Nikon D80 vs. Canon 400D

Nikon D80 vs. Canon 400D

  • Total voters
    2
keving

keving

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
61
Hey guys, I was just wondering about which ones you guys prefer, and why. Also please take into account the different lenses for each! Also, price would be important in this matter. I wanna make a decision about which one is better to buy into. I like to do a little landscape photography, a little action photography, and a few portraits. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

Kevin
 
I placed an order on a Canon 400D simply for $300 less I could get the same equipment. I'd say with unlimited funds though, I'd get a Nikon.

Not much of a camera expert though.
 
The Nikon has many more features than the 400D, it's more or less a D200 packed into a D70 body.

The 400D will undoubtely come with the shit-tastic Canon 18-55, while the D80 comes with the much better Nikkor 18-70 or 18-135.
 
From what I understand Cannon has the edge when it comes to the sensor but Nikon has the advantage when it comes to optics. Beyond that I have no idea, the most automatic camera I shoot chooses the shutter speed AND f-stop.

I'm on the cutting edge there, baby!
 
Blind_Io said:
From what I understand Cannon has the edge when it comes to the sensor but Nikon has the advantage when it comes to optics.
Click to expand...

Both sensors are amazing... the only big thing that Canon generally does better with is the high ISO noise control. This is not to say however that Nikon's sensors are bad in this area.. just that Canon has some pretty good noise cleaning that Nikon doesn't have matched with most of their cameras.

However, the D80 appears to be as good as or better than the 400D in this area... better than the D50 even. IOW, Nikon is getting better.. and fast, while Canon isn't really improving in this area atm.

As for choosing one or the other.. the D80 is without a doubt the better camera. But the 400d is a good value. However, so is the D50. The D80 and 400D shouldn't really be compared except that they're the newest camera from each company. The 400D is better compared with the D50, since they're both marketed towards the same buyers. The D80 is a $1000 camera, and it acts like one.
 
the high iso noise performance was the only thing that was good about the eos350d but for some weird reason they have made it worse with the 400d, most probably due to stuffing more useless megapixels in it without improving the sensor. well, canon...
 
ryosuke said:
the high iso noise performance was the only thing that was good about the eos350d but for some weird reason they have made it worse with the 400d, most probably due to stuffing more useless megapixels in it without improving the sensor. well, canon...
Click to expand...

indeed.. all while Nikon has been getting better, even with the more megapixels. Bad move on Canon's part :(
 
Get the Canon. Why? Simply because Canon has better glass for more reasonable prices. In the end, bodys will change but lenses last for years on end.

I actually end up buying Canon DSLR(previously a Nikon user) just over a year ago, just because Canon has 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L. Both are insanely sharp lenses with good build quality, all in reasonable price.
 
Thanks for the replies, guys. I'm sure Nikon's "kit" lens is much better than Canon's 18-55mm, but for 300$ more, I think I can find a pretty comparable Canon lens for that money. Do you guys think the 400D is a big improvement over the 350D, which is to say is it worth the extra 200 dollars or so? Thanks guys.

Oh yeah, do you guys think that Nikon DSLRs have truer colour reproduction than Canon DSLRs? From the different pictures that I've seen, the Nikon's colours are somehow more vivid than Canon's.
Kevin
 
I voted for the Nikon, as I am a complete dolt and the Nikon I own is that easy to use.

So there you have it. Go buy a Nikon. The end.
 
odo said:
Get the Canon. Why? Simply because Canon has better glass for more reasonable prices. In the end, bodys will change but lenses last for years on end.

I actually end up buying Canon DSLR(previously a Nikon user) just over a year ago, just because Canon has 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L. Both are insanely sharp lenses with good build quality, all in reasonable price.
Click to expand...

uhmm..

1) the 17-40L is nice.. but not that great. I hear countless stories over and over again about how there are better lenses than the 17-40 for the same price or cheaper.

2) Nikon has the 80-200 2.8, brand new for $950, or used for as little as $500. Tell me which one you'd rather have more? ;)

Canon has more lenses with IS than Nikon does with VR.. they have more PC lenses.. and they have more fast wide angle and telephoto primes (all costing more than I'm sure most people here want to spend). If you don't have a need for one of those specific things then Nikon can match it pretty easily, if not better in some areas.

The point is.. Canon and Nikon aren't all that different. In fact, right now they're neck-and-neck in almost every large segment of the market. Everyone has their personal preferences... but that doesn't mean that, objectively, you couldn't meet your goals with the other brand just as easily.
 
keving said:
Thanks for the replies, guys. I'm sure Nikon's "kit" lens is much better than Canon's 18-55mm, but for 300$ more, I think I can find a pretty comparable Canon lens for that money. Do you guys think the 400D is a big improvement over the 350D, which is to say is it worth the extra 200 dollars or so? Thanks guys.

Oh yeah, do you guys think that Nikon DSLRs have truer colour reproduction than Canon DSLRs? From the different pictures that I've seen, the Nikon's colours are somehow more vivid than Canon's.
Kevin
Click to expand...

There's really no reason to pick up any kit lens.. Get a Sigma/Tokina/whatever equivalent f2.8 lens and you'll be set while learning the ins and outs of the camera.

About the colours, you can't really tell by looking at pics people post on the net, since it's all in the post process. Original, unedited pictures from both cameras would have to be compared.. And those usually look very flat and gray. :roll:
 
rootrider said:
odo said:
Get the Canon. Why? Simply because Canon has better glass for more reasonable prices. In the end, bodys will change but lenses last for years on end.

I actually end up buying Canon DSLR(previously a Nikon user) just over a year ago, just because Canon has 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L. Both are insanely sharp lenses with good build quality, all in reasonable price.
Click to expand...

uhmm..

1) the 17-40L is nice.. but not that great. I hear countless stories over and over again about how there are better lenses than the 17-40 for the same price or cheaper.

2) Nikon has the 80-200 2.8, brand new for $950, or used for as little as $500. Tell me which one you'd rather have more? ;)

Canon has more lenses with IS than Nikon does with VR.. they have more PC lenses.. and they have more fast wide angle and telephoto primes (all costing more than I'm sure most people here want to spend). If you don't have a need for one of those specific things then Nikon can match it pretty easily, if not better in some areas.

The point is.. Canon and Nikon aren't all that different. In fact, right now they're neck-and-neck in almost every large segment of the market. Everyone has their personal preferences... but that doesn't mean that, objectively, you couldn't meet your goals with the other brand just as easily.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with all of that, I really see no measureable advantage to either system. The only lens that remains an advantage for either clan is Nikon's 18-200VR, which is damned near imposible to get at MSRP without waiting. Canon L-glass is nice, but you could also get a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 for the price of that F4L 70-200 - and I've heard the Sigma's glass is just as good as the Canon, if not slightly better.
 
Taking into account all the comments above, I think the best purchase would be a 350D, as it's not THAT much different from a 400D. After that, I can think about which lens I could buy with the money I saved.
 
rootrider said:
1) the 17-40L is nice.. but not that great. I hear countless stories over and over again about how there are better lenses than the 17-40 for the same price or cheaper.

2) Nikon has the 80-200 2.8, brand new for $950, or used for as little as $500. Tell me which one you'd rather have more? ;)
Click to expand...

1) Like what glass is better for that price and for that focal length?

2) Not here...new Canon 70-200 f/4 L is about 650 euros while nikon 80-200 2.8 is about 1150 euros, quite significant differance IMHO.
 
I like both companies products. I have a CoolPix digital and a Canon Video both work fantastically well. I only take snaps and family videos however. I would probably just tend toward the Nikon for still pics. Either on of the above cameras appear to be fine for the job you have in mind.
 
odo said:
1) Like what glass is better for that price and for that focal length?

2) Not here...new Canon 70-200 f/4 L is about 650 euros while nikon 80-200 2.8 is about 1150 euros, quite significant differance IMHO.
Click to expand...

1) The Sigma 18-50 EX 2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 2.8 come to mind immediately. Both are becoming highly regarded lenses and are faster and in some cases better than the 17-40. Just because a lens has an "L" in the name it doesn't mean it can't be beat by a cheaper lens. A friend of mine used a Tokina or Tamron zoom (can't remember which, and it was something like an 18-50.. f/2.8) and he switched to the 17-40 thinking it would better. He still regrets getting rid of that old lens.

2) You can get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (also a very good lens) or a used 80-200 2.8 like I did. They can be had for as little as around $500 here.. or around $700 like the one I got.

Once again all I'm saying that there's very little objective difference between the two camps. Lenses are only a deciding factor if you're looking for a specific type of lens that the other side doesn't quite offer. Glass quality can almost always be matched in some way for the same price or cheaper on both sides, etc.
 
Both lenses you mentioned are only for the reduced frame cameras(1.5 or 1.6 crop factor), so I wouldn't even consider them. I like to be able to use my lenses when I buy better body which has larger sensor, and actually I had 1D for a while..so, no lenses that are designed for APS-C sized sensors.

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is "ok", but a bit more expensive(100 euros or so) than 70-200 f/4 L here and when I compared them head to head, the canon was considerably more sharper at f/4 and the Sigma was almost unusable at f/2.8-4 range. And I suspect that the difference is even more noticeable when both are used on a body with full frame or APS-H sized sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top