File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I am beginning to like /p/ and have been planning to have my first DSLR. I opted not to go for D40 because it is too small for my hands. I've been eyeing at D80 for sometime now. What does /p/ recommend other than it?

Pic unrelated.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
the d90.
>> Anonymous
You'd be much better waiting for the D90, probably a little bit dearer, but it will be a better camera.
>> Anonymous
D80
>> Anonymous
Get the Leica.
>> Anonymous
I am also tempted by the D80. I don't have much of a budget and now the D90 is appearing the D80 is becoming cheap. Canons (rebels) and D60s are painful in my hands, so I am mainly considering Pentax K200, Olympus E-510 or a D80. Is it worth the extra cost???
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
The D90 is worth the extra cash if it's within your budget. Features that stand out are the new tasty sensor with extra stop of ISO and better noise performance and a much much more accurate meter. Other upgrades are GPS module support, significantly better LCD, self cleaning sensor, new layout in the back (ok button is inside the directional keypad rather than below, really convenient) and the buttons are better, new shooting information for the rear LCD, better gallery view, 1.5fps faster continuous.

Of course, there's lololol video.

If it's not in your budget though, the D80 is fine and will last you long enough to save pennies until it dies and by then, you'll have saved enough for whatever comes after the D300.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>261820
Unless I spend too much on lenses!

What would you suggest as a lens to get with a D80?
The prices I'm seeing ATM have little to no savings in getting a kit lens with the camera. I would like something with a bit of zoom as a first lens, so I can see what focal lengths I like. The 18-200 would be lovely but thats way out of my price range. It seems, from reading Thom Hogans reviews, that I should go for the 18-70 over the 18-135 as it has better quality optics. Or should I get an 18-55 VR?

pic related: it's the 50mm lens on the Nikon FM I have been using.
>> Anonymous
>>262664
If you really want to get a zoom, just get the 18-55 VR. The quality's good enough, it spans that golden most-useful range of focal lengths from ~28mm equivalent to ~90mm equivalent, and VR is great.

But if you've just been using that fifty, get a 35. It's pretty much the same on crop. Supplement over time with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander, some wide (20 or 24) and a focusing screen (for the 58 and your 50, and whatever else you want to use it on), and you've got a perfect outfit- normal, wide, a shortish medium tele (I don't find the ~75mm equivalent good for much, but it's perfect for shooting performances of any kind somehow and serviceable for most things), and a classic portrait medium tele.
>> Anonymous
>>262670
Thanks, I still have a lot to learn after doing a lot of reading, what do you mean by focusing screen?

I intend to get a macro lens first, and that should work OK as a prime for non macro stuff as well.

I have only been using this 50 as it's all I have at the moment. Using it after using compacts with some zoom for so long, I have noticed myself missing the flexibility of a zoom lens.
>> Anonymous
>>262691
A 60 or 70 macro will do as well as the Voigtlander I mentioned for its role. Plenty of those.

By focusing screen, I mean this:

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

Your FM probably has one, though obviously not from this company.

Are you missing the zoom itself or just wider and longer than 50?
>> Anonymous
>>262664
I'd get the 18-70mm over the VR. Better-built and has that extra range
>> Anonymous
>>262693
I'm not really sure if I am missing the ability to zoom or having a wide or longer lens. I thought getting some sort of zoom lens would be a good way to start out and see how i use it, then after the macro get either a better zoom or some more primes.

>>262698
Yeah, I thought it sounded like the 18-70 was a better lens overall. I also read in a few places that VR is not particularly useful on such a short lens.