who's got/or had a D80?

how do/did you like it? good step up/start after my S100 or should i look elsewhere? thanks in advance.

I have a D80 and love it. It's essentially a D200 in a plastic shell. However, by today's standards it's old technology, so I wouldn't invest in an expensive housing and ports that you won't be able to use with your next camera upgrade or sell for a decent price but if you can buy a used housing and ports for a reasonable price (I'd suggest Ikelite as used metal housings are expensive), I'd say go for it. You can take very nice pictures with a D80.

I had a D80 and almost as soon as the D90 came out I replaced it. The D90 is a superior camera by far, especially when it comes to color saturation etc. Dont waste your money on a D80.

CoralKisser:

I had a D80 and almost as soon as the D90 came out I replaced it. The D90 is a superior camera by far, especially when it comes to color saturation etc. Dont waste your money on a D80.

Click to expand...

Yes, the D90 is a better camera, but the D300s is better still, so why "waste money" on a D90? And by the same logic, why "waste money" on a D300s when the D7000 is so much better? If Divemaster already has a D80 or can pick up a good used one for a song and can also pick up a good used Ikelite housing cheap, which is quite possible, then I still maintain he will be able to take great shots with that set-up and gain experience of using a dSLR under water before an expensive upgrade. One of my clubmates who is a semipro and has won prizes in international photo contests uses a D200 and a D80.

I have a D80 and like it, it is my backup to the D300, or used when I go on a shoot (not underwater) where I want quick access to two lens setups (like at the track or something with a tele and a wide). I'll use the D80 for a wide setup. I've never used it underwater. It is a good, solid camera in my opinion. Yes, D90 is more advanced, D300* further still, but like said above, if the D80 is in your price range, I don't think you would regret it.

At ISO 200 or 400 noise is not detrimental in my opinion. Above that, you will probably see some noise.

I think the D80 is 6fps max, I don't recall exactly, but if you're shooting with strobes you won't be shooting off 6 frames at a time anyway.

Focus is fast IMHO, and more dependent on the lens used.

Downsides, viewfinder mag is lower (0.75x I think), no live view on the LCD, smaller LCD etc.

I'm working on putting a 300s in the water now as an upgrade from my G10 because I found one from a previous owner I trust for a good deal and I'd like to have video capability, otherwise I wouldn't hesitate for a second to make my D80 the u/w camera.

The D80 is a decent camera. But it is not up to the standards of the more recent DSLRs that Nikon makes. The D90 which is still in production is superior with more megapixels (12) and (more importantly) better high iso performance. If I were to use a camera with the notion of getting a housing for it, I would go with the D90 which would probably not cost that much more than the D90. The most recent Nikon of this line is the D7000. It has 16 megapixels which is pushing the resolution of the DX format (diffraction limits the functional resolution for each size of sensor and the D7000 is nearing the limit). The d7000 has very good high ISO performance. Actually, I would like camera companies to work more on increasing the dynamic range of the camera's sensors. Of course, the D7000 costs more than the D80 or the D90. The advantage of the D80 and the D90 is that you can probably get used housings for both of them which would decrease your cost of investment. Both of these cameras would be a functional advance over the S100. Of course, be warned that going into a DSLR means that you are going to deal with serious weight and bulk requirements for your system as compared to a point and shoot. A DSLR can easily be nearly as heavy and bulky as your scuba equipment. So you get to be a sort of beast of burdain in airports.

I have one, along with a D300 & a D7000, and it's great. Go for it. It's a great step up, if you can find a good housing for it.

If you have the right lens, you'll pretty much get just as good photos with it as you will with the D300 or D7000. Be sure to get good lenses (Tokina 10-17mm, Nikon 60mm). - Scott

It's an OK camera. I depends on your demands. In general I think what I like the least with it is the display. It's much much better than the first generation (D50/D70 etc) though, but it's still far from the "current" generation (D90/D300/D300s/D7000/D700/D800/D3 etc). It's good enough to see what you have photographed (which could be tricky on the first generation), but it's not good enough to see if it's pin sharp.

If you are into natural light you may think it has too much noise on high ISO. Consider a D7000 instead then.
It's AF speed is OK but it doesn't have many AF points and only one is of cross type.

If you are a sucker for sun balls, then you may also be disapointed (everything is relative though, it's still better then the D100 and most compacts). The D90/D300 and especially D7000 is clearly better for this as the have a larger dynamic range partly due to their 14 bit RAW mode.

I have a D80 and recently moved up to a D7000. Reason was my daughter is a gymnast and most meets are from a distance in low light gyms. D80 I had to really push the ISO to get pictures even using a Nikon 70-200mm lens (2.8, ouch pricey). Other than that I liked the camera and was going to house it. Obviously now I'm looking to house the 7000. I still have it and need to sell it. Low shutter count and has 2 batteries along with original box/etc. PM if you're interested. Body only though.

thanks for the answers in this...i wound up going M43 and don't regret it. i do plan to buy another set up but not sure what that will be yet. an M43 set up is smaller than a DSLR but it's still pretty big IMO. i may try another new high end compact for my 2nd set up.