Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> The D80 will probably act very much like the D200 and the Sony dSLR in terms
> of image quality. Nice at ISO 100 to 400, a mess at ISO 1600 and above.
>

The D200, at least is not a mess above ISO 400. It's fine up to around
800 and usable above, especially if you process it carefully (*). I
agree that the 20D needs less postprocessing to get rid of the noise,
and gives lower noise in the end anyway, but the difference isn't as
much as some people seem to think. And I believe one should print out
the resulting photos to compare; how the noise looks is also important.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

(*) The dpreview page you linked to uses jpegs for comparison, which
may be the only reasonable way to do it but is useless to compare
real-world performance (unless, of course, you shoot only jpegs...).
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

acl wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > The D80 will probably act very much like the D200 and the Sony dSLR in terms
> > of image quality. Nice at ISO 100 to 400, a mess at ISO 1600 and above.
> >
>
> The D200, at least is not a mess above ISO 400. It's fine up to around

Serves me right for speed-reading posts. I completely agree, it's a
mess above ISO 1600. ISO 1600 itself can be used for small prints. I've
printed 20x30cm from ISO 1250 and it looks great, but the reason is
that I removed the colour noise and sharpened the luminance noise into
"grain" for effect, rather than lack of noise.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:05:37 -0500, rob wrote:

> Stupid I guess but I had to ask people more knowledgeable than me the
> pros and cons of each camera in comparison. I know the D80 is new and
> I'm not even sure you can buy one yet. I'm guessing the D80 is
> better but just wonder how much better. Regardless I already own a
> 20d so not in the rush to spend more.

You can get a good idea just by reading some of the details
published (some echoed in this newsgroup) or from the preliminary
reviews. Dpreview.com and Imaging-Resource(sp?) have some. But it
would be fairer to compare the D80 with the 30D, at least for most
people. It wouldn't be difficult for you to extrapolate from the
slight difference between the 20D and the 30D.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:54:13 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Anyway, I think the 20D is as good as APS-C is going to get in terms of
> image quality (without radically different sensor technology). If you need
> better looking 13x19 prints, the 5D is worth looking at. Or 6x7 medium
> format film scanned with a Nikon 9000.

The 20D and D80 may not be closely comparable in size, weight and
features, but they're much closer in most things, including price,
than the 5D or 6x7 MF film, which are insanely larger, heavier and
more expensive, especially when you consider the lenses that would
be needed to do them justice. <g>

As far as Canon DSLRs go, there aren't any that I find very
appealing. If Canon could mate the 30D with the 350D I might be
interested. A 35D love child that blended the quality and features
of the 30D with the size and weight of the 350D would be attractive.
I think that I'd still prefer Nikon's D80, but that's me. I know
where your preferences lie.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

<rob> wrote in message news:lj32e299k8fmddm96qd25pij73t8miomih@4ax.com...
> Stupid I guess but I had to ask people more knowledgeable than me the
> pros and cons of each camera in comparison. I know the D80 is new and
> I'm not even sure you can buy one yet. I'm guessing the D80 is
> better but just wonder how much better. Regardless I already own a
> 20d so not in the rush to spend more.
>
> thanks.

Check the dpreview tests. It showed a small advantage of resolution to the
D80, however high ISO noise was much more of a concern with the camera.
John
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

"ASAAR" <caught.TakeThisOut@22.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:54:13 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I think the 20D is as good as APS-C is going to get in terms of
>> image quality (without radically different sensor technology). If you
>> need
>> better looking 13x19 prints, the 5D is worth looking at. Or 6x7 medium
>> format film scanned with a Nikon 9000.
>
> The 20D and D80 may not be closely comparable in size, weight and
> features,

Huh? They are very similar beasts, almost exactly the same size and weight.
And features are pretty close as well.

> but they're much closer in most things, including price,
> than the 5D or 6x7 MF film, which are insanely larger, heavier and
> more expensive, especially when you consider the lenses that would
> be needed to do them justice. <g>

My point was that the OP is thinking of upgrading, and if he needs better
image quality, he needs to do something radically different from APS-C
digital; an extra 2MP won't do much.

By the way, you are wrong about the 5D and 6x7 being all that much larger
and heavier than APS-C.

The 5D body is only about 200 grams heavier than the 20D/30D/D80, the Tamron
28-75/2.8 is flipping amazing on the 5D, and the 17-40 is (slightly, I
think) cheaper than the 10-22.

You are right on the price bit, though. The 5D sticker price is definitely
in "sticker shock" territory, and since lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and
Canon 24mm TSE work as intended, it's a real sink of money after the fact as
well.

Also, 6x7 MF film isn't that much heavier than digital. With lens, the
Mamiya 7 is 1210 gm (as compared to the 680 gm for the 20D body). Put the
Sigma 20/1.8 on a 20D, and it's going to be heavier than the Mamiya 7 +
65/4.0 (although the 20D + 20/1.8 is a lot better for indoor work<g>). Most
people with DSLRs go lens crazy and end up with a lot more weight than MF
types actually carry in real life (my MF bag only holds a body + 2 lenses,
so I just bought a larger bag).

> As far as Canon DSLRs go, there aren't any that I find very
> appealing. If Canon could mate the 30D with the 350D I might be
> interested. A 35D love child that blended the quality and features
> of the 30D with the size and weight of the 350D would be attractive.
> I think that I'd still prefer Nikon's D80, but that's me. I know
> where your preferences lie.

I prefer the size of the D50 to the 350D; the D50 fits my hands nicely (it's
a brick) but the 350D is just too small. I've been fairly careful not to
badmouth the Nikon 6MP cameras*; their performance is identical to that of
the 6MP Canons and not a whole lot different from the 8MP Canons. Nikon's
bletcherously insane policy of stuffing way too many pixels in way too small
a space is, however, fair game for harassment<g>.

*: The only thing wrong with Nikon 6MP dSLRs is that Nikon doesn't make a
full-frame camera.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:28:23 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> The 20D and D80 may not be closely comparable in size, weight and
>> features,
>
> Huh? They are very similar beasts, almost exactly the same size and weight.

Yes, that was my point, that they are very similar, and no, you're
mistaken. They're *not* almost exactly the same size and weight.
Size si, weight no. Here's a bar graph comparing Canon and Nikon
body weights, omitting the 1Ds which allows a more effective scale
to be used, and helps emphasize that the 1Ds is off the charts! <g>
Data follows:

> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxX (350D)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxx (D50)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx (D70)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx (D80)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxx (20D)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxx (D200)
> xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxx (5D)

There's general agreement that the 350D and D50 are lightweight
DSLRs. Even Canon fans admit that the 5D is a heavy camera. I've
seen numerous messages here from owners of Canon DSLRs admitting
that. You can easily see that the 20D's weight is closer to that of
a 5D than it is to a 350D (1.1 lb vs. 1.5 lb vs. 1.8 lb). In fact,
far from being almost exactly the same weight as the D20, the D80's
weight lies almost exactly between the weights of the 350D and the
D20 (1.1 lb vs. 1.3 lb vs. 1.5 lb). As for size, I agree. The D80
is slightly smaller, but almost the same size as the D20.


>> but they're much closer in most things, including price,
>> than the 5D or 6x7 MF film, which are insanely larger, heavier and
>> more expensive, especially when you consider the lenses that would
>> be needed to do them justice. <g>
>
> My point was that the OP is thinking of upgrading, and if he needs better
> image quality, he needs to do something radically different from APS-C
> digital; an extra 2MP won't do much.

Wrong again! Where did the OP indicate that he's thinking of
upgrading? I only see one message from him (the OP), and in it he
not only said nothing about upgrading, he also didn't say that he
was concerned about image quality, one of your bête noires. Here's
his OP in its entirety:

> Stupid I guess but I had to ask people more knowledgeable than me the
> pros and cons of each camera in comparison. I know the D80 is new and
> I'm not even sure you can buy one yet. I'm guessing the D80 is
> better but just wonder how much better. Regardless I already own a
> 20d so not in the rush to spend more.


>> By the way, you are wrong about the 5D and 6x7 being all that much larger
>> and heavier than APS-C.
>>
>> The 5D body is only about 200 grams heavier than the 20D/30D/D80,

You're still getting it wrong. The 5D's body is 125 grams heavier
than the 20D, and the 20D in turn is 100 grams heavier than the D80,
so there's no way that the 5D can be 200 grams heavier than both the
20D and the D80. Perhaps you've used some weights that included
batteries and some that didn't?


> the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is flipping amazing on the 5D, and the 17-40 is
> (slightly, I think) cheaper than the 10-22.

You're probably right, but what does that have to do with the
price of tea in Yurakucho Station?


> You are right on the price bit, though. The 5D sticker price is definitely
> in "sticker shock" territory, and since lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and
> Canon 24mm TSE work as intended, it's a real sink of money after the fact as
> well.
>
> Also, 6x7 MF film isn't that much heavier than digital. With lens, the
> Mamiya 7 is 1210 gm (as compared to the 680 gm for the 20D body). Put the
> Sigma 20/1.8 on a 20D, and it's going to be heavier than the Mamiya 7 +
> 65/4.0 (although the 20D + 20/1.8 is a lot better for indoor work<g>).

6x7 MF isn't that much heavier than digital??? Maybe not for
those using a 1Ds, but I'm not even thrilled with the size and
weight of the D80. 1210 grams is more than 2 1/2 lb, and which lens
did you base that weight on, the 65/4.0? If so it's hardly
comparable to the Sigma 20/1.8 which is a much faster lens. If
there are any 1.8 lenses for the Mamiya, it would indicate
substantially more glass. What would such a lens weigh?


> Most people with DSLRs go lens crazy and end up with a lot more weight
> than MF types actually carry in real life (my MF bag only holds a body +
> 2 lenses, so I just bought a larger bag).

I swear, you're doing your best to talk us into considering buying
into one of the 4/3 systems.


>> As far as Canon DSLRs go, there aren't any that I find very
>> appealing. If Canon could mate the 30D with the 350D I might be
>> interested. A 35D love child that blended the quality and features
>> of the 30D with the size and weight of the 350D would be attractive.
>> I think that I'd still prefer Nikon's D80, but that's me. I know
>> where your preferences lie.
>
> I prefer the size of the D50 to the 350D; the D50 fits my hands nicely (it's
> a brick) but the 350D is just too small. I've been fairly careful not to
> badmouth the Nikon 6MP cameras*; their performance is identical to that of
> the 6MP Canons and not a whole lot different from the 8MP Canons. Nikon's
> bletcherously insane policy of stuffing way too many pixels in way too small
> a space is, however, fair game for harassment<g>.

I was just about to bring that up. I'd have liked the D80 even
more if it was comparable in size and weight to the D50. You'd
probably hate using a camera as small as my Fuji S5100, but it does
have some adavantages. Some DSLR owners get even smaller P&S
cameras because they for them, it's not practical carrying a DSLR at
all times.

You've mentioned "insanely small pixels" many times, but as far as
I can recall, only when referring to Nikon's sensors, not Canon's.
As far as insanity goes, let's talk about lens weight. WA lenses
wouldn't be of much concern for DSLRs using either small or FF
sensors. But a long, fast zoom on a 5D would be "insanely great",
and that's not meant in the way that Bill Gates* intended! <g>

* I may be confusing Gates with Steve Jobs, but either way it
amounts to the same thing.


Here's the data I mentioned above, all from dpreview's full
reviews. To get the lengths of the chart's bars, the number of "x"s
used was determined by multiplying the weight in pounds by 36.

> 350D:
> Dimensions * 127 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in)
> Weight * • Body (no batt or CF): 490 g (1.1 lb)

> 20D:
> Dimensions 144 x 106 x 72 mm (5.6 x 4.2 x 2.8 in) *
> Weight (no batt) 685 g (1.5 lb) *

> 5D:
> Dimensions 152 x 113 x 75 mm (6.0 x 4.4 x 2.9 in) *
> Weight (no batt) 810 g (1.8 lb) *

> 1Ds:
> Dimensions 156 x 158 x 80 mm (6.1 x 6.2 x 3.1 in)
> Weight (exc. batt) 1265 g / 44.6 oz. (2.8 lb)

> D50:
> Dimensions 133 x 102 x 76 mm (5.2 x 4.0 x 3.0 in)
> Weight (no battery) 540 g (1.2 lb)

> D70:
> Dimensions 140 x 111 x 78 mm (5.5 x 4.4 x 3.1 in)
> Weight (no battery) 595 g (1.3 lb)

> D80:
> Dimensions * 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3.0 in)
> Weight (no battery) 585 g (1.3 lb)

> D200:
> Dimensions 147 x 113 x 74 mm (5.8 x 4.4 x 2.9 in)
> Weight (no batt) 830 g (1.8 lb)

--
<EOT>
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> All I'm saying is; the number of pixels alone, is too little basis for
> a good prediction of image quality. I'll be picking up a couple of
> 17x25 inch prints in a day or two, and frankly I'm more concerned with
> photo paper gamut limitations than resolution.
>

Hear, hear...
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:ebr5vq$tdp$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
> My opinion here is that a 15% linear increase in resolution isn't
> enough to see. I spent a lot of time with my nose on (crops from)
> 13x19 prints from the 5D (12.7MP) and the 1Dsmk2 (16MP) and couldn't
> see a difference.

Besides the relatively small amount of interpolation (only depending
on printer) needed for a FF sensor with plenty of pixels to generate a
13x19 inch, the differences between the 5D and the 1Ds Mark II images
are indeed more subtle. It is mainly caused by the differences in
AA-filtering plus sharpening, and to a lesser extend to the higher
sampling density.

> The 20D to D80 is even less of an increase.

But then again, with the aliasing tendency of the D70 and Nikon's take
to noise suppression in mind, there may also be significant
differences due to AA-filter design and sampling density rather than
mere numbers of pixels suggest.

All I'm saying is; the number of pixels alone, is too little basis for
a good prediction of image quality. I'll be picking up a couple of
17x25 inch prints in a day or two, and frankly I'm more concerned with
photo paper gamut limitations than resolution.

And then there are things like camera features, handling, durability,
growth path, etc.

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 vs Canon 20d