quality.

 

Arrogant? Go Google Lens systems and read what the pros say. Having gone through this once before with SLRs, the fact IS, the bodies will come and go. IN the meantime, those NIkon Lens bought 25 years ago STILL produce top quality images with DSLRs.

If your enamored with the latest technology in a body, so be it but in 3 years when full-size image sensors proliferate with 20M pixels, the current set of bodies will be WORTHLESS .... in the meantime, any lens you buy will still be golden.

This is not arragont but the way it is. For example, I just bought a Canon L lense. I KNOW it will be just as good in 20 years. The body? In the trash.

I would believe many serious amatuers have 5 or so lense. I used to have Minoltas. About 5 years ago, i put everything up on Ebay. I had two old bodies ... they sold for like $20. However, the Minolta Rokker lense sold in the hundreds

The money is in the lens ... not the body.

 

I understand that good lenses will keep their value and the camera body won't. I just don't agree that choosing between the Xti and the D80 is as much of a coin toss as you were saying. There are substantial advantages and disadvantages to each, not the least being which user interface feels most natural to you. I'm going to spend way too much time fiddling around with buttons and dials and menus over the next few years not to heavily weigh that into my decision.

 

First-time consumers of digital SLR cameras focus on the body. Long-time photographers, however, look at the system. An SLR system includes a body, multiple lenses, flash units, and various connecting cords. For most photographers the investment in lenses will come to dwarf the cost of a body.

The market leader in the professional/advanced amateur photography world is Canon. If you don't have a major investment in lenses you will probably want to buy a Canon digital SLR. The number two spot is occupied by Nikon, which is also a reasonable choice. ... Once you get beyond Nikon and Canon it becomes very difficult to rent lenses and the companies that make the more obscure systems don't have a large enough market share to invest enough money to build competitive bodies. Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, and Sigma are the small vendors in the digital SLR market.
particulary ....

Years ago, Nikon ruled. That has all changed. Look at any sporting event and all you see is a sea of white lenses.

All camera builder buy the CCD from one company ... EXCEPT Canon ... who makes their own. They have the money to do the R&D

I'm not going to try to convince anyone to buy anything ... to each their own ... I just know that in a couple of years from now, I'll probably buy whatever the latest and greates body maybe but the Lenses, Flash systems, etc will remain the same.

 

Well then, chalk my objection up to having just yesterday purchased a DSLR and not having really gotten my feet wet with it yet.

 

I can imagine it lasting 5-10 years if I want it to. ... I bought the D80 with the new 18-135 lens,

I have no idea what your experience may be and there is nothing wrong with the Nikon line. It ALL depends upon HOW you intend to use your camera. Only you can decide that.

First getting started in SLRs, I had fisheye, 24mm, 50mm, 28-135, 100 - 300, 400mm, and 500mm lens now all gone. I realized that digital was the future. Dumped it all and bought a Nikon 5000 in 2001. 5MP, top of the line at the time. My wife used it until now, it literally has fallen apart. By that I mean its all beat up and the little doors for the CF card fallen off. Crap and dirt can get in it very easily. Its seen better days but has served us well.

Now you have to decide what you need. With the 18-135, in terms of resolution, you got a superb lens. See http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3556/index.htm anything over 2000 is superb. .... but at the cost of hefty barrel distortion ... which is a problem with extreme zooms.

Also read here http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/993/cat/13 review says the same thing. Superb sharpness, poor distortion

A third site is Fred Miranda http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...cat=28&ppuser= but he hasnt review that lens yet.

Now the question becomes, whats next? what are you interested in. My wife likes to take LOTS of pictures indoors and get the whole room so it was a no brainer for a 10 - 22mm WA. Nikon sells a 12 - 22MM.

Now what about telephoto.? 200mm minimum. 400mm best for wildlife.

What about portraits. You need a much lower f-stop. F1.8 or less to get those nice out of focus backgrounds.

What about flash. On camera flash isnt going to cut it for WA or telephotos.

What about macro? Wanna take a pic of a bug?

My point here is that over time, you may be buying a whole bunch of Nikon lens now and its those LENS that where the money will be

Best of luck! I'm sure you will get great photos with that lens and I'm jeolous of the ZOOM range!

 

Thanks, chows4us. That photozone.de site really illustrates the wide-angle distortion well. I suspect that my next lens investment will be in a wide-angle. I take a lot of landscape shots while backpacking, but lately I've been getting much more into photographing buildings, both exterior and interior. So, I'll have to see how much the distortion bothers me, and how often I actually need to work at the 18mm extreme of the lens (the distortion seems to drop off rather quickly). Financial prudence, however, says that this will be my lens for the next year or so, so I'll figure out how to make it work. I did want the moderate zoom for the occasional wildlife shot or high-up exterior building detail.

An external flash is something I'll probably purchase in the near future, although so far I am amazed at how well the Nikon one performs.

I appreciate your help! Sorry if I ruffled feathers with my previous comments.

 

No ruffled feathers! We are all learning here. I just bought DSLR for the first time too but just know about SLRs from the past.

I've taken many, many landscapes ... many pics on my wall right now from National parks. Mostly with a 24mm ... Thats the equivalent of 15mm with your 1.5x crop camera. 18mm = 27mm. So, in the future, you might want to go with the nikon 12 - 22mm.

Building distoration ... photoshop cs2 is supposed to have some tools to fix that .

I fully understand about spreading the costs out. I'm guessing I'll buy anoher lens about may/june (or hoping)!

best of luck. D80 is a great camera!

 

I teach a Basic and Advanced photo class in continuing education at a technical college. I have had five students in the past three weeks purchase the Canon XTi and all are loving it with great results for their needs. Most have purchased the Canon body with one or two other lenses. One bought the new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens....FANTASTIC lens for the money. Most have purchased a 28-135mm or 17-40mm f/4 lenses or similar, all Canon.

I also shoot sports professionally and use Canon Mark II bodies and have an array of lenses from the 10-22mm up to a 600mm IS lens, plus several Canon EX flash units. NEVER have any of these cameras, lenses or flash units ever fail me in weather from -20F up to 115F in the heat of the desert. (You will also find most pro photogs have switched from Nikon to Canon over the past few years, namely the major sports magazines and the larger newspapers of major cities. So that says something about the quality and abuse a Canon can take in the field.)

Buy what you feel fits your needs. Whatever you buy today will be replaced in 6 months (or less) by something with more megapixels and lower priced! Technology in the digital world is moving fast. Good luck!

 

Thanks for that info!

Most have purchased a 28-135mm

Interesting choice ... non-L correct?

600MM? I bet that cost a few pennies

Your comments on the quality of the lenses just reaffirms everything I've read, particularly about the L lens, dust proof, etc.

We bought the Xti because my wife uses it all the time and it fits her hand perfectly. Its a little small for mine, I would have preferred the larger size D80 but knew that in a couple of years it wont matter.

We started with the 24-105L and just got the 10-22. Just too cold to do anything outside now I'm hoping over time to get the 70-200 which everyone loves and then maybe the 400.

Many ppl seem to like the 100-400 but I think its too bulky

 

I started with a Canon A2 kit. Shot mostly on full program or the convienence modes. I was not happy with results and was thinking the camera was bad. As I was switching jobs, I received a book on landscape photography by John Shaw. What a difference maker!!

Basically, I learned how everything worked together to make a photograph. Shooting was now done in shutter or aperature priority, or manual modes. Once you understand how it all works, it is actually pretty easy. I now shoot almost alway in full manual. Oh yeah, tripod, tripod, tripod. And when possible, a remote or cable shutter.

My next progression was to upgrade my lenses, as I was finding the kit lenses to be fuzzy. I started investing in Canon L glass. Sure, it's not cheap, but I know have an L glass setup for life.

I next upgraded the camera body to an EOS 1v. After investing in L glass, I'm now forced to stick with Canon bodies. A lot of little things that I found usefull coming from an A2. Again, more money, but very solid. Not a twisty body like the Rebel series. I'm now trying to sell the body for my next move.

I'm now on the verge of switching to a DSLR. I've had my eyes on the 5d. But I'm waiting to see what Canon announces at the end of the month, as the 5d is no longer in production. Again, more money, but the workflow will be much easier and cheaper that my current film workflow.

I have no regrets on any of my purchases. The equipment I have now is very solid and should last my lifetime.

Just my two cents.

 

Not to get into a Canon vs Nikon debate here but I would say that seems to depend on the type of sports. For motorsports, for example, my observation is that it's much closer to 50/50.

That said, I'm not sure what sort of camera sports photographers prefer should be much of a consideration for the average person looking for a new camera.

Nikon's third-quarter results shows almost a 40% increase in DSLR sales over the same quarter last year, btw. I don't know how much of that growth is on the pro side and how much on the consumer side.

Nikon makes a lot of the equipment that the chip fabs use, so there's a close relationship there. Nikon designed the CMOS sensors in the D80, D2h, and D2x. The rest are CCDs and are Sony designs, I think.

Mark

 

The D80 has a CCD sensor, not CMOS. Not sure about the other cameras you mentioned. If by D2h you mean D200, that has basically the same CCD as the D80, but with a 4-channel readout design which can capture more frames per second (5 vs 3).

 

The Photo Marketing show is in Vegas early March. There will be announcements of many new camera models during at this show. Announcnig new models and availability (MUCH like an '07 MINI!) is another question. Usually when Canon announces a new model it is available almost immediately. When Nikon announces a new model, historically take that date and add nine months! (This in the past has been the on-going joke in the photo industry!)

Also, if you see a GREAT deal from a manufacturer with some good rebates, it is usually a sign that those models are going to be replaced and they are trying to deplete their inventory to make room for the new bigger and better, and sometimes cheaper, models. Hmmm, sound familiar?!

 

Canon has been running rebates on the 5d since before the holiday season. They keep extending it.

I want to see what they come out with. If I'm interested in the new features, I'll gladly pay the premium and jump into the digital world. If not, I'll take advantage of lower pricing on the 5d.

 

This is most likely because of the rumours. There are always rumours that Canon wants to move to all full sensors ... but that is refuted in that they keep coming out with more ef-s lens

As to the canon vs nikon debate ... see http://www.thatsmymonkey.com/Pages/0204canonvnikon.html

Also, I believe the sports is talking about the major sports, baseball, football, etc. I read some of the reasons is less noise at higher ASA and better autofocus.

 

I went to PhotoExpo in NYC in November, it's basically the east coast version of the PMA show. Both the Canon & Nikon areas were mobbed. Pentax tried, with a display almost as large - but not too many people stopped in there. Olympus didn't even show up.

I had my D80 in hand in less than 60 days after the Nikon announcement. And that's mostly because I pondered it over for a few weeks. Maybe they're getting better...

Re: obsolescense - I still have every Nikon I've ever bought. I've sold off some non-Nikkor lenses, but kept all the good 35mm stuff. And yes, I actually use them from time to time. I still use my Coolpix 950 now and then too - that was a pretty revolutionary digital camera when it came out. And sometimes 2mp is good enough...

My favorite Nikon is generally the one I bought last...

 

Sorry Chows, but I've been in the semiconductor business for too long to not call BS on this one.

I've got no quarrel with anything else you stated. Now I'll bow out gracefully as I have no interest in fanning the flames of a Canon vs. Nikon discussion.

 

All camera manufacturers buy their CCDs from Sony. Canon manufactures the CMOS sensors in-house!!

 

Here we go again!


Jim

 

Here is the one Kodak used....

Full frame 14MPixel sensor

 

Dohh!

 

I upgraded from a Canon Digital Rebel to the XTi and love it. I haven't yet invested in an L-series lens. I've looked at them in the local photo store, but looking through the lens doesn't cut it. And I haven't found anyone who has shot actual side-by-side pictures with an L and a comparable non-L lens. Sure, I've seen pictures shot with L and non-L lenses, but they're always of different subjects. Pros swear by the L-series and I'm sure they're right, but I need to have photograpic evidence/proof to convince the wife that spending >$1,000 is going to result in better quality shots. Anyone here have any L and comparable non-L lens pictures to share for comparison purposes? Thanks.

 

Can you "test drive" the lens on your camera? Camera stores would love to sell you the L lens, they should be willing to let you try the lens on your camera. Some stores (Sammy's in LA, Calumet) let you rent equipment as well. You can then do all the tests you want.