Buying Nikon D80 any comments welcome

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Ro phantom, May 17, 2008.

  1. Ro phantom

    Joel Guest

    Class-6 could be equal to 133X which I don't know, but I know for sure
    that Class-6 is the fastest of SDHC at the moment.
    Joel, May 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, it is...but it doesn't "equal" 133x, because a range does not "equal"
    one value.
    Blinky the Shark, May 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ro phantom

    No Poster Guest

    Yeah, the SDHC are a bit of a conundrum. I have both a 4GB SD card
    (150x) and a class 6 SDHC 4GB. The SD card is noticeably faster than
    the SDHC. For whatever reason, the SDHC are much slower than their
    smaller capacity brethern. The D80's biggest speed issue over the D200
    is that the D80 only has 2 lines reading the sensor compared to 4 on the

    According to the chart on Wiki, the theoretical limit of CF is 137GB.
    That's a rather odd number for things usually held in powers of 2. What
    is that 2^7 + 9GB?

    Someone else posted about the size of the CF being easier to palm. My
    hands are not small, but they are not huge either, and I don't find the
    CF or SD to be too difficult to handle. Now manually loading film in
    the dark into my dad's old Spotmatic was difficult. Changing cards in a
    digital camera is quite easy. I also don't write on the cards. I dump
    to a computer and burn 2 DVD's of the RAW files.
    No Poster, May 25, 2008
  4. Okay, it *can*[1], but you know what I mean. :)

    [1] "The range of grades that mean I'll pay your tuition next term is A
    through A."
    Blinky the Shark, May 25, 2008
  5. Ro phantom

    Joel Guest

    I have never timed none of my memory cards (I have used 3-4 different
    types in over a decade), 1 8GB SDHC Class-6, and still have over dozen CF
    from 2GB up to 16GB. And because I use for digital cemaras so 166X is the
    fastest I have.

    And I read quite afew reports from different owners saying that when
    transfering date from memory card to computer the larger memory card with
    same rating is usually slower than the smaller card. Me? I just stick the
    card in reader (or portable storage) then go on with other thing so a little
    shower won't bother me a bit.

    And I came from very slow transfering memory card and devices (not like
    the one we have today) that would take 30-60 minutes to transfer 4-256M.
    Joel, May 25, 2008
  6. Ro phantom

    No Poster Guest

    I know RAW files transfer much faster out of my D80 into my wife's Mac
    than they do to either my desktop or laptop Winblows machine, eventhough
    my laptop has a faster processor (it does run Vista business though).
    No Poster, May 25, 2008
  7. Ro phantom

    Joel Guest

    This is what I read, understand, and believe.

    - The speed transferring between (or from) Memory Card Reader to computer is
    usually depend on the CARD READER. Example, the USB2 is much faster than
    USB1, and I read some card is faster than other.

    Me? for over a decade using digital cemera I have gone through almost
    dozen different card readers, and besides the difference between USB1 vs
    USB2, I can't confirm the speed difference between the same type. And the
    reason I have so many not because I care or believe newer is better, but
    because too many changes in the memory card word that I have to upgrade to
    be able to read a newer larger capacity.

    - The speed can cause by the system, example some program uses too much CPU,
    not enough free disk space for swapping, not enough RAM for better
    performance, and fragment hard drive can cause slowness etc..

    - My laptop has Vista but I don't use laptop often to know much about Vista,
    and I always use card reader to have much experience about transferring data
    from camera to computer (I only did many years ago with my Olympus digital
    cameras and there wasn't card reader for that special memory card).
    Joel, May 25, 2008
  8. Ro phantom

    No Poster Guest

    Since you have shared who you are, let me share a bit about me.

    I've been developing for microprocessors for over 20 years. I've used
    OS's like Unix (Solaris, Sun OS 4, HP UX, Ultrix, Xenix, IRIX), VMS,
    DOS, CP/M, Windows (everything since Win 3), Mac (since the 128k
    version) and OS/2 (1.1 and Warp). I have programmed in C, C++ (with MFC
    and Borland's OWL), Perl, BASIC, Macro Assembly, FORTRAN 77, PL/1, LISP
    and Java. I have built my own machines and I've bought premade ones. I
    am quite familiar with USB 1, 1.1 and 2. I have both wired and wireless
    networks running though my house. Blah...blah...blah....

    In a word, Vista sucks (ok, two words). It sucks so much that my next
    computer WILL be a Mac Pro. No more PCs for me.
    No Poster, May 26, 2008
  9. Ro phantom

    Joel Guest

    Me? I came to America in late 60's and started learning English since, but
    because I was a little too old to learn English like younger folks, and I
    found computer language was much easier than English. So I started with
    CP/M, learned programming and I was much better with computer language than
    English. And I started building my own IBM since the IBM Clone was
    available and continue to build few newer systems every few years. I since
    I was pretty good with computer language I was able to program some small
    programs for personal use (when I can't even be able to write a lines of
    doccument), then later I did some cracking for some local BBSes.

    But in late 86 I had some illness problem that I didn't think I can make
    it, and I thought I could end up in wheelchair etc. It took me 5-6 years to
    learn to walk, and that's pretty much the end of my programming.
    Joel, May 27, 2008
  10. Ro phantom

    Noons Guest

    best way to take variable exposure photos...
    Noons, May 28, 2008
  11. Ro phantom

    Noons Guest

    some examples taken with my d80 in my gallery:
    sorry, but you'll have to click to find which ones are
    dslr, which ones are film. ;-)
    Noons, May 28, 2008
  12. Ro phantom

    Burgerman Guest

    Those photos already show small blown highlights in the sky as flashing
    areas when opened in bibble. The camera quite correctly didnt over expose
    the sky and lose detail. The real problem was that the dynamic range was
    greater than the camera could capture. .

    So the photographer needed to either post process (pull up the shadows) or
    over expose by x amount and blow the sky out on purpose which would have
    looked worse to me since all sky detail would be gone/blown out..

    As it is they just need the levels adjusting slightly so as to keep the
    highlights (sky) the same and lift the mid and shadow a little. Or use fill
    flash or HDR. A point and shoot would have over exposed the sky to give a
    brighter picture at the expence of the sky. This would please most non
    photographers as it would give a "brighter" image but would piss off a pro
    because there would be large areas of the picture that were pure white.
    Where all the pixels were at 255 (max value from the 0 to 255 range) for
    every colour. Ie no ink on the paper!
    Burgerman, May 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.