Canon 30D vs Nikon D80 for wildlife - newbie so sorry if this is old ground!

[d70mpv]

Hi everyone, I'm a newbie here so please be gentle. My knowledge of photography is also rather fledgling!

Having become increasingly interested in photography, in particular wildlife photography over the course of the last few years I've bitten the bullet and opted to get an SLR. Having spent days reading reviews and the age-old Nikon vs Canon 'net fisticuffs I've narrowed my options to the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80.

I'd like to know the community's feelings on these cameras as wildlife-photo platforms. There's plenty of discussion about the D80 but I've found little about the 30D.

Specifically I guess my main criteria are:

1. Fast and accurate autofocus, especially at tele (a guy at Jessops recommended Canon over Nikon here, that might inflame the Nikoners out there though).

2. Good availability of lenses, especially electronically stabilised teles (and preferably not just on the top-end lenses that I can't afford!).

3. Solid build and as weatherproof as possible.

I'd also consider the 'others' (Sony, Pentax etc) if anyone could convince me?!

Thanks.

[David Hyde]

Hi d70mpv and welcome to the site and the wonderful world of wildlife photography.
The fact that you have read up about them and still would like advice means that there is little to choose between them. The D80 is 10mp whereas the 30D is 8mp. In practical terms you won’t see any difference, but size does matter to most people and it could effect your used market value long term should you wish to trade-up.
With all due respect to the guy in Jessops, you must take into account what type of wildlife photography you want, what lenses you think you may need and how much are you prepared to spend on them.
Both manufacturers produce excellent, top quality, lens ranges and perhaps one’s auto focus is marginally quicker but is this really going to be a problem? Is Nikon’s £5,000 500mm f4 prime lens really slower than Canons 70-300mm budget zoom at around £200? You have said you won’t be buying top end lenses I know, but will any small difference really matter. Don’t forget the independents. Sigma make top lenses for Nikon & Canon, ask yourself are you prepared to pay £1,000+ for a Nikon or Canon macro lens or £700 for the Sigma version.
I have been taking photographs for more years than I can remember and have used manual focus lenses for longer than their auto focus counterparts. If auto focus lenses were perfect why would they put a manual focus switch on them?
Many photographers, me included, shoot wildlife with manual focus. Dept of field can be small, often auto focussing on the body of a bird, for example, will result in the critically important eye being out of focus. Buy the time you have fiddled about half pressing the shutter and moving the lens the bird has gone!!
Mind you if you are going to be interested in fast action photography then auto focus is more useful, but both these cameras will only shoot at 3 frames per second max.
One last thing. There is a bigger selection of older, but top quality, Nikon lenses to be had because they did not change their mount. Only EOS lenses will fit the Canons.
As for image stabilizers – I have never used them. I always lugged a tripod around with me, but them perhaps I’m a bit set in my ways.
Good luck with your choice, whichever you make you will be happy, as both are fine cameras. Go and get one, stick a lens on it and let’s see some results.
David

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by David Hyde

One last thing. There is a bigger selection of older, but top quality, Nikon lenses to be had because they did not change their mount. Only EOS lenses will fit the Canons.

The EOS mount came in in 1987 so any Canon lens after that date would work, would you really want to use a 20year+ old lens on a modern digitial SLR?

[David Hyde]

Hi again. Sorry I’ve spotted an error in my original post. I said the manual focus switch is on the lens. I meant to say the camera.
Don’t quite agree with rob. Surely quality is quality; it goes back to the goals you set yourself in photography. If you would rather spend your limited budget on auto focus than perhaps a faster higher quality manual focus lens then that’s your perfectly valid choice, I was simply pointing out some options.
David

[Interpreter]

Originally Posted by David Hyde

Hi again. Sorry I’ve spotted an error in my original post. I said the manual focus switch is on the lens. I meant to say the camera.
Don’t quite agree with rob. Surely quality is quality; it goes back to the goals you set yourself in photography. If you would rather spend your limited budget on auto focus than perhaps a faster higher quality manual focus lens then that’s your perfectly valid choice, I was simply pointing out some options.
David

My AF/MF switch is situated on the lens. In Mountain, last night, I noticed with great interest that the photographer, a professional of many years experience, was using a non-digital Hasselblad. It had a film back and not a $30,000 Phase One digital back. Very interesting. His tripod appeared to be made of metal and not carbon fibre. Are todays modern photographers turning into a load of whimps? Perhaps there is still some life left in this old equipment after all.
If you can buy a Bronica ETRS for under £100 and a 250mm lens and 2 x converter for about the same price, you can have a first class outfit for very little cost. You may have to process the film yourself - not a real hardship and you may need a scanner to get the images onto your computer, but what a way to get into serious photography. No taking 100 shots and then disgarding 99 of them. Having to think about what you are doing before taking the shot. Having to acually know how to work out exposures. WOW!

[matt_xyz]

I was also interested to see the Hasselblad used by the photographer in last night's 'mountain'. I bet it weighed a tonne though.

Regarding Canon 30D v. Nikon D80, I don't think there's anything between them. The relevant factor is lens range and affordability. So decide what lenses you want (and can afford) and then read lens reviews. Personally, I think that Canon have the edge in terms of lens range, particularly when it comes to longer focal lengths (but some may disgree ).

Matt

[David Hyde]

Hi, could not resist another go here, sorry it’s a little off the original post, but I agree 100% with the comments made by Interpreter. I have an older Hasselblad and it weighs less than my digital DSLR - mainly because there no batteries in it!!
David

[nightshade]

Buy yourself a Nikon D80 body then add lenses to suit your needs
my D70s has just been replaced with a D80 and is truly excellent
Of course the majority here on this site use Canon which are "fairly
good"

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

If you can buy a Bronica ETRS for under £100 and a 250mm lens and 2 x converter for about the same price, you can have a first class outfit for very little cost. You may have to process the film yourself - not a real hardship and you may need a scanner to get the images onto your computer, but what a way to get into serious photography. No taking 100 shots and then disgarding 99 of them. Having to think about what you are doing before taking the shot. Having to acually know how to work out exposures. WOW!

It would be like telling a person buying their first car to go for an 1967 Morris Traveller rather than a Ford Focus. Sure it looks good and well maintained might last for ever (apart from a bit of woodworm) but they'd be better off with a new car.

Matt's got it right go for either the Nikon or the Canon or maybe any other good midrange DSLR; just try and handle it a shop first to get a feel for what suits you. None of them is going to give bad results and out of your first 100 shots I bet you'd be pleased with most of them.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

If you can buy a Bronica ETRS for under £100 and a 250mm lens and 2 x converter for about the same price, you can have a first class outfit for very little cost. You may have to process the film yourself - not a real hardship and you may need a scanner to get the images onto your computer, but what a way to get into serious photography. No taking 100 shots and then disgarding 99 of them. Having to think about what you are doing before taking the shot. Having to acually know how to work out exposures. WOW!

assuming of course that you have space for a darkroom , the money to set one up , the time,inclination, and skill to process your own film, not to mention that this set up will be manual focus only and that 500mm on medium format only equates to about 300mm in 35mm terms -alround a nice rig if the techincal side of the hobby is your main passion but not the equal of a decent DSLR for wildlife photography.

that said I'm not knocking the medium format entirely - I have a mamiya 6x4 that i use for high quality landscapes - but I have my film processed commercially and the hit rate on landscapes can be expected to be much higher than wildlife as mountains dont run away.

Originally Posted by david hyde

Surely quality is quality; it goes back to the goals you set yourself in photography. If you would rather spend your limited budget on auto focus than perhaps a faster higher quality manual focus lens then that’s your perfectly valid choice

I kind of agree - except that a lens that has had 20 years of use may well have picked up internal dirt , scratches to elements etc etc along the way, and also not all 20 year old lenses will have the compatibility to give you TTL metering etc. My advice would be to buy s/h by all means but get something relatively new and go to a dealer that gives a warranty rather than buying off ebay.