Samantha Boyle wrote:.

My question, then, is this: what is the D80 giving me that the 400D is not?.

Phil's reviews answer this nicely...

Both cameras would be fine for you, the D80 will allow you to grow as well. The Canon will as well, but I would prefer to go with the one that felt better. I did with the D70 the Rebel seemed cheap. I love my Nikon gear, but fully respect the Canon Pro gear, just feel their consumer gear is cheaply made..

Also have you thought about a D50, not sure if you can find one new but I am sure a used copy will do you just as well. It will probably cost about the same as the D40, maybe a little more.Photography and Graphic DesignPortfolio - http://www.atlanticexpressinc.comPrints - http://www.atlanticexpressions.com..

I cannot, in good councious, recommend teh D40. They cheapened it up, to get you to purchase, not realising just how much buying that cheaper camera is going to cost in the long run(As given in your example of wanting an inexpensive prime).

I shoot Canon but if you do not liek the "Feel" of a camera, then do not buy it..

You may wish to give the Sony Alpha a chance. Pretty good price, not alot of "new" lenses available right now, but in the next couple of years you will see that change. However, there is a good supply of terrific used minolta glass which will fit the Sony Alpha..

If teh Xti does not appeal to you, I would recommend the looking at the Sony. Esxpecaily for begginner who is not thinking of buying Pro wuality glass anytime soon..

If you do decide you need to move into that level of glass, hopefully Sony has some for you, at the time.Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Samantha,.

I have both the D80 and D50..

There are a handful of Nikon reconditioned D80s here if that helps you:.

Http://www.tecno.co.uk/...Store/c3585/2001-3585/Home/Refurbished/details.aspx.

Don't hold your breath or they will be gone although the price does not seem brilliant..

There is a full review of the D50 including a summary of it's features here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/.

And another review from Thom Hogan (a well respected writer and Pro photographer here:.

Http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm.

(Both sources, of course, also have reviews of the D80).

The D50 has 5 AF points..

You will pick up a used or reconditioned D50 body for around 220 on Ebay or elsewhere or body plus 18-55mm lens for around 280..

The D50 has the same sensor as the D40 (and D70). It is a well respected camera that is set to become a classic in many people's eyes..

I recently bought a D50 as a backup to my D80 (from Tecno).

Advantages of the D80.

Better viewfinder by a mile.

Vastly superior wireless flash facility built into the cam and generally superior flash systemMarginally better AF than 400D.

D80 is a cut down D200 but does not sacrifice much except frames per second(but more than adequate on this score as well)Generally better ergonomics.

Quality inexpensive Nikon kit lenses (You get value for money with them. (The Canon 18-55 is very ordinary and will need upgrading straight away)..

There is no real downside except the price. (The 400D is a shade less noisy at high ISO but I shoot at ISO 1600 all the time. The D80 is overall a better low light camera because of the bigger viewfinder and better AF).

I am sure I will have left out something but I had to decide between the two last November and went for the D80..

Hope that helps..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

I am about to read through all of the new responses that came today. But firstly, thank you so much for all of the comments..

The result: I decided that from all of what you had written and many, many online views, the D80 was better than the D400 and would provide a lot of room to grow. In addition, it felt much better in hand and I prefer Nikon photos to Canon photos. Plus the 11 focus points are positioned differently to Canon's 9, meaning that when I take photos vertically (4 x 6), the Nikon can focus closer to the sides..

As for the money, it was an extra week's work, which isn't huge. I decided that this was little to quibble over, and 800 (Canon) vs 1000 (Nikon - prices include all accessories and a second lens by the way) wasn't too much. If I was going to spend 800, that's still a lot, and I'd need to really love it. I didn't really love the Canon..

Then the best bit: I get to the shop, and managed to talk the into doing a price match for me. It was against their policy but the man was very kind! Furthermore, this meant the Nikon dropped into a lower insurance price range, so insurance was less too. Plus I can keep the SD card I bought before, saving money there too. So in total, the Nikon (plus 50mm f/1.4, card, case) cost just 60 more than the Canon would have..

I have just got it out of it's box and it is beautiful. I feels wonderful, it makes a REAL shutter sound (Canon's was squeaky!), and I just love love love it..

Thank you again to all of the comments - I will read through the rest now. A happy ending! Thank goodness the exchanged it..

Best wishes,.

Samantha..

Non-flash shot to shot time with the Nikon is 0.3 seconds, with the Canon, 0.6. This is why I thought the Nikon felt much punchier! It does make a difference. ..