Nikon D5000 or Nikon F4

[photo5]

<p>I began shooting digital in late 2000 when I was given a Nikon Coolpix 990. I had been shooting 35mm film since 1983, and medium format since 1987. In 1999 I completed a two-year Commercial Photography college degree program, so I was fully trained on 4x5 photography at that point.<br>

Initially when I began shooting digital with my 990, I still shot film alongside it. The quality from the 990 wasn't nearly as good as a well-exposed 35mm slide. When I bought a Nikon D70 a few years later, I still felt that way. When I bought a Nikon D80, I began to feel that digital was surpassing film. When I got my current D300, I realized that 35mm film could no longer hold up against what this amazing camera could do.<br>

I still enjoy the tactile sensation of holding my fathers Nikon F. It is a beautiful machine and I will treasure it forever. But when I want to go out and shoot, I leave it at home. The D300 just outshines it in every area. And medium format film shot through my old Hasselblad and Rolleiflex cameras just looks so much better to me than 35mm does, though I have 3 rolls of Kodachrome 64 I'll shoot this summer as a last chance to have that experience.</p>

[pete_su]

<p>The majority of the "user interface" in a modern higher end DSLR is generally implemented through direct settings on electronic buttons or dials. What I mean by this is that all the major settings for each *shot* can be set directly and without taking your eyes out of the viewfinder. This means:</p>

<p> focus, aperture, shutter speed.</p>

<p>IMHO these settings are entirely straightforward to set on any Nikon (or Canon) body, the exceptions being the lower end bodies that don't have separate dials for aperture/shutter speed. But even there it's not a hardship to hold down an extra button to set one or the other. In any case, if this is giving you trouble you should perhaps study the camera a bit more.</p>

<p>In addition many secondary settings like ISO, White Balance, AF modes, metering modes, and so on are also directly settable without using "horribly complex" menus. The awful complexity only comes into play when you want to customize and tailor the machine to your particular whims and preferences. But interfaces for customization are always complicated and in general, by their nature, always will be. This is part of the nature of electronic machines. However, if you don't want to customize the machine you can almost completely ignore these settings and all of the hassle they bring.</p>

<p>I would personally much rather use the focus/shutter speed/aperture dials on the more modern cameras than the tiny and inconvenient dials for (say) shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation on the FM3a. That said, I keep the Fm3a around to remind me what a real camera should sound like when you shoot it. :-)</p>

 

[johnw63]

<p>I think that those of you who have pointed out that it's not digital cameras that don't appeal to you, but the menu->submenu->submenu maze that seems either intimidating or overly complex. I work with computers all day long, in a support roll, so I have a feel for what makes sense, and what doesn't. Some program interfaces and menus just don't make sense to me as well as others do. Some are just more intuitive and direct. You can find what you need where you EXPECT it to be. It just goes where your brain thinks it should. ( As an aside, most of the people I deal with wonder what Microsoft was THINKING when they made Office 2007. ) <br>

If I were in camera interface design, I would put the most common items as close to the top , with as few clicks as possible. Perhaps even allow for menu customization to that you could turn off almost any feature, and simplify the structure to your hearts content. ( Then same that configuration to a memory card for reloading , if you perform a reset. ) That way, the DSLR is as simple or as complex as you want it. For manual users, that could be ONE list on the LCD, with no menus below. It should be up to you.</p>

<p>I get the idea that digital camera makers LIKE all the features so much that they can't imagine we can do without them, and will LIKE all those exciting choices, and our sub-menu finger tips.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As one of the moderators for this forum, I would like to remind everybody that this thread is not about film vs. digital, as I reminded Dave Lee a month and half ago: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00WPzW">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WPzW</a>. Please do not once again bring that useless debate into this fourm.</p>

[brent_morando1]

<p>Keep in mind, some of the models such as the d300, d700, dx series all have knobs similar to this so you never have to search through menus. I feel like if you were shooting film back in the day with the f4, you're skills far surpass the abilities of the d5000. Perhaps you would even be more comfortable with a d2h, or d200 if money is an issue.<br>

Just my hearsay though!</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>Stick n' rudder's fun, but you can do things in a modern computer controlled aircraft that's otherwise (nearly) impossible, and probably have more fun doing it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thing is, that's mostly a personal perception. I have a lot of fun using my gear, but I have no way to tell whether you are having more or less fun using yours. I also find great pleasure and fun on setting up and tweaking databases. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would not find that being fun, or pleasant.</p>

<p>There are some things I dislike about modern cameras, be it film or digital. No, I don't find it fun navigating through menus (I don't find it difficult either), and for me it's an inconvenience, at least, being forced to look into a display to find out what aperture the lens is set on, but then again, that's my personal perception.</p>

<p>Not that there's much I can do about it, other than keep using (and enjoying) my old stuff when I feel like it. Not that I don't use a DSLR (I own and enjoy two of them), I just don't think that just because something is new, I have to accept it as being better, and funnier.</p>

[c_o1]

<p>I like my F4 but sometimes I don't want to lug around a heavy camera. I held a D5000 once and it was nice and light. </p>

<p> </p>

[976photo]

<p>Just to clarify on a comment someone else made, the D5000 is not Nikon's lowest-end DSLR. It is an entry level DSLR, but the lowest level Nikon is the D3000.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I liked the F3 (especially the F3HP, which I still have--with a 50mm f/1.2 on it) and the F5 (which I sold). I never much cared for the F4 after the F5 came out. The AF seemed a bit primitive by comparison with the last Nikon F series cameras.</p>

<p>About the only thing I don't like about the even more modern cameras is that some widely used function(s) might be buried deep inside the menu. Otherwise, I much prefer the advantages which new technology has brought. I also do not particularly relish the long hours spent post-processing in front of the computer, but in truth I would not go back, either. I could still let in-camera processing as well as photo labs make decisions for me, but I prefer the creative control that contemporary technology has given me.</p>

<p>I rather doubt that my age (I'm sixty-five) has a darned thing to do with any of it. I was using computers (mainframes) in 1970, desktops in the early 1980s, and other devices more recently. It is not a matter of being unable to learn new things as people get older. It is a matter of both habit and opportunity. Some older people have never had those opportunities. If they had, they would like the newer things as well, as I do. </p>

<p>I wouldn't mind if the world were suddenly turned back to 1964, though. "Pretty Woman" by Orbison would be about to be released this fall, and my own pretty woman would have been the new star on the horizon. As far as I can tell, young and old still like good music and good women. The generational differences are vastly overstated.</p>

<p>I <em>would </em>like my old knees back. I'll give you that. Growing old is not exactly entering the so-called "Golden Years." The march of time is very democratic, however, and the present young generation is doomed to have to endure the same ageist nonsense very, very soon.</p>

<p>That makes me happy somehow. Heh-heh. Get ready, boys and girls: growing old is coming your way, too--if you're lucky enough to last that long.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[976photo]

<p>I don't understand the talk about menus being "buried" so deep. All of your basic functions can be accessed with the <strong>info</strong> button. And Nikon has a dedicated menu called "<strong>Recent Settings</strong>" that lists all of your most recently used menu options, which you can actually <em>customize</em> and put what menu options you want in there, so all your favorites are under one menu.</p>

[jim_hayes4]

<p>I'm old enough that I learned to program computers when they still had tubes - while I was shooting a Leica M2/Summilux 35. I've started tech businesses. I teach tech too. Been shooting digital for almost 15 years.<br>

Cameras have all those menus because engineers sat and argued about how much complexity to include. Most of all those variables are included because they can be - and they allow the camera to be customized for the user, not necessarily that they should be used all the time. With a couple of hours with the manual and the camera, one can crate a completely customized camera that matches (or beats) the best film cameras and works the way you want it to. In fact, it can be tweaked to imitate your favorite film.<br>

In everyday use, you can tweak exposure (like you would on a film camera) on your customized camera. Concentrate on taking photos, not messing with menus.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree. I cannot understand how we can miss the simplicity of older cameras, and get disturbed with menus... simply set your preferences and forget it. I almost never press the menu button of my D700... maybe only for MF lens selection (and I bought this camera to do so).</p>

<p>BTW, I have always found contradictory and even ridiculous that Leica slogan... -<em>concentration on the essential-...</em> while you must have to set the speed and/or aperture, checking the meter, focusing and framing at the same time! If there is a camera that let you to concentrate on the essential, specially when there is only one chance, is a current DSLR. And in my experience, the latest the better.</p>

<p>I find the ergonomics on current cameras the best ever... you can shot almost anything in any place, change focus mode, camera mode, compensate, change ISO, etc. etc. etc., without removing the camera from your face. I cannot do so with any other camera.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, maybe the real question should be... <em>What`s the essential? </em> The camera or... <em>taking photos</em>?</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>The problem with Nikon making a manual camera, is that it does not appeal to Nikons mainstream market, which is driven mostly by 'camera enthusiasts' rather than photographers. It is the technology that attracts most newcomers. It's unfortunate, because if you have a large investment in Nikon glass, then photographers who want a simple camera have no viable options if they want to stick with a ******* camera. <br>

IMHO, the F4 is Nikons greatest acheivement. The perfect blend of old school and technology in a small format slr. If you don't want to use a flash, then the F3 is a title contender. Modern G lenses won't work well on Nikon's older camera's such as the F4 though. However, as mentioned above, those days are gone, and as companies grow, their interests change. Look back over the past 100 years, and similar trends are quite apparent, although the jump from film to ******* is as bigger shift in technology as we've ever seen.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Maybe you would like an M9? I've never used one myself, though. Personally I have more fun shooting old MF cameras, one reason being that they are so simple.</p>

<p>I bought a Nikon FG about a year ago. It has a great feature that you push a button and it automatically adds 2 stops of exposure for shooting backlit scenes. What a great idea! Sure you can manually add exposure comp with today's DSLRs, but the FG can do this, too!</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Thanks everyone for all the interesting reflections and thoughts about <strong>Nikons and the Existentials of Interface! </strong> First, a confession: now that I have spent an hour with the manual, the Nikon 5000 looks a lot more reasonable (hello! Duh!). Next I picked up my F4, which felt a lot heavier!<br>

Even so, I'm really interested in how these various interfaces affect the experience of photography, the aesthetics, and how I relate to subjects. <br>

I regularly use These Interfaces: Large Format Ground: 8x10, 5x7m 4x5, Medium Format Ground glass and Rangefinder, and of course all the Film 35's, and My trusty D70 and D5000. Each one takes me to a different experience and leads me choose different sort of subjects.<br>

I love the one I'm with. </p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I have always found contradictory and even ridiculous that Leica slogan... -<em>concentration on the essential-...</em> while you must have to set the speed and/or aperture, checking the meter, focusing and framing at the same time!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can understand that slogan. I believe I know where it comes from, at least partially. Some people like to "walk the streets"; when they do so, they usually shoot manual. You preset your shutter speed, as you pass by looking at the scenes, you select your aperture on your lens, discretely, without looking at the camera. Some of these people also preset the focus. By means of practice, they know what DOF they have with every aperture on their lens, so they know the distance they should shot their subject from. The intention is to disturb the subjects as little as possible.</p>

<p>So by the time they get to the framing (which on a rangefinder you can do so while looking at the scene with both eyes, non-interrupted visual contact) they need to adjust nothing, they just get the pic, in focus, and properly exposed most of the time.</p>

<p>Of course, it takes a whole lot of practice, years of practice, but it can be done. I know people who can do that. Some haven't even replaced the meter battery that died eons ago; some even shoot from the hip, so they don't even have to look through the finder to do the framing.</p>

<p>If the essential of it all is taking the picture, the camera that let's you take it as you see it in your mind, is just as essential, IMHO.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think you got it right, I`m sure that`s exactly the aim of that slogan... :)<br /> What I cannot get is how to achieve speed and reliable results with such working style. I think it`s a pretty inconsistent (but still beautiful and attractive) argument.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>What I cannot get is how to achieve speed and reliable results with such working style. I think it`s a pretty inconsistent (but still beautiful and attractive) argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I can't get it either, hehe. My mind is still too set on the results part of the process, I'm trying to shift focus a bit more towards the process itself, gradually, but it's not that easy. Specially when you take into account how used you can get to the speed and reliability of modern cameras' automation.</p>

<p>Maybe by the time I get to afford a Leica, I'll have some skills (and time) I can take advantage of too. =)</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Hello Jose---one of the iconic "street" phootgraphers of the 1950's made the Leica famous with his "Decisive Moment" style. (Cartier Bresson) One lens--- shoe leather zoom. Probably shooting without a meter. Darting into and out of scenes. The Leica and similar (rangefinder) viewfinders are a revelation to use. Then too, with the 50mm (or 35mm), you can easily zone focus shooting at f8 or f11. And for metering? You know what the sunny f stop is; you know that an object in the shade needs two extra stops.<br>

So there it is, Sunny 16 actually does work! And speaking of viewfinders, the Nikon F3 eyepoint was a huge advance because you could shoot and frame an inch or so from your eye. And the Nikon F4 viewfinder is probably the brightest ---few distracting lines and information bars, but a little hard to manually focus. The F5 a little smaller, a little darker. I truly love event shooting with the F5.<br>

And the Nikon 5000 viewfinder........well....maybe too small for quickly framing a shot. At least it feels different to me...but that's probably because I haven't practiced with it. Next weekend, we have a big Gay Pride Parade in Santa Fe---I'll give it a test. </p>

[rich_evans]

<p>I think that all the bells and whistles on new hardware is testimony to the overall capabilites of the industry, and most can be very useful to some users, but on the other hand, not at all useful, not cost effective, and intimidating to others. I'm 59 and learned on a 2nd hand, black FTn (which I still have with its 50mm f.1.4) but shoot exclusively today with a D3 and D300s, and have no trouble with the menus or navigatring my way around. Possibly becaue I work in a high tech industry there's no intimidation factor on my part.</p>

<p>I do find that my younger students do not use and have no interest in using MOST of the things that are put on even P&S cameras as options. So I wonder who is listening to the market??</p>

<p>While I absolutely love the array of options open to me FOR MY WORK AND STYLE, I DO wish there were someone at Nikon who would listen to the voices - and I am FAR from alone in this - who desire a pro-level body with bare-bones essentials, eg. Mode, Meter, White Balance and ISO settings along with focus, aperture and shutter speed controls - period. Put this in a FM3a-sized body (or smaller) and there'd be alot of pros of ANY age who would scoop these up. --Rich</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Rich, sign me up for the D(FM)3a!!!!</p>

[zaheer_b]

<p>as many have pointed out, there are many non-rational factors that influence our likes/dislikes. and surely a camera body is not simply a tool for taking pictures, even though no doubt that is what it is most used for! tactile preferences, design, finish, layout, ease of use etc. etc. etc.</p>

[stric]

<p>I never sold my 35mm gear after I bought D90. Granted I've enjoyed the D90 a lot but lately I've been using my 35mm camera with Velvia film. I simply love the manual and minimalistic controls on the lens. All that high-tech digital stuff is fine but let's face it, it can be quite overwhelming. Maybe I'm just too old-skool...</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Actually, I don't think you're being "old school" or overwhelmed. I've used digital in my work for years; still, for most personal stuff, I much prefer the hands-on, non computerized interfaces. I bounce around from one to another--I love shooting my twin lens reflex and large format. It's not so much about the outcome as it is the mental space that I enjoy with manual interfaces. I like sizing up the light, choosing which film to use, which developer to use, and thinking about how the shot might look on one enlarging paper or another.

I like thinking about what I will need to dodge or burn in.

 

I definitely enjoy waiting to see the film, opening the tank and looking at the wet negatives--sort of like seeing which ones I "caught."

 

Definitely not instant gratification, but that's part of the fun.

</p>