D60 or D80

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by skjoy@adelphia.net, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I
    would like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for
    the most up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that
    make my mind up. Also would possible consider the D90, but I think
    that's too much camera. Any thoughts. thanks group. moving up from a
    Canon S3
     
    , Dec 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian Guest

    On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:11:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I
    >would like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for
    >the most up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that
    >make my mind up. Also would possible consider the D90, but I think
    >that's too much camera. Any thoughts. thanks group. moving up from a
    >Canon S3


    The D80 can use alot of lenses the D60 can't. The D40, 40x and 60 have no internal focusing motor
    thus requiring the newest DX lenses with internal motors or you have to manually focus. Alot of
    aftermarket lenses also don't have internal motors though they're being added to the most popular
    lenses it seems.

    There are other reasons to choose a D80 but to me this is the most important. There's alot of great
    lenses out there that won't auto focus on the D40-D60s... YMMV !!!!!!
     
    Brian, Dec 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS Guest

    wrote:
    > Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I
    > would like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for
    > the most up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that
    > make my mind up. Also would possible consider the D90, but I think
    > that's too much camera. Any thoughts. thanks group. moving up from a
    > Canon S3


    You'll have more lens choices with the D80, as it uses the standard
    Nikon lens mount with a focusing motor in the camera, so it can
    mechanically link to lenses without their own motors.

    If you don't care about being able to use older lenses than I guess I'd
    get the D60, which is very aggressively priced these days. For $650 or
    so, you get the body and two VR lenses. Nikon has effectively killed the
    market for high end point and shoot cameras.
     
    SMS, Dec 8, 2008
    #3
  4. wrote:
    >Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I
    >would like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for
    >the most up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that
    >make my mind up.


    Most obvious difference is that the D60 requires AF-S lenses for
    auto-focus. While virtually all new consumer/prosumer lenses are AF-S,
    there is large pool of used and high-end professional Nikkors which
    don't have the build-in autofocus motor and therefore can be used in
    manual focus mode only on the D60.

    Aside of that I love the separate status LCD on top of the camera on the
    D80, which allows me to review any relevant setting without turning on
    the large batterie-eating main LCD.

    And I preferred the larger size of the D80 (over the D40 at that time).
    The D80 felt better in my hands,more solid, easier to grasp, hold on to,
    and handle, and it was easier to use the controls. The D40 was too
    small, it just wouldn't fit into my hands and my fingers would always be
    in the wrong place.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Dec 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Curtis <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:16:40 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >> Nikon has effectively killed the
    >>market for high end point and shoot cameras.

    >
    >Only in your own pea-brained sized pretend-photographer mind. There are hundreds
    >of advantages to choosing an excellent P&S camera over any model of DSLR.


    Posting the same 25 "reasons" hundreds of times doesn't make it hundreds
    of advantages, even if they are posted under hundreds of fake
    identities.

    While P&S certainly have their place and while there are certainly very
    valid reasons why someone prefers a P&S over a SLR, the opposite holds
    just as well.
    Those two types simply serve different purposes, just like you won't
    score high when picking up your data in the family station wagon while
    on the other hand a fancy sports car really sucks taking your 5 kids to
    soccer practice and neither does a good job hauling those 5 cubic meters
    of beauty bark.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Dec 8, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite Guest

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:11:17 -0800, skjoy wrote:

    > Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I
    > would like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for
    > the most up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that
    > make my mind up. Also would possible consider the D90, but I think
    > that's too much camera. Any thoughts. thanks group. moving up from a
    > Canon S3


    I would not get either. I would look at the D90. You might as well get
    the latest in technology since they do last a long time. I would also
    consider the Canon Rebel XSi. I like the feel of it better. And for a
    little more money the Canon 50D would be my first choice. Each of those
    cameras are in a different price range.

    If you want to get older Technology then I guess the D80 would be OK but
    the D90 is so much improved. I would stay away from the D60.
     
    measekite, Dec 8, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:30:20 -0600, Curtis wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:16:40 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >> Nikon has effectively killed the
    >>market for high end point and shoot cameras.

    >
    > Only in your own pea-brained sized pretend-photographer mind. There are hundreds
    > of advantages to choosing an excellent P&S camera over any model of DSLR.


    That is correct but equally correct there are hundreds of advantage to
    choosing even an entry level DSLR.

    For one you can create very large cropped prints that have greater
    sharpness and less noise even when shot at higher ISO's.

    P&S are limited to ISO 80 to produce their best and can be acceptable up
    to ISO 200. When cropped somewhat you can get a decent 8x10.
     
    measekite, Dec 8, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:30:20 -0600, Curtis wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:16:40 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >> Nikon has effectively killed the
    >>market for high end point and shoot cameras.

    >
    > Only in your own pea-brained sized pretend-photographer mind. There are hundreds
    > of advantages to choosing an excellent P&S camera over any model of DSLR.
     
    measekite, Dec 8, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:28:12 -0800, SMS wrote:

    > Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > \
    >> Posting the same 25 "reasons" hundreds of times doesn't make it hundreds
    >> of advantages, even if they are posted under hundreds of fake
    >> identities.

    >
    > Actually there are (or were) a few advantages of P&S cameras, but those
    > are rapidly disappearing.
    >
    > For example, it used to be that only P&S cameras could shoot video, but
    > with the advent of the D90 and 5D Mark II, that has changed, and no
    > doubt video capability will be standard in future models, even at the
    > low end. It used to be that only a P&S could have a preview LCD, but
    > that has changed. Dust used to be a problem on D-SLRs until they
    > introduced automatic cleaning systems. D-SLRs used to be a lot more
    > expensive than a high end P&S, but that advantage has largely
    > disappeared; you can now buy a D60 with two VR lenses for less than a
    > Canon G10.
    >
    > Really the only advantage left for P&S cameras is size, and even that's
    > not such a big advantage when you compare a high-end P&S like the Canon
    > G10 or Lumix G2 to the smallest D-SLR.




    UNFORTUNATELY the high end Canon G10 looses its luster when shot above ISO
    80 according to all of the test reports I have read.

    For the most part the image quality of the lower end Canon SD880 is about
    the same.



    >
    > Meanwhile the list of advantages of D-SLRs is very long.
    >
    > -Much better quality optics
    > -Much better high-ISO performance
    > -Much wider range of optics, from extreme wide-angle to extreme
    > telephoto -Much faster auto-focus
    > -Much wider dynamic range
    > -True optical viewfinder
    > -Manual control
    > -Much higher frame rate
    >
    > These are just a few of the advantages.
    >
    > What's happening in the market is that people are buying D-SLRs for when
    > they need higher quality, or they need to shoot in low light, or they
    > need fast AF, and also buying a compact P&S to take with them when the
    > D-SLR is too much to carry. It's not either/or. What's ironic is that
    > P&S digital cameras are probably the one consumer-electronics product
    > that people complain the most about. They hate the auto-focus/shutter
    > lag, and they hate the poor low-light performance. Both are problems
    > that they didn't have with film P&S cameras. If anything is driving the
    > huge increase in D-SLR sales, it's the performance issues of P&S digital
    > cameras.


    I also think that many users want to print 11x14 and larger and crop
    somewhat as well and still want that prize winning sharpness with low
    noise and high resolution.

    The main issue with all digital is dynamic range.



    >
    > IDC said that D-SLR sales are up 25% for 2008, while P&S sales are up
    > 10%. Clearly consumers are becoming more and more aware of the
    > advantages of D-SLRs. Alas in 2009 the camera industry will become a
    > victim of its own success in terms of sales of D-SLRs. The quality of
    > even the low end D-SLRs of a few years ago is such an improvement over
    > P&S quality, that the camera makers aren't seeing the sales of upgraded
    > models that they need. People are sticking with their 6-10 megapixel
    > D-SLRs, seeing little reason to move up to a 12 or 15 megapixel model.
     
    measekite, Dec 8, 2008
    #9
  10. Brian wrote:

    > On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:11:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:
    >
    >>Just can't decide between the 2 for general purpose photography. I would
    >>like to shoot some outside low speed sports and am looking for the most
    >>up to date technology. Can't really read any reviews that make my mind
    >>up. Also would possible consider the D90, but I think that's too much
    >>camera. Any thoughts. thanks group. moving up from a Canon S3

    >
    > The D80 can use alot of lenses the D60 can't. The D40, 40x and 60 have no
    > internal focusing motor thus requiring the newest DX lenses with internal
    > motors or you have to manually focus.


    I never noticed that -- focus motors are only being put in DX lenses?


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 8, 2008
    #10
  11. nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > I never noticed that -- focus motors are only being put in DX lenses?


    any nikon lens that's an 'af-s' lens has an internal focus motor. it
    might *also* be a dx lens or it might be a standard full frame lens.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2008
    #11
  12. Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    > focus motors are only being put in DX lenses?


    No, focus motors don't have anything to do with the image circle of a
    lens (DX designation).

    It's AF-S lenses which contain a build-in ultra-sonic (or Silent Wave as
    Nikon calls it) focussing motor.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Dec 8, 2008
    #12
  13. On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:57:37 GMT, measekite <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:30:20 -0600, Curtis wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:16:40 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nikon has effectively killed the
    >>>market for high end point and shoot cameras.

    >>
    >> Only in your own pea-brained sized pretend-photographer mind. There are hundreds
    >> of advantages to choosing an excellent P&S camera over any model of DSLR.

    >
    >That is correct but equally correct there are hundreds of advantage to
    >choosing even an entry level DSLR.
    >
    >For one you can create very large cropped prints that have greater
    >sharpness and less noise even when shot at higher ISO's.
    >
    >P&S are limited to ISO 80 to produce their best and can be acceptable up
    >to ISO 200. When cropped somewhat you can get a decent 8x10.


    You and others are total morons. You are not limited to 8x10 prints from all P&S
    cameras. Depending on content you can even print a 1600x1200 pixel image at
    13x18 if done right.

    I recall getting some excellent 8x10 prints from even a 2 megapixel camera.

    IT DEPENDS ON THE SUBJECT CONTENT ___NOT___ THE RESOLUTION OF THE IMAGE.

    Get that crap out from between your ears and start spewing some knowledge
    instead of net-parroted nonsense.

    How you idiots managed to survive this far I'll never know.
     
    Landen Lawson, Dec 9, 2008
    #13
  14. SMS Guest

    measekite wrote:

    > UNFORTUNATELY the high end Canon G10 looses its luster when shot above ISO
    > 80 according to all of the test reports I have read.


    That's true. No P&S can compete at higher ISOs, but the megapixel wars
    have resulted in poorer and poorer ISO performance for P&S.

    > The main issue with all digital is dynamic range.


    No it isn't. Dynamic range is fine on D-SLRs and it sucks on P&S. Maybe
    the D-SLR's are not quite as good as 35mm film, but it's sufficient.
     
    SMS, Dec 9, 2008
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas Guest

    Landen Lawson (Vern/Keooeit/anti-dslr-troll/Casiobear) wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:57:37 GMT, measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:30:20 -0600, Curtis wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:16:40 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nikon has effectively killed the
    >>>> market for high end point and shoot cameras.
    >>> Only in your own pea-brained sized pretend-photographer mind. There are hundreds
    >>> of advantages to choosing an excellent P&S camera over any model of DSLR.

    >> That is correct but equally correct there are hundreds of advantage to
    >> choosing even an entry level DSLR.
    >>
    >> For one you can create very large cropped prints that have greater
    >> sharpness and less noise even when shot at higher ISO's.
    >>
    >> P&S are limited to ISO 80 to produce their best and can be acceptable up
    >> to ISO 200. When cropped somewhat you can get a decent 8x10.

    >
    > You and others are ..

    (childish abuse snipped). It is fair to make generalisations in regard
    to images - if one doesn't specify the content, a reasonable/sane person
    would correctly assume an image with a reasonable amount of detail, say
    a family snapshot or landscape, was being discussed.

    Measekite's comments may be rather simplified and there are exceptions,
    but in general, he's about right. Of course there are some folk whose
    quality standards are obviously low. For example:

    > You are not limited to 8x10 prints from all P&S
    > cameras. Depending on content you can even print a 1600x1200 pixel image at
    > 13x18 if done right.

    True. As long as you only take images do not invite close scrutiny and
    have low quality standards, indeed you could. But most of us shoot a
    range of images and a wise person would consider *that*, rather than
    make recommendations on those few images that might get away with little
    technical finery. If one takes that road, then a Barbie camera will be
    sufficient for us all.

    > I recall getting some excellent 8x10 prints from even a 2 megapixel camera.

    Well, that is certainly convincing. Keoeeit really knows how to debate!

    > IT DEPENDS ON THE SUBJECT CONTENT ___NOT___ THE RESOLUTION OF THE IMAGE.

    Except what happens when the subject content is of the type that *does*
    require a lot of resolution? For example, a large family group. A
    cityscape. A landscape with much foliage/grass/distant detail. And
    what happens when you go beyond 8x10? Or crop?

    I guess Keoeeit doesn't do that or take those sorts of image, hence his
    satisfaction with just 2Mp. His S3IS is actually overkill.


    > Get that ...

    (childish abuse snipped)

    This why Keoeeit prefers to post his 25 fantasies. Nobody bothers
    responding to it anymore as it has been trashed by all and sundry. If
    he tries to actually argue, his points are demolished in seconds.
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 9, 2008
    #15
  16. Mark Thomas Guest

    Ramond Arkos (aka Vern/Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Casiobear) wrote:
    > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:19:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
    >> ... It is fair to make generalisations in regard
    >> to images - if one doesn't specify the content, a reasonable/sane person
    >> would correctly assume an image with a reasonable amount of detail, say
    >> a family snapshot or landscape, was being discussed.

    >
    > That depends on number of pixels and image resolution.

    Oh. Do you think?

    > It has nothing to do with
    > the style of camera that creates them.

    So a typical camera phone, a typical disposable digital, a typical p&s,
    a typical 4/3, a typical dslr, a typical MF back, a typical LF scanning
    back would all be similar then? You don't see a trend?


    > It has already been proven many times
    > that a DSLR does not provide more detail in an image

    Absolutely false. The ONLY thing you use to backup that ridiculous
    claim is that one solitary test showing an SX10 roughly equivalent to a
    Canon dslr *with the worst possible kit lens on it*, and even then only
    at base ISO.

    Here's a few typical p&s cameras:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/page15.asp
    Note the resolution maxes out at about 1650 lp/ph.
    Here's a few *low-end* dslrs.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page26.asp
    Note the resolution maxes out at about 2200 lp/ph.

    Only the old Nikon D40 (6Mp) gets down to the p&s level. Even the
    Olympus E410 , a lowly 4/3 camera, beats the p&s figures.


    > and in many cases DSLR
    > glass can create even more CA than P&S glass due to the longer focal-lengths
    > needed for DSLR glass.

    Incorrect. Again, the plural of anecdote is not data. And with your
    p&s, you are STUCK with whatever lens you have. With a dslkr you can
    pick and choose from a range of lenses - if CA isn't your thing, just go
    prime. If it is, get a p&s.

    >
    > Why can a DSLR print a larger image when both camera have 10 megapixels and both
    > cameras produce the same detail in the image?

    If that were true they would, but as the dslr has larger sensor, it
    captures pixel-level detail. This *fact* is demonstrated in spades at
    every website comparing the two formats. But more importantly, it is
    patently *obvious*. Why does LF exist? Simply to give larger prints
    and higher quality, mainly through additional detail, than MF or 35mm,
    or any smaller format. It is *very* simple physics, and the same
    physics applies to sensors. Larger sensor, better performance, better
    light gathering, better detail..


    > But then if you take into
    > account that the DSLR image is not framed accurately due to that OVF

    Only amateurs trust viewfinder information down to the nth degree, and
    no decent photographer would ever frame a critical image to precisely
    fit, no matter how allegedly acfcurate his vuiewfinder might be (and
    many dslr's have 100% viewfinders anyway). They 'crop'. Keoeeit should
    look this concept up, and also look up why it is done.

    >> Measekite's comments may be rather simplified and there are exceptions,
    >> but in general, he's about right. Of course there are some folk whose
    >> quality standards are obviously low...

    >
    > He's only as correct as real photographers are.

    Slight amendment and abuse snipped.

    > It has nothing to do with close scrutiny or low standards. If you have a mist
    > covered water-scene

    So you only shoot mist covered water-scenes, do you? I have a slightly
    wider repertoire, and it looks like I'm not alone.

    > Yet you have to crop every one of your DSLR images because of inaccurate framing
    > in that DSLR, so take off another 2-5 megapixels from your camera.

    That's some crop. Do you shoot when drunk?

    > You're now
    > down to the resolution of a Barbie Camera with your DSLR.

    Umm, why would you have to crop a mist covered water-scene, anyway?

    > In some cases more resolution is obtained with
    > P&S cameras and their lenses.

    In just SOME cases.. Ah, we've got the admission now. So, in MOST
    cases more resolution is obtained by a dslr. Thanks for that, Keoeeit.


    (manure snipped)
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 9, 2008
    #16
  17. SMS Guest

    measekite wrote:

    <snip>

    > For the most part the image quality of the lower end Canon SD880 is about
    > the same.


    Yeah, well some of the advantages of the G10 are not in the image
    quality, it's in features like the optical viewfinder and the hot shoe.
    You're right that there's diminishing returns these days in going
    up-market in P&S with these tiny pixels. It's like trying to polish a turd.

    What's ironic is that the megapixel wars have made the image quality of
    the P&S _worse_. The P&S marked has become a collection of low-priced
    toys for taking video and for snapshots outdoors. The low-light
    capability keeps getting worse. For all other uses, the P&S falls flat
    on its face when compared to the capability of a D-SLR. Rather sad to
    see this trend, especially when you look at some of the excellent P&S
    film cameras that could rival film SLRs in many situations.
     
    SMS, Dec 9, 2008
    #17
  18. Mark Thomas Guest

    Keoeeit - "A DSLR MIGHT BE THE BETTER OPTION" - yes, you heard it

    AsherGables (aka Vern/Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Casiobear) wrote:
    > The only "trend" here is that you are getting more and more psychotic with every
    > post that you make.

    Insults mean you have lost again. The refuge of the weak and cowardly,
    reinforced by the fact you are too gutless to use one name, let alone
    your own.

    >> Here's a few typical p&s cameras:
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/page15.asp
    >> Note the resolution maxes out at about 1650 lp/ph.
    >> Here's a few *low-end* dslrs.
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page26.asp
    >> Note the resolution maxes out at about 2200 lp/ph.

    >
    > Anecdotal evidence. Compare them all.

    I show reproducible tests done on eight cameras, with 4 dslrs easily
    outresolving 4 p&s cameras even at their lowest resolution, Keoeeit has
    shown one test showing one p&s roughly matching a known dog-of-a-lens.

    But sure, Keoeeit, if you think you won that round, just repost your 25
    again.. Oh, I see you did - you really have lost the plot.

    > It's interesting too that you would cite one of the only review sites online
    > that has been continually proved to sway their test results in favor of whatever
    > cameras make the most money for them.

    I knew that one was coming! Only when he gets defeated, does he attack
    the umpire. Umm, Keoeeit, these are standard test shots taken of a
    standard test target. Why, even *you* could duplicate them.

    > With a P&S if you don't like the glass you can buy a whole new camera

    And still not be able to match the dslr, as shown above, so that would
    be about as silly as your original choice. Maybe if you bought several,
    mounted them into an array and used them to take synchronised images to
    stitch.. no, you'd still be stuck with the slow AF, slow v-f, inability
    to manual focus, poor low-light performance...

    > And has been proved more than adequately, NO DSLR glass is diffraction-limited

    No, I actually read that thread, and it merely proved you haven't a clue
    what diffraction, let alone diffraction-limited, means. We are, after
    all, talking about the final reslt - ability to resolve detail, and the
    links shown above show that the dslr is simply superior. Even a 4/3
    one. As it should be - the sensor is larger. It's only rocket science
    to one person here. And that's just resolution, without introducing
    noise levels...

    > .. it can't resolve that detail down to pixel level.

    No digital camera can, not even a Smegma. It would take a very
    uneducated imager to not know that. Hint - start with looking up "Nyquist".

    > Whereas P&S glass can, and
    > does, regularly.

    Read the above line. If you dispute it, post proof - I'm sure Mr
    Nyquist is shaking in his boots as his theorems are about to tumble..

    > That's right, you gave up on that thread

    I wasn't even in it, doofus. Other folk handed the knowledge out to
    you, so I wasn't required.

    > Then get a full-frame camera if all that you care about is resolution.

    There again, Keoeeit concedes the dslr is better at resolution,
    contradicting his st completely. Perhaps we can now move on to
    low-light performance.

    > But as has been proved time and time again,
    > if you don't capture something interesting to look at no amount of resolution in
    > the world is going to save you.

    But if you do have something interesting, the rest of use liek to
    capture it in as high reslolution as we can, or as the output demands.
    In your case, you are looking at images no larger than 1000 pixels wide.
    And for that you are right, a p&s is adequate in most areas, just a
    little slow.

    But one day you will realise there are uses other than displaying on
    your camera phone.

    > IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT CLARITY AND RESOLTION YOU (childish abuse deleted)

    No it isn't. But some of it is. You have your quality standrads, and
    others differ. That's a tricky concept when the entire world revolves
    around you, Keooeit, but one day...


    > You know absolutely nothing about composition, do you.


    Let's see those images of Keoeeit's again, shall we:
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96572 (Beetle
    macro - ok, but over-processed)
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Drop_a.jpg (Water droplet - this is
    actually quite good, but does seem to be showing CA/PF, even at that
    size..?)
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685 (IR fox
    - "I'll admit it's not a very good photo...")
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582
    (Raccoons - sometimes content overcomes technical issues, but not always..)
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
    (Raccoons II - sometimes...)
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=97424
    (Raccoon, nice example of aliasing artefacts in the whiskers)
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180
    (Chipmunk - oversharpened and badly cropped)
    http://iz.carnegiemnh.org/cranefly/images/Photos/Limonia_immatura_by_...
    (crane fly)
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
    (oversharpened geese panorama)

    Thanks, but I'll defer to others to teach me stuff. If others are happy
    with that gallery of examples, I would suggest without hesitation they
    too should buy a p&s.

    > (Again, no need to
    > answer, as your existing comments are proof enough.)

    Yes, see above.

    > a DSLR *might* be
    > the better option.


    You heard it here first folks: Keoeeit - "A DSLR MIGHT BE THE BETTER
    OPTION".

    > Here, let me..

    Ah, yes, the 'admission of defeat' posting. Thanks.
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 9, 2008
    #18
  19. nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, Blinky
    > the Shark <> wrote:
    >
    >> I never noticed that -- focus motors are only being put in DX lenses?

    >
    > any nikon lens that's an 'af-s' lens has an internal focus motor.


    I know.

    > it might *also* be a dx lens or it might be a standard full frame lens.


    Thanks. I didn't *think* they were limited to DX lenses, as was implied
    in the post to which I responded (which has been snipped).


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 9, 2008
    #19
  20. Jürgen Exner wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    >
    >> focus motors are only being put in DX lenses?

    >
    > No, focus motors don't have anything to do with the image circle of a lens
    > (DX designation).


    I know they don't, inherently. The post to which I was responding (which
    you snipped so that context is lost) implied that Nikon only puts focus
    motors in DX lenses, and I was questioning *that* comment.

    > It's AF-S lenses which contain a build-in ultra-sonic (or Silent Wave as
    > Nikon calls it) focussing motor.


    I know.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. C. Falise
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    297
    sid derra
    Feb 26, 2005
  2. sid derra

    Nikon D80...

    sid derra, Jul 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    742
    Denny B
    Jul 29, 2006
  3. PeteD

    Nikion D80 info here.

    PeteD, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,198
    Digital Photography Now
    Aug 11, 2006
  4. deryck  lant

    Nikon D80 Hands-on Preview

    deryck lant, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    655
  5. Nikon D80 vs D60 Wait?

    , Nov 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    3,499
Loading...

Share This Page