HELP ABOUT D5000 / D90

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>L Schin,</p>

<p>PLEASE try to afford a D90 if you can. You will very likely be sorry, eventually, that you didn't get the model with the screwdrive motor. There have been and might still be some good refurb deals on D90s.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Peter, exactly which "screwdirver" (i.e. AF but not AF-S) lenses do you have in mind?</p>

<p>I would say for the typical D5000 and D3000 owners, they will buy no more than 2, 3 lenses. There are currently many DX lenses from Nikon and other brands to meet their needs. All but one Nikon DX lenses are AF-S (the only exception is the 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye). Choose among these and you are all set:</p>

<ul>

<li>18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 DX, VR or non VR</li>

<li>18-105mm</li>

<li>55-200, any version</li>

<li>70-300</li>

<li>35mm/f1.8 DX</li>

</ul>

<p>The only common lenses I can think of are the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D and perhaps some of the Tokina wide zooms such as the old version of the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 (the new, 2nd version has an AF motor in the lens) and the 11-16mm/f2.8. If you have plans to get one of those lenses, you are better off with the D90.</p>

<p>However, the D90 has many other advantages such as two command dials, flash FP sync, the pop-up flash can be CLS commander, a larger and better LCD, etc.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>How many times in even just the past 2 or 3 months have we seen somebody looking for primes for their D5000 and finding they have to MF everything they are considering or can find used. The problem with the D5000 is that people see that the image quality is the same as the D90, and thus assume it's just as useful. Then they want to buy serious lenses, like an 85 or a 105 DC or something like that.</p>

<p>As a step up from the D3000 for the guy that is going to be happy with the kit lens and one tele zoom, it's a great camera, but as a "poor man's D90" it is a bad idea. And the other advantages you list are a big deal, too. imho, it's worth the extra money for the screwdrive motor alone, and the other stuff is a bonus (although the much better flash capability is big, too, I don't use it as much as that screwdriver).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Perhaps I missed it, but I am not aware that many D5000 owners want 85mm and 105mm lenses. Those are fine portrait lenses for FX; on DX, they are too long for portrait, especially the 105mm.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I just threw those out there, what happens is that people come on here (I don't have time to look up the threads now) and say, I got a D5000 and want to buy a lens for xxxx. And the next thing you know, half the available solutions are unworkable because they bought the wrong camera for somebody who wants to build up a lens collection. Now... I think they didn't KNOW that they were that kind of person yet when they bought the camera. Which is why, imho, if you're serious enough to want what the D5000 offers over the D3000, I think you should seriously skip it and go to the D90, because you may find out you're even more serious than you think.</p>

<p>Also, my 105mm is my favorite lens now for outdoor portraits, even on DX. But indoors, yes, you're right.</p>

[lisae]

<p>L. Schin: I have the D5000 and the Sigma 70-200 lens and I have used it for gymnastics. Yes, it does work, with some practice. I think that practice is probably critical for gymnastics photos on any camera, especially with the higher levels.</p>

<p>I also agree that there are better camera choices and I have found myself spending more for AF-S lenses. I suspect I am one of those people discussed above :) who bought the D5000 and then found myself obsessed with my camera and wanting more. However, the local camera store assures me that there is no reason to upgrade (yet) and that my D5000 with an investment in a few good lenses offers plenty of opportunity. (I was in there again yesterday and they repeated the same advice.) I wish I had bought the D90 but I didn't. I'm not going to beat myself up over it. You work with what you have.</p>

<p>I'm not comfortable posting gymnastics pictures here, since almost all of them include a child who is not my own. Most of my best pictures are at ISO 1600-2000 (or below), f/2.8 and 1/320s. Beyond ISO 2000, there is significant (to me) noise. Our gym is fairly bright, but I have been able to get good photos at the same aperture/shutter speed at a much darker gym. Then I lightened the photos a slight bit in Lightroom 3.</p>

[l_schin]

<p>Thank you for your response...I understand your concern about posting the photos. Perhaps that's why I'm not finding any other examples, either. If the camera store guys are saying the D5000 is fine, and you are getting good photos out of it, why do you wish you had gotten the D90?<br>

As for not being able to get prime lenses for it (or, spending more for them, at least)...I owned an Olympus OM-2N so I am not completely new to photography, though it has been quite a few years since I used that kind of camera. However, I really do not anticipate investing even more money into glass, at least not any time soon...and if 10 years goes by, so many things will have changed by then that I probably will want a new camera anyway! LOL I plan on getting the kit lenses and the Sigma for gymnastics, and that will be it. So that is not enough of a reason for me to get the D90.<br>

In addition, the D90 is sooooo heavy, and even though it does have other advantages, there are some disadvantages as well--such as ease of use with the scene modes and the articulating screen on the D5000--not deal breakers but nice features for a P&S convert :)<br>

What I am really looking for is whether the D5000 is fast enough for indoor sports like gymnastics. I'd love to see examples, because otherwise we may not be speaking the same language as to what looks good. </p>

[lisae]

<p>My time is going to be limited the next few days (and I may not be back on photo.net), but let me try to reply with more detailed information.</p>

<p>I purchased the D5000 after borrowing my Dad's D60. I hadn't planned on spending more than $500 for a new camera, but fell in love with the D60. The D5000 seemed a good compromise. The size is perfect for me, and I like the swivel screen. (I hardly ever use it - the focus is too slow for anything that is moving - but I do use it occasionally.) Also, I never use the scene modes; occasionally I'll set it on auto so my husband can take a picture of me. The best thing is that I am getting the pictures of my children that I've always wanted.</p>

<p>The main reason I wish I had bought the D90 is that I could have purchased older, used lenses. Right now I think the D90 would, in the long run, give me more flexibility. (And, frankly, I'm so tired of people telling me that I should have bought the D90.) On the other hand, what I really needed for gymnastics was the D300s, and that wasn't even on my radar! But, of course, I never expected to become the "team photographer" when I bought the camera.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the D5000 + the Sigma is definitely fast enough for the lower levels of gymnastics, but that depends on what you are wanting to capture. The camera + the Sigma lens got some great pictures of our lower level gymnasts. However, my son competes in Acrobatic Gymnastics, which has a different set of skills than Artistic. In the lower levels (4 - 7) they are more focused on balance skills so it's easy to capture them in their "holds". Overall, they don't move very fast across the floor.</p>

<p>We also have one elite pair and I got a few nice shots of them, with little to no motion blur. They were much harder to capture because they move so quickly around and *above* the floor, and a camera with a better continuous shooting rate (like the D300s) would have been much better for them. Also, I think I would have had more "keepers" if I had been able to shoot them at 1/500s (and I could have done that with a better ISO). But, as it was, I had enough pictures for our coach to use for some publicity. I think that with some practice I can improve next year.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that when the camera store tells me the D5000 is sufficient, they know that I am not a professional and not being paid for my gymnastics pictures. They sell a lot of the Sigma lenses to parents with student athletes and that's how they see me. If I were to ask them to compare the D5000 to the D90 for *my purposes*, I think they would say that the two are comparable.</p>

<p>One more thing: one of the reasons I'm not sure you would get the full measure of the quality of the D5000 + the Sigma lens from my pictures is that I am still very inexperienced at it. When I see my pictures, I see things that I know could be better. A better camera/lens would probably get me there faster, but I think I can improve my technique and get more out of the D5000 than I did this past year.</p>

[lisae]

<p>L. Schin: Have you considered asking for examples on the Flickr D5000 group? Even if there were no gymnastics photos, perhaps someone would have examples from another indoor sport, like basketball.</p>

[l_schin]

<p>Lisa, you have been a HUGE help!! No one ever described all of that to me before, and you really hit the nail on the head with the issues, I think! I never thought about the gymnasts moving faster as they went up in levels LOL I hadn't heard of the flickr group so I will look for that, thank you!<br>

You mentioned wishing you could get 1/500...if you are unable to get that, then I think it would indeed be very hard to get good shots. I am obviously an amateur as well, so my shots will probably be worse than yours. So that leads me to the question as to whether I should just drop the whole idea of getting gymnastics photos (to the tune of an additional $800 min for the lens) if they are just going to be so-so. <br>

One last question, when you get a chance: Do you think the prime lenses such as 85mm f1.8 would work for gymnastics? Better aperture, but now you've only got 85 mm and no ability to zoom out for the closer stations. So, I'm thinking it would not work but on other forums people keep bringing them up, so that's why I am asking.<br>

Thank you ever so much, you're just what I needed</p>

[lisae]

<p>I'm glad I've helped. I got a lot of help from the guys in the Sports forum before and immediately after I bought the Sigma lens. I'm glad I can pass on the knowledge I've gained to someone else.</p>

<p>I need to think a bit about the best lens. The best thing about the DX cameras - for me - is the extra reach. At most meets, I would have done fine with 85-105mm. But at one of the gyms I definitely needed the 200. If you can get close to the athletes then the 85 would probably be great. At Acro meets, this isn't too difficult because they only use the floor and there is usually only one of those. At Artistic meets, I would think you would be farther away for some of the apparatuses. (Is that the plural of apparatus? No one has ever told me!)</p>

<p>I guess one of the tricky things about the zoom - again, this is more true for the elite athletes - is that they move so fast it was hard for me to follow them, autofocus (I need to perfect this, I find myself hesitating), and then zoom when I needed to. It was a lot to juggle! And the Sigma lens is heavy so I was always aware of the weight.</p>

<p> Whether you decide you want to try to shoot gymnastics depends, I guess, on how driven you are to do it! Sometimes we have professional photographers at meets, sometimes we don't. Sometimes the pros are VERY expensive. And I happen to like capturing motion - it's one of my favorite things to do. I use the Sigma for other things, too.</p>

<p>Let me think more about this, and see if I can add anything. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.</p>

[l_schin]

<p>Thanks, Lisa! Have you actually tried carrying around the D90? I think it's very heavy, and with the added lens it could be over the top LOL<br>

We never have pro photographers. If we DID, I probably would just buy the pictures instead of spending $2000 on equipment and learning to take halfway decent (not pro) shots! Though I do love photography, so it's a good excuse, too :)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Have you fine folks who say a D90 is too big and heavy held both a D5000 and a D90? Sorry, but if the D90 is too big and heavy for you, just consider a micro 4/3 or P&S camera. The difference is incidental, and if a D90 is too heavy for you, so is a D5000.</p>

<p>D90 is 1 lb. 6 oz.<br>

D5000 is a little over 2 oz. lighter... You're complaining about 2 ounces?</p>

[l_schin]

<p>well Pete that's not a very helpful response, I have to say. The other cameras will not do gymnastics. And what you are calling a couple ounces makes a difference if you are carrying a camera around on vacation all day. It may not affect you, but the D5000 was plenty heavy as it is, adding more to the weight (and bulk) may put me into the "I don't even want to bother with this" camp</p>

[lisae]

<p>I have a picture for you. I was photographing my son's team at Nationals training today and these girls were on the same floor. I'm on my husband's laptop, so I haven't done anything to it and couldn't resize it. I think these girls (a "trio" in acro terms) are probably Level 8.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/41473201@N07/4822268966/</p>

<p>Also, I was able to get a sense about whether the 85mm would work. I think that, if you don't know whether or not you are going to be able to close, you would be happier with the 70-200mm. I was up in the stands, maybe 25? yards from these girls, who were at the closest part of the floor to me. I took this at 120mm, 1/250s, f2.8, ISO 1400. (Hope I got that right.) I needed the 200 to get reasonably close to our team on the far side of the mat. I think I have a couple of photos at 1/400s. If I find them, I'll add one to the Flickr site.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Wow, I can understand not wanting extra weight (like a D300 or D3)... but please find something that's 2 oz. and pick it up and tell me that it'll make any difference... Don't make this the deciding factor. I mean, I defy you to feel the difference between a D90 and D5000's weight with an 85mm f1.8 lens attached to either. There is virtually no difference.</p>

<p>And if you're looking at a 70-200? Then it's REALLY incidental.</p>

[lisae]

<p>Oh, one other thing you will need to think about - editing software to correct the color balance and reduce noise, especially if you are going to have to shoot above ISO 1600. I recently purchased Lightroom 3 and it's perfect for this. However, it's pricey and it may not be something you feel like you need right now. Just wanted to make sure you think about that expense, too.</p>

<p>Just thought of something else. :) The light over this floor was brighter than most of the gyms we shoot in. That's one reason I could post them straight out of the camera.</p>

[l_schin]

<p>Thanks, Lisa, that's an awesome photo! That's especially good for 1/250! The lighting does make a difference, I know, but it could give me an idea. That does help to know the distance, and I think you are right.<br>

And Pete, I have tried both the D5000 and the D90 so I know EXACTLY how they feel. The D90 feels like brick, the D5000 feels like a camera. The extra large lens is only going to be for gymnastics, not every day. But this camera with its kit lens will be my only other camera, so I can make an exception for weight when I am not carrying it around all day. I don't really need to hear more of this argument, please :)</p>

[l_schin]

<p>You know what, Pete, it just occurred to me that the lens on the D90 might have been different from the one on the D5000 in the store...I am seeing that there are different configurations of what they call the "kit," so the one I picked up may have had the longer lens on it. Might explain everything. Going back today!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>LSchin,</p>

<p>But I have to say, if the D5000 does feel better in your hands and you don't mind it's very few limitations, then you should go for that. I went Nikon instead of Canon years ago partly because of how it felt in my hand. It's a GREAT reason to make the decision, since all these cameras we're talking about are so great.</p>