In terms of performance and quality (not counting live view and video feature), does the Nikon D5000 better the D3000?

[ric_hunter]

<p>1 month from now I will be buying my ever first DSLR. Now Im considering the Nikon brand particularyly between the Nikon D5000 and the D3000.<br>

I have previously an experience with a pseudo-DSLR camera before, a sony DSC-H5. Its pseudo or semi as I would term it because it has a viewfinder, with live view and video feature, can add a lens extension for telephoto or wide angle but the viewfinder is digital in nature and not mirror like a real DSLR. My only concern about it is it gets unpredictable performance in low light conditions, especially when you take pictures at night. The more ISO i use, its either it gets too noisy or it takes too long for the picture to appear after the shutter has been pressed. Plus you need to wait for the built in flash to reload before i could use it again. Moreover, what makes this pseudo DSLR awful to me is that its bulky (unlike other compact cameras) and it uses 2 AA size Nmh batteries.</p>

<p>I've read in the reviews on the net that the Nikon D3000 is favored in terms of the viewfinder and LCD screen. (By the way my Sony DSC H5 has the same 3" LCD screen size as the D3000.) Both (D3000 and D5000) have somehow tied in terms of picture quality. In terms of pixel, im pretty much satisfied with 10 megapixel. In terms of performance, I never really tested them both in comparison, but the D5000 edges with its CMOS sensor compared to the D3000's CCD. (Although Im not really knowledgeable between the difference of the two sensors but all I read is that the CMOS is being used by other high end DSLRs.) The D5000 also edges on the live view mode and video capability although the latter I dont really intend to use.<br>

Personally, budget wise, I would prefer the D3000 over the D5000. As I mentioned above live mode is not such a concern to me much more with the video capability. But i would say that there are some features in the D5000 I would like in a DSLR like its swivel LCD screen, great quality photos at higher ISOs<br>

Now my concern in choosing and buying between the 2 DSLR I mention above are the following:<br>

1) Which of the 2 would give quality photos during low light conditions or night time? Can the D3000 produce a better quality photo in low light conditions than my previous Sony DSC H5?<br>

2) If I pursue the D3000, will the CCD sensor be any effect to my decision over the CMOS sensor that the D5000 has?<br>

3)If I pursue the D5000, would it be fitting to me since Im still new to a DSLR, a beginner? I find the D5000 quite bulky and heavy too but I would say I have a good grip with it. (What Im only attracted to it is its CMOS sensor, active D-lighting and the JPEG and RAW photo result.</p>

<p>So please help me guys. I hope you could help me with these and recommend me a DSLR between the two that I wont regret as a first time DSLR user. Thank you and hope to hear your honest opinions about this.</p>

<p>Once again, thanks guys!</p>

<p>Ric Hunter</p>

[dcphotography]

<p>The D5000 has a more modern sensor, while the D3000 uses the one from the D60 (may be modified slightly). The D5000 will take photos with less noise (i.e. better quality) than the D3000, but the D3000 will take photos with less noise than your Sony DSC H5.</p>

<p>The D5000 is actually quite "small" and geared towards first-time DSLR buyers. You may find that with the D3000 you'll grow out of it faster. I would personally go for the D5000, or D90 if you can swing it (it'll take you even longer to grow out of the D90).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>try a search on this board for the D3000. There are 2 threads showing high ISO work with the D3000, which is not as impressive as one could expect. Not dramatically bad, but the D5000 is equal in noise performance with the D90/D300, which is about as good as cropped sensor cameras get at this moment.<br>

<br />A more direct response to your questions:<br />1. Any DSLR should do better than a compact camera. Both in terms of noise and image quality, but also autofocus performance. That said, do not expect instant miracles. Keeping a camera steady is more difficult with a heavier set.<br />2. I don't see why. Never understood why people even think about CCD versus CMOS. It's just technology to get results, and results count.<br />3. If you find the D5000 bulky, the D3000 will be roughly equally bulky. The 2 bodies are near identical. Ideally, visit a shop where you can hold the D3000 too. And if you think these are bulky... try a D3 with something like a 70-200VR f/2.8 mounted for fun too. Now that's heavy and bulky ;-) If you really feel these bodies are still a tad too large, consider Olympus.</p>

<p>Personally, to start, I would recommend the D5000 with the 18-105VR lens, if the D90 is not an option. I feel the D5000 is just enough better over the D3000 to justify the extra cost.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>If you don't want bulk, have you considered one of panasonic's micro 4/3 cameras? One of my friends has it and it's amazingly small. I don't see much of a difference in size between the d3k and d5k. Then again, I'm on a d300 so...</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[ric_hunter]

<p>Alvin...i would like to ask you about the D3000...</p>

<p>does it perform well in low light and night conditions? If not, can lenses compensate such performance?<br>

coz im really in a budget one....im satisfied already with a dslr that could perform well at night and low light conditions...</p>

<p>thanks and hope you will reply to this query of mine....by the way, are you a singaporean? thanks again alvin....!!!</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>i can vouch for the d5000, very usable pictures at ISO 6400</p>