Nikon D200 vs. D80

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by W Chan, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. W Chan

    Paul Furman Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    >>Pie Crust Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>>For comparison to see if you need the D200 over the D80, perhaps.
    >>>But
    >>>there are factual errors, such as the sensor being the same as the
    >>>D200 (it is not), no mirror lockup (it has it), etc.

    >>
    >> Didn't he say that they both had mirror lockup, but the D80's was
    >>more limited, being that it was really just for sensor cleaning?

    >
    > While the D200 can hold the mirror up for an extended period, the
    > difference is merely a period of time. The purpose is to eliminate
    > mirror slap vibrations, and both do that exactly the same way.


    I don't know what the D80 does, the D200 has 2 options, a 1/4 second
    delay or a two-click option where the second shutter click fires the
    shutter. 1/4 second might not help much for a long or macro lens swaying
    on a tripod.

    > True mirror lockup means the mirror is locked up out of the way before
    > a lense is even attached so that a lense with a protruding rear
    > element does not get hit by the mirror when it moves, then stays up
    > AFTER the exposure so the mirror doesn't fall on the rear of a lense.


    The D200 does not offer this option. I'm pretty sure the D80 doesn't either.

    > This isn't a big deal these days as most lenses don't protrude into
    > the mirror chamber.
    >
    > The comment about the D80 is only for sensor cleaning is VERY
    > misleading. Also in the comparsion chart he says "no" for mirror
    > lockup, which is wrong since the D80 clearly does have the same delay
    > lockup as the D200.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 21, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. W Chan

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:09:32 -0400, Bill wrote:

    >> Didn't he say that they both had mirror lockup, but the D80's was
    >> more limited, being that it was really just for sensor cleaning?

    >
    > Yes, which is bullsh!t.
    >
    > While the D200 can hold the mirror up for an extended period, the
    > difference is merely a period of time. The purpose is to eliminate
    > mirror slap vibrations, and both do that exactly the same way.
    >
    > True mirror lockup means the mirror is locked up out of the way before
    > a lense is even attached so that a lense with a protruding rear
    > element does not get hit by the mirror when it moves, then stays up
    > AFTER the exposure so the mirror doesn't fall on the rear of a lense.

    I bet you wished you knew just what you are on about.

    --
    Neil
    Delete l to reply
     
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 21, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. W Chan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:37:11 -0400, Cynicor blew this note:

    > So you're saying that it's not the D200's fault that I blue out the
    > highlights on that Seattle photo?


    No. If you want a camera that you can blame for that sort of
    thing, I'll trade my Fuji S5100 for your D200. Fuji has a "Chrome"
    setting that'll give you punchier, more intense color. But I, and
    most people don't use it, since when we do, it gives us the blues.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 21, 2006
    #43
  4. W Chan

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:31:30 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:00:43 -0400, Bill wrote:
    >
    >>> Really? Show us one single mistake in his comparison.

    >>
    >> Start at the top:
    >>
    >> "D80 has the D200's 10 MP image sensor".
    >>
    >> ACK....wrong.

    >
    > That's probably a clumsy way of saying that both sensors have 10
    >million pixels, not that they're identical.


    "It's the same, only different." :)

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Sep 21, 2006
    #44
  5. W Chan

    Bill Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> wrote in message
    news:ZQvQg.1767$...
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> As far as the article's
    >>> accuracy, it appears to be quite accurate. All stats are
    >>> tabulated
    >>> and
    >>> compared precisely. That link was indeed a decent post.

    >>
    >> For comparison to see if you need the D200 over the D80, perhaps.
    >> But
    >> there are factual errors, such as the sensor being the same as the
    >> D200 (it is not), no mirror lockup (it has it), etc.

    >
    > I can't find in the specs from Nikon where it says the D80 has
    > mirror lockup.


    Look again...

    > Also, both the D80 and the D200 sport a 10.2MP sensor 3872x2592
    > pixels. Seems
    > the same to me.


    It may seem the same, but then the Sony may seem the same as the D200,
    but it's not.

    >If the lockup is the same as for the D70(s) then it is indeed only
    >for
    >cleaning. You can't use it to photograph an image and avoid mirror
    >slap
    >vibration. I admit that I am not sure about this feature without
    >doing more
    >research.


    The lockup is not the same as the D70.

    Clearly you don't know much about the D80, so how can you argue that
    Rockwell is right when I have already shown he is wrong in the first
    10% of his so-called "review"?

    Let's cull some of your multiple responses into this one so we can all
    see what's going on.

    >Really? They both have a 10.2MP 3872x2592 sensor. Care to refute
    >that?


    <sigh> So I still have to do your homework for you?

    From Nikons site and specs, total pixels:

    D80:
    Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.75 million,
    Nikon DX format

    D200:
    Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.92 million

    Clearly not the same. The output channel count is also different, 4
    for the D200 and 2 for the D80. See the quotes below for reference.

    >Eh? Looks like Nikon aggrees with our buddy and not you:
    >
    >"Weight: Approximately 1 lb. 5 oz. (585g) without battery, memory
    >card, body
    >cap, or monitor cover"


    Hahaha....so how is the fact that the numbers are different, but to
    you they're the same? It's a small difference I agree, but that's just
    one of many factual errors. Other review sites get it right, why can't
    Rockwell? Could it be he doesn't know what he's talking about?

    >You REALLY REALLY need to back up your answers.


    Here's your backup references as promised above:

    > They have the exact same
    >number of pixels according to Nikon @ 3872x2592. That is pretty
    >specific ...
    >to the pixel, don't you think?


    One more time...that's effective pixels for the final image. The
    sensors are not the same, even Nikon has been quoted as saying this.
    From Nikons site in their press release:

    "The D80 features a new 10.2 effective megapixel DX Format CCD image
    sensor"

    Also from several reviews on the net that say the same as this quote
    from Imaging Resource.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/D80A.HTM

    "This is the same basic number of pixels as are in the D200, but the
    sensor isn't identical. They're both CCD, but the difference, as far
    as we know at this date, has mostly to do with readout speed. The D200
    has a four-channel data readout, while the Nikon D80 has only a
    two-channel readout."

    >So, far every one of your accusations has been refuted as incorrect
    >and you
    >have yet to discredit Ken's comparison values.


    Right...believe what you want then...stick a fork in me, I'm done.
     
    Bill, Sep 21, 2006
    #45
  6. Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a lot of
    responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your dislike for Ken
    Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has useful information.
    I have a couple points I'd like to make:

    In the D80 vs. D100 comparison there were no appreciable misleadings in my
    mind. Rockwell states that both cameras have 10MP sensors. It was pointed
    out that the CCD sensors are different. Do most people care one has a couple
    less pixels than the other, or one uses 4 channels instead of 2? I think
    not. If I wanted any further technical details about the sensor, then I
    would consult Nikon directly. Unless the site is sponsored by the
    manufacturer (Nikon), then any information conveyed on any other site about
    Nikon products is susceptible to error.
    My opinion is that Rockwell's writing style is less refined and you could
    say less professional than other review sites. However, he has written about
    features and how to use them that I did not find on any other site, he gives
    practical "how to" information lacking elsewhere. For example, I read about
    the wireless i-TTL flash control you get when the D200 is paired with a
    SB-800 flash. I didn't find that pointed out anywhere else when I was
    researching my D200 purchase, a key point in my decision to upgrade my flash
    as well as the camera.

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "James P. Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Here is a useful link comparing the D80 with the D200. I bought my D200
    >> in July after reading all of the information on Ken Rockwell's site. I'm
    >> still happy with my D200 purchase even after reading the comparisons.

    >
    > No offence, but how about posting a link to a site with accurate
    > information?
    >
    > Rockwell is the joke of the professional community.
    >
    > His so-called "review" is full of misinformation and bias. I'm guessing
    > from the garbage he spews out about technical details and features of the
    > D80 (too many to list here) that he hasn't bought it and may not have used
    > it at all like some of his other "reviews" where he just makes it all up
    > based on what he read elsewhere.
    >
    > I can't stress this enough - DO NOT TRUST ROCKWELL.
    >
    > The guy is full of sh!t (dare I say a liar?) and can not be trusted to
    > give an honest or even accurate review of any kind. All he seems to do is
    > post questionable info on his site with dozens of referrer links to
    > purchase equipment (HINT - if you click one of his links, he makes money).
    >
    > So if you want to read Rockwell, go ahead, but make sure you have a LOT of
    > salt handy to improve the flavour of his bullsh!t.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > At the very least, try sites like these for more accurate reviews:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/ (just a preview so far)
    >
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/index.shtml
    >
    > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/D80A.HTM
    >
    > http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/nikond80/
    >
    > http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/A100vsD80vsXTi.shtml (comparison)
    >
    > Once you read up on the D80 and it's features, go back to Rockwell and
    > compare facts. At least he's good for some laughs.
    >
    > And if you want personal input from users, try public forums or newsgroups
    > like this one.
    >
     
    James P. Clark, Sep 21, 2006
    #46
  7. James P. Clark wrote:

    > Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
    > lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
    > dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
    > useful information. I have a couple points I'd like to make:


    I'm sure it's more a case of jealousy since if he could do it better he
    would. Ken's successful at generating an income with whatever he writes.
    This is no different than any other idiot writing a webpage or review on the
    net. Some people take his opinions at face value while others see through
    the crap. Personally, I do my research and don't take anyone's *opinion* as
    fact. This is why it's best to take the average of all the bullshit to find
    a glimmer of facts.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 21, 2006
    #47
  8. W Chan

    Cynicor Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:37:11 -0400, Cynicor blew this note:
    >
    >> So you're saying that it's not the D200's fault that I blue out the
    >> highlights on that Seattle photo?

    >
    > No. If you want a camera that you can blame for that sort of
    > thing, I'll trade my Fuji S5100 for your D200. Fuji has a "Chrome"
    > setting that'll give you punchier, more intense color. But I, and
    > most people don't use it, since when we do, it gives us the blues.


    Well, I fixed one of them. It prints out all nice now.
    http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824709/1/95607778
     
    Cynicor, Sep 21, 2006
    #48
  9. W Chan

    Bill Guest

    "James P. Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
    > lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
    > dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
    > useful information.


    There are bits and pieces of truly useful information, but it's tossed
    in like the bacon bits in a cheap caesar salad - small and hard to
    find.

    :)

    I don't hate him, I just dislike his opinions, advice, and facts that
    are misleading to those who wish to learn more about photography. He's
    not helping a new photographer who wants to become a better
    photographer.

    But hey, if it works for you...
     
    Bill, Sep 22, 2006
    #49
  10. W Chan

    Bill Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > James P. Clark wrote:
    >
    >> Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
    >> lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
    >> dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
    >> useful information. I have a couple points I'd like to make:

    >
    > I'm sure it's more a case of jealousy since if he could do it better
    > he
    > would.


    You mean me, I'm jealous of Rockwell?

    To quote Bugs Bunny, "It is to laugh".

    :)
     
    Bill, Sep 22, 2006
    #50
  11. Bill wrote:

    >> I'm sure it's more a case of jealousy since if he could do it better
    >> he
    >> would.

    >
    > You mean me, I'm jealous of Rockwell?
    >
    > To quote Bugs Bunny, "It is to laugh".


    Hey, set up a web site and give *your* spin on the truth and see how
    successful you are. My gut feeling is you won't even be good enough to
    register a domain name. But, hey, it's easier to cut someone to pieces
    without walking a mile in their shoes. Yes, you are green with envy. Don't
    get me wrong, I'm not defending Rockwell, but I see too many people cutting
    him up that for some reason or another haven't a clue to take the first
    steps that made him successful.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 22, 2006
    #51
  12. W Chan

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm sure it's more a case of jealousy since if he could do it better
    >>> he
    >>> would.

    >>
    >> You mean me, I'm jealous of Rockwell?
    >>
    >> To quote Bugs Bunny, "It is to laugh".

    >
    > Hey, set up a web site and give *your* spin on the truth and see how
    > successful you are. My gut feeling is you won't even be good enough to
    > register a domain name. But, hey, it's easier to cut someone to pieces
    > without walking a mile in their shoes. Yes, you are green with envy.
    > Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rockwell, but I see too many
    > people cutting him up that for some reason or another haven't a clue to
    > take the first steps that made him successful.


    Geez, it not THAT hard to set up a domain name. Rockwell's just a
    diversion. No one should ever buy a camera or lens without holding it in
    their hands anyway. Of course, I'm talking out of my buttocks now
    because I just buy any old crap off the Internet.
     
    Cynicor, Sep 22, 2006
    #52
  13. I disagree, I would not say the article had "bits and pieces" of truly
    useful info. The article has tables with feature comparisons that are quite
    objective. It's pretty easy to separate the facts from the opinions as you
    read it. You seem blinded by emotion.

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "James P. Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a lot of
    >> responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your dislike for Ken
    >> Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has useful information.

    >
    > There are bits and pieces of truly useful information, but it's tossed in
    > like the bacon bits in a cheap caesar salad - small and hard to find.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > I don't hate him, I just dislike his opinions, advice, and facts that are
    > misleading to those who wish to learn more about photography. He's not
    > helping a new photographer who wants to become a better photographer.
    >
    > But hey, if it works for you...
    >
     
    James P. Clark, Sep 22, 2006
    #53
  14. Cynicor wrote:

    >> Hey, set up a web site and give *your* spin on the truth and see how
    >> successful you are. My gut feeling is you won't even be good enough
    >> to register a domain name. But, hey, it's easier to cut someone to
    >> pieces without walking a mile in their shoes. Yes, you are green
    >> with envy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rockwell, but I see
    >> too many people cutting him up that for some reason or another
    >> haven't a clue to take the first steps that made him successful.

    >
    > Geez, it not THAT hard to set up a domain name. Rockwell's just a
    > diversion. No one should ever buy a camera or lens without holding it
    > in their hands anyway. Of course, I'm talking out of my buttocks now
    > because I just buy any old crap off the Internet.


    Well, there you have it! Now you have everything needed to empower you with
    all tools needed to set up a successful equipment review site that everyone
    is clamoring to visit instead of one of them insignificant mindless "blog"
    sites that every idiot puts up thinking they have an inkling of importance.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 22, 2006
    #54
  15. W Chan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:38:15 -0400, Cynicor wrote:

    > Well, I fixed one of them. It prints out all nice now.
    > http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824709/1/95607778


    Nice improvement. The warmth in the clouds seems more natural or
    realistic, and it helps the trees and land mass too. Also, the
    water now doesn't immediately shout "Menthol!!" Surprisingly, since
    the image is 1/2 the size of the previous version (55k vs. 96k), the
    birds (especially the two upper, smaller ones) seem better defined.
    But if it's boids ya want, you didn't have to travel that far. We've
    got plenty of gulls here around the edges of the boroughs. Some
    days when the weather is right, they travel several miles inland.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 22, 2006
    #55
  16. W Chan

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >>> Hey, set up a web site and give *your* spin on the truth and see how
    >>> successful you are. My gut feeling is you won't even be good enough
    >>> to register a domain name. But, hey, it's easier to cut someone to
    >>> pieces without walking a mile in their shoes. Yes, you are green
    >>> with envy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rockwell, but I see
    >>> too many people cutting him up that for some reason or another
    >>> haven't a clue to take the first steps that made him successful.

    >>
    >> Geez, it not THAT hard to set up a domain name. Rockwell's just a
    >> diversion. No one should ever buy a camera or lens without holding it
    >> in their hands anyway. Of course, I'm talking out of my buttocks now
    >> because I just buy any old crap off the Internet.

    >
    > Well, there you have it! Now you have everything needed to empower you
    > with all tools needed to set up a successful equipment review site that
    > everyone is clamoring to visit instead of one of them insignificant
    > mindless "blog" sites that every idiot puts up thinking they have an
    > inkling of importance.


    Oh, I set up one of those mindless "blog" sites years ago.
    http://cynicor.blogspot.com. But I'm too important to update it regularly.
     
    Cynicor, Sep 22, 2006
    #56
  17. W Chan

    cjcampbell Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > "James P. Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
    > > lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
    > > dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
    > > useful information.

    >
    > There are bits and pieces of truly useful information, but it's tossed
    > in like the bacon bits in a cheap caesar salad - small and hard to
    > find.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > I don't hate him, I just dislike his opinions, advice, and facts that
    > are misleading to those who wish to learn more about photography. He's
    > not helping a new photographer who wants to become a better
    > photographer.


    Quite honestly, Bill, it appears to me that it is you that have been
    fast and loose with the facts, giving bad advice and opintions, and
    misleading others. I hate to say it, too. But if you don't like Ken
    Rockwell, it appears to say volumes more about you than it does about
    Rockwell.
     
    cjcampbell, Sep 22, 2006
    #57
  18. W Chan

    Cynicor Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:38:15 -0400, Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> Well, I fixed one of them. It prints out all nice now.
    >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824709/1/95607778

    >
    > Nice improvement. The warmth in the clouds seems more natural or
    > realistic, and it helps the trees and land mass too. Also, the
    > water now doesn't immediately shout "Menthol!!" Surprisingly, since
    > the image is 1/2 the size of the previous version (55k vs. 96k), the
    > birds (especially the two upper, smaller ones) seem better defined.
    > But if it's boids ya want, you didn't have to travel that far. We've
    > got plenty of gulls here around the edges of the boroughs. Some
    > days when the weather is right, they travel several miles inland.


    The actual original file, converted to JPG, shrank from 3328KB to
    3236KB. Smugmug must've done the thumbnail differently or something. The
    big problem was the polarizer, which made the water too blue - but was
    necessary to bring out the mountain.

    There's no such thing as "several miles inland" out here on the Island.
    Although I did take a ton of pictures of Gulls last weekend, since my
    son plays for them. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1907561/7/96308843
    - he's the 12 year old who's bigger than you.
     
    Cynicor, Sep 22, 2006
    #58
  19. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill <> wrote:
    >
    >> I can't find in the specs from Nikon where it says the D80 has
    >> mirror lockup.

    >
    > Look again...
    >


    Please paste a quote. I still do not see it.

    >> Also, both the D80 and the D200 sport a 10.2MP sensor 3872x2592
    >> pixels. Seems
    >> the same to me.

    >
    >>Really? They both have a 10.2MP 3872x2592 sensor. Care to refute
    >>that?

    >
    > <sigh> So I still have to do your homework for you?
    >
    > From Nikons site and specs, total pixels:
    >
    > D80:
    > Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.75 million,
    > Nikon DX format
    >
    > D200:
    > Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.92 million
    >
    > Clearly not the same. The output channel count is also different, 4
    > for the D200 and 2 for the D80. See the quotes below for reference.
    >


    You are correct, I did not see the difference in sensor as opposed to image.

    >>Eh? Looks like Nikon aggrees with our buddy and not you:
    >>
    >>"Weight: Approximately 1 lb. 5 oz. (585g) without battery, memory
    >>card, body
    >>cap, or monitor cover"

    >
    > Hahaha....so how is the fact that the numbers are different, but to
    > you they're the same? It's a small difference I agree, but that's just
    > one of many factual errors. Other review sites get it right, why can't
    > Rockwell? Could it be he doesn't know what he's talking about?
    >


    You know as well as anybody else here that Nikon's site says "approximately"
    and the value that Ken gives is very close to the value that Nikon offers as
    an approximate value. Your statement about the weights being different is
    incorrect, just as my statement that the sensors are the same pixel count was
    incorrect.

    > Right...believe what you want then...stick a fork in me, I'm done.
    >


    Good ...

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Sep 22, 2006
    #59
  20. W Chan

    measekite Guest

    If you take 5 photographers taking each 5 senics and 5 portraits using
    the folowing camera:

    Nikon D70s
    Nikon D80
    Nikon D200
    Canon DRXTi
    Canon 30D

    and you print an 8.5x11 using OEM ink on a Canon IP5200 printer and then
    mix up the results most people will not be able to tell you what print
    was made with what Camera. All would be very good.

    So as I see it the basic difference between the D200 and the D80 is
    size, feel and balance, construction (and most will not need the better
    construction if they take care of their stuff) frames per second, and
    maybe a couple of other small things.

    Most amateurs woudl be better off with a D80 and a couple of extra
    lenses over a D200 as long as the smaller and lighter camera did not
    have an impact on them.

    I would rather see a comparison between the D80 and the Canon XTi. If
    the dust cleaning system on the Canon works as advertised how
    significant a feature is that over the Nikon. The Nikon does have a
    composition grid that can be turned on in the view finder. Which
    feature is more important to have. Well, if dust is a real problem then
    the dust cleaning system but if it is no then so what.

    I could like to see a comparison of:

    the focusing systems (focus points and speed etc)
    the metering systems (spot, average etc) and the significance of the
    features
    the feeling and balance
    the choice of reasonable price lenses and how good they are (excluding
    the expensive L lenses.
    the LCD
    other important features

    Most of the camera reviews focus on a single camera with some mention of
    the competition or a spreadsheet like list comparing features of
    difference camera but I would really like to see comparative reviews
    like in the old days when PC magazines did in depth comparistive reviews
    of word processors and spreedsheets.

    Bill wrote:

    > "cjcampbell" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>> His so-called "review" is full of misinformation and bias.

    >>
    >>
    >> Really? Show us one single mistake in his comparison.

    >
    >
    > Start at the top:
    >
    > "D80 has the D200's 10 MP image sensor".
    >
    > ACK....wrong.
    >
    > "look, quality and color of the D200's images"
    >
    > ACK...wrong.
    >
    > Jump down to the first comparison list where he has side-by-side data
    > and you find more errors. Let's start at the third item in the list:
    >
    > Weight 20 oz. (575g) [D80]
    >
    > ACK...wrong.
    >
    > Weight 29 oz. (825g) [D200]
    >
    > ACK...wrong.
    >
    > The rest you can find on your own...I don't time to find and
    > copy&paste everything that Rockwell posts incorrectly - I'd be sitting
    > here all week.
    >
    > :-/
     
    measekite, Sep 25, 2006
    #60
    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. E. E. Herbert

    Will the Nikon D80 or D200 do this?

    E. E. Herbert, Sep 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    951
    LuvLatins
    Dec 9, 2006
  2. LDD

    Nikon D80 vs. D200

    LDD, Oct 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,128
    cjcampbell
    Oct 23, 2006
  3. davek57

    Nikon D80 vs Nikon D200

    davek57, Jun 15, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    2,167
    John Turco
    Jun 25, 2007
  4. ~^ beancounter ~^

    nikon d80 to d200 lense interchangibility.....

    ~^ beancounter ~^, Sep 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    476
    David Ruether
    Sep 12, 2007
  5. Nikon D80 Vs Nikon D200

    , Oct 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    447
    brother
    Oct 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page