Beginner slr

[ncooke]

<p>I'm debating between the D5k and D90 and have been reading threads. I'm a beginner in slrs done the point and shoot currently have a nikon coolpix s4000 and really love it for a point and shoot. What I really want is a slr thats good for outdoors hiking taking pics of landscapes, animals, water scenes while also good for vacation or just everyday shooting. I'm thinking if I really get into it I'll upgrade to a 300s or equivalent after 3yrs so would it really be worth forking out the money for the D90 over the D5k. Or just save money go with the D5k get the kit lens 18-105 and a 70-300, then maybe a close up lens for macro later and upgrade to a higher end camera in a few years. the 300s isn't an option right now money wise and not sure how serious I'll get. It seems like it would be better to buy a D5k spend extra money on glass then just buy a D90 and no extra glass. Budget is about $1k. I heard some one say the D5k is lighter which sounds like a plus to me if I'm more in to traveling with it and won't be using much for a tripod. Plan to stop in to a store and hold both I know a lot of people say its more important that you feel comfortable with your camera. I do not care about the video but the LCD of the D90 would be nice. Any advice would be appreciated maybe there is a better model for me to look at. One other question when you say that a lens won't work on the D5k do you mean period or just not auto-focus? so I could still use them as a manual and learn the craft of photography through a digital?<br>

I guess break down would be: save money get the d5k and glass to learn on then upgrade to 300s after few years or go for the d90 no glass, slowly build glass and have less desire to upgrade as soon?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There are so many existing threads on the D90 vs. D5000 so that it is not worthwhile to repeat the arguments. I suggest you visit a camera store or event just go to Costco to take a look at both cameras. The D90 definitely has a better viewfinder; looks through both of them and see whether you have a preference. (Come to think of it, those viewfinders require a battery in the camera to operate; otherwise you'll see a dim and blurry viewfinder. Therefore, Costco might not be the right store to visit.)</p>

<p>I kind of doubt that you'll need any lens that is not AF-S. Therefore, I wouldn't worry too much about the AF motor issue.</p>

<p>I'll say this one more time: the D90 will be 2 years old next month and is due for an update. At least I don't know when and how different any new model will be, but that is one thing to keep in mind. At least you are aware of that possibility so that you won't get pissed off if something new turns up right after you buy one.</p>

[rossb]

<p>They are both good camera's. You just kind of get what you pay for and the D90 is probably worth the extra money. The D90 will function with any of the Nikon AF lenses. The D5000 needs AF lenses that have a AF motor in them, designated AFS. Nikon may introduce some new camera models pretty soon if you feel like waiting to see what's new before buying. </p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Hi Nick,</p>

<p>They're both fine cameras, and they have the same sensor. Generally, I like to lean towards using money to purchase glass, but it's not so straightforward.</p>

<p>The 'autofocus' issue is that the D5000 doesn't have a built in motor to drive the autofocus of older, non AF-S lenses. The D90 has such a motor, and can act as an off-camera flash controller. Those are the two big differences IMO. Although it's probably hard for a starter to understand what lenses you need and don't need, Nikon (and Sigma/Tamron) offerings for lenses with autofocus motors are slimmer than the full range of lenses.</p>

<p>For ex. Nikon has a great 35 mm AF-S. They have a 50mm AF-S that's $400, but they also have an older 50mm f/1.8 that's only $100, that will not autofocus on the D5000. So, while it may be hard for someone starting out to fathom what lenses to aim for, keep this in mind. If I'm correct, there are ZERO 85mm primes that autofocus on the D5000, but that will change soon. AF-S is good however, so being limited to AF-S with the D5000 isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p>

<p>Generally speaking though, I think it's good to go cheap on your first SLR, mess around with it, take some pictures, and get a feel for what you like and don't like. Then EBay it and get the camera your newly refined taste buds crave.</p>

[ncooke]

<p>I'm still curious can I use non AF-S glass and focus it manually myself on a D5k or will they just flat out not work on the D5k? My other question is, is it worth spending the extra money on a D90 when I plan on upgrading to the likes of a d300s. Obviously the D300s is a great upgrade from the D5000 and well worth doing in the future. I know D90 to D300s is also an upgrade but is it worth forking out $1000 for the D90 then turning around a couple yrs later and dropping $1500 on the D300s. With what I've reviewed it doesn't seem to be. Also from a beginner stand point I'm curious which would be easier to learn on. So any one who has experience with both, I would appreciate some feed back on how easy you think it would be for a beginner to operate features of the camera. I know I have a lot to learn but I'd sooner not start out with an entry level slr like D40 and $100 difference for the D3000 doesn't seem worth saving. was thinking about one of cannons entry level but would sooner stay with Nikon so my glass will work when I upgrade. <br>

I realize they're a lot of threads on which is the better camera and I agree the D90 is better then the D5k thats not my question. Was planning on the D90 but honestly I'd sooner the d300s over the D90. I know you can keep going up but realistically the D300s fits what I want. For now though I want a cheaper Nikon to learn on and build up glass then later upgrade to D300s or the newest version in a few years. I'm not interested in the D3 or D700 way to much money and unnecessary for my hobby. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>With a few rare exceptions, just about any Nikon F-mount lens since the beginning of the AI era in 1977 can be used on the D5000 and D90 to capture images:</p>

<ul>

<li>If the lens has no built-in CPU, you will have no metering on the D5000 and D90.</li>

<li>If the lens has no build-in AF motor, you will have no AF on the D5000.</li>

</ul>

 

[976photo]

<p>Kind of boils down to do you want to spend the money on extra glass now (D5000+extra lens) or later (D90)</p>

<p>The biggest gripe people tend to have about the D5000 is the lack of an internal focusing motor, which means if you buy a lens that does not have a built in auto-focus then you'll have to focus it manually. You'll have to decide if that's important to you or not.</p>

<p>Both are great cameras and they both use the same image sensor.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Since you are on the fence, my reco is to buy the D90. You will not be sorry and this is something that you can grow into as you learn. Both are great cameras so whatever you decide, it will be fine.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>If you decide to go the d5000 route, you can manual focus the AF lenses, but manual focusing on a moving target (kids, birds, dogs etc.) can be difficult at best. Also, AF lenses are geared to optimize the AF speed, so a small rotation of the focus collar shifts the focus a good deal, especially the closer you get to infinity, making precise focusing more difficult. If it were me, I'd say skip the D and G lenses on a D5000 and get some manual focus lenses that were meant to be focused manually and learn to meter in your head (it's not that hard. I do it all the time). The prices of these MF lenses are already so rock bottom that you don't have to worry about losing much money if you decide to sell them later.</p>

<p>Or you could get the D90 and AF with any AF lens Nikon has ever made.</p>

[976photo]

<p>Don't blow the whole "D5000 can't auto-focus lenses" thing out of proportion. It's not like there's no lenses available that will work with the D5000 to AF. There's just more lenses available that do not have the built in motor. But you can get lenses that will fully work with the D5000.</p>

<p>Sometimes people start talking about all the lenses available and it starts to sound like nothing will work on the D5000.</p>

<p>And yes, the D5000 is smaller and lighter than the D90. Go to a store though, either a camera shop or maybe a Best Buy that will have both cameras so you can pick them up and hold them. You may not like the smaller body once you get your hands on it.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>In case I wasn't clear enough the first time: all recent Nikon lenses will meter on the D5000. Not all will autofocus. You will be able to take pictures with all of them, but may have to manual focus some.</p>

<p>Lenses with built in autofocus motors are *good*. In Nikon's case, with AF-S, they tend to focus fast, quietly, and usually have a clutch with allows you to manually over-ride the autofocus (turn the focus ring after the camera has settled on a focus). So, being stuck with AF-S isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p>

<p>There are however, some holes in the Nikon/Tamron/Sigma lens lineup for lenses with built in motors. Right now, there isn't a widely available 85mm prime with built in motor (but that may change soon). There isn't a Canon equivelant of a 'nifty fifty' (cheap 50mm that will autofocus on the D5000): if you want a 50mm with autofocus you will have to pony up $400 for the AF-S f/1.4.</p>

<p>If you're going to upgrade, I recommend the D5000. Save some money for lenses. The $250 difference is worth a 35mm f/1.8. As a learning tool, they're both about equivelant...... unless you want to delve into off-camera flash really early (in that case, go for the D90).</p>

[ncooke]

<p>I agree with Luc. I'm tired of the whole lens thing if thats the major draw back its not one for me I'm only looking at getting a couple lenses any ways. To start with I'd get the 70-300mm which will cost about $589. So I could get the D5000 kit 18-55 and the 70-300 for about $1200 or just get the D90 kit 18-105 for about the same. Considering I'm more interested in landscapes more a hiking around camera it seems better to get the D5000 I'll have more for the price. Do both shot the same? As far as I can tell looking at the spec sheets on Nikon they are identical cameras besides cosmetic. They should shoot the same quality of pictures if you were to compare them both with same lens. Am I correct on that?<br>

Also I would like some ones opinion on user friendliness of using either one for a beginner: menus, full use of features, buttons etc... I'm also still curious of peoples opinions of upgrading from D90 to D300s compared to D5000. Should I even bother with D90 or save money I truly do plan to upgrade within 3yrs if all goes well. So I'm looking for a good beginner camera that I won't feel bad about buying and tossing in the closet after just a couple of years. I do see potential for the D5000 because of size maybe even after I buy a 300 but I'm not seeing it for the D90.<br>

Thank you very much Cory for your post. That was exactly the kind of thing I was wondering. I'd love to do some more manual use of the camera to learn why my camera does what it does.<br>

I've looked around at prices I know I can find good deals on stuff and the prices listed above could be different but either way its cheaper to go the D5000.<br>

I handled them both today as best you can with them tied up on a short cord at the store lol. I do find the D90 fits in my hand better but could get use to the D5000 I found it comfortable after playing with it a little while. Also size and weight doesn't seem to be that significant, noticeable but not significant to say thats the one. So that wasn't as helpful as I was hoping. Was nice to touch and get a feel. Wasn't able to take pics there and really play though.</p>

[ncooke]

<p>Thank you for your Post Philip thats more what I'm thinking. I hadn't seen your post before I wrote my last one other wise I would have said thank you in it. <br>

I'm really starting to lean towards the D5000. There doesn't seem like any significant reason for the D90 in my case. I would definitly go for the D90 if it was going to be my bread and butter camera. But I'm not looking for that now. I already know I want a 300 but I want something that won't break the bank with camera and glass so the 5000 seems to be the better camera for now.<br>

still would like other opinions maybe there is something I'm missing. Thank you</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Nick. All Nikon DSLR bodies offer excellent (and pretty much the same) IQ at lower ISOs. The main difference aside from body size is in features and convenience, and of course performance at higher ISOs. Not sure of your budget but a really good condition lightly used D90 will cost just a little bit more than a new D5000. Of course a used D5000 will save you money over a new one and save you money over a used D90. So many choices and never enough money.</p>

<p>The D90 is probably one of Nikon's best values available, and for about $600 - $700, is an exceptional value. One last thing to consider... If you buy the D5000 now and really get into photography, you will probably end up selling it and upgrading in the future to a D90 or better. You would likely be satisfied with the D90 for a long, long time. </p>

<p>Sorry for adding more things to consider. The good news is you will be delighted either way! All Nikon's DSRL cameras are excellent!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Only you know if you might buy screwdrive lenses like perhaps an older 60 or 105 macro or a 50mm f1.8 or something like that. In my case I decided that the D90 was worth it for the bigger size (easier to handle imho, the D3000 and D5000 are too small in my hand), screwdrive motor (which I can NOT live without), and wireless flash control built-in. The d5000 couldn't drive the AF in my 50 or my 11-16. Yes, there are AF-S equivalents to almost every lens you can buy, but then you're just limiting yourself by what body you bought, aren't you.</p>

<p>Some of the other threads on this question have mentioned people buying AF-D lenses and thinking "oh, well, I can just manually focus it". Not a good long term solution.</p>

<p>If you think you might buy some cool used lenses rather than newer AF-S only... get the D90. There have been refurbs available for a great price.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I hike a bit. I carry a D700 with lens and a small carbon tripod. That weighs a total of about six pounds. I much prefer the nicest viewfinder I can get. I believe both bodies have liveview which is handy. If you are hiking many miles and over nights then I would look at the smallest lightest package available. I will be trying out a small Sigma DP-1s for trips more than 10 miles where hiking is first and photography second. IMHO you should look into a very good tripod setup and some filters, ND or GND or CPL.</p>

[ncooke]

<p>Any one thats used both cameras I would like your opinions on ease of use of both, and quality. Looking over the specs on Nikon's website they are identical for taking pictures. There are only three differences between their specs when it concerns capturing an image.<br>

<strong>White balance bracketing</strong><br>

<strong>D5000 3 frames in steps of 1</strong><br>

<strong>D90 2 or 3 exposures, in increments of 1,2 or 3</strong><br>

<strong>Exposure bracketing</strong><br>

<strong>D5000 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1 or 2 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br>

<strong>D90 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br>

<strong>Frames per sec</strong><br>

<strong>D5000 4</strong><br>

<strong>D90 4.5</strong><br>

frames per sec I find interesting considering shutter speed and every thing else is identical. Besides cosmetics i.e. screwdriver, LCD, housing, button layout. Not sure about menu interfaces still would like feed back on that.<br>

Your posts are appreciated but I would like more info and please leave the lens thing alone its only in 50 other threads. Its a non issue for me I already know the glass I want.<br>

This is a beginner camera only to learn on before a D300s.</p>

 

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>White balance bracketing</strong><br /><strong>D5000 3 frames in steps of 1</strong><br /><strong>D90 2 or 3 exposures, in increments of 1,2 or 3</strong><br /><strong>Exposure bracketing</strong><br /><strong>D5000 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1 or 2 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br /><strong>D90 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 <dfn>EV</dfn></strong><br /><strong>Frames per sec</strong><br /><strong>D5000 4</strong><br /><strong>D90 4.5</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>All these items are minor differences. Both cameras will shoot roughly the same, and will generate pictures that are indistinguishable. The key here is: they both have exposure bracketing, they both shoot about 4'ish FPS in machine gun mode, roughly the same autofocus performance (I think?). Menus (I think) are roughly the same. The difference between D300s and D90/D5000 is greater than the difference between D90/D5k.</p>

<p>The only other notable things to mention: the D5000 has a swivel screen (semi-useful for doing landscape shots with the camera close to the ground with live-view), while the D90 has a bigger higher resolution screen, non-swivel (better for reviewing shots, composing in live view).</p>

<p>I know this autofocus motor issue is beat to death, but I will mention it anyway, since you're into landscapes. Don't read this paragraph if you're bored to tears of it. For Ultra-Wide angle lenses, your major choices are the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, and Tokina 12-24. The Tokina 12-24 is generally considered the sharpest, but only the DX II version has an autofocus motor. The DX II version is $100 more expensive, and *MUCH* harder to find.</p>

[ncooke]

<p>Thank you again Philip for another good post. I truly think I'll get the D5000 and glass instead of the D90. <br>

A little off topic I've been looking at bundles. I'm wondering about the 55-200mm lens I've been seeing that I can get bundled with D5000 and 18-55mm lens for about $900 is the lens worth getting or should I skip that one and get the 70-300mm. Would the 55-200mm be fine and I could put the money I save not getting the 70-300 towards AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G its $200 that would be a halfway decent landscape lens right?<br>

I'm also not that familiar with glass actually not at all. I was thinking of just sticking with Nikkor glass. But are Sigma and Tamron as good or better?? </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I would get the lense that is the proper focal length for what you want to do. If you are going to hike with the camera then weight may be a higher priority. If you are not sure what you need lense wise then wait until you know. If you are going to do event type shooting then you might consider a 17-50mm f2.8 type normal zoom instead of the kit lens. Unless I am hiking I would prefer a f2.8 zoom lense.</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Well, gee, if you're going to go with just the kit lenses, go for the D90. It has more manual functions and will let you learn better from what I've seen. </p>

<p>The D90 isn't going to make you wish you had a D300 in 3 months, where I feel like the D5000 will (I have a D80 and a D5000 at work and I hate the 5K). If you get the D90, which will ride out developing skills a little better, then you'll have a longer time to start getting good lenses before you decide to drop 1500 on a new camera.</p>

[ncooke]

<p>Justine could you elaborate more on why you hate the 5K? </p>

<p>When I started this thread I also asked if any one thought there was a better camera to get for a beginner then the D5k or D90 for hiking and learning photography that still came close to the likes of the D90. I looked at the D80 but couldn't find a good enough deal to justify buying it over the D90 same with the D3000 over the D5000. On that note too I was looking at B&H and noticed quiet a bit of there stuff is import any opinions about that? I would think they would be the same? Then there is also the refurbished or used which either ones questionable. Refurbished what else is wrong and might not have gotten fixed comes with very little warranty. So is it worth taking the chance on a $1000 dollar camera can't afford to have to buy it again that soon. And that all goes for a used one too but also how much has it been used I hear shutters wear out? That all seems a little scary considering I'm very new and wouldn't see whats wrong before its probably to late. I also wonder all that about glass too. I've read a lot of threads lately and people suggesting buying refurbished or used to save money. Is it worth saving 10-20% and taking the risk.<br>

Thank you for any responses.</p>

 

[justine_k]

<p>Nick,<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">It's all personal, but a few things:</p>

<p dir="ltr">1. Size. I think it's small enough that it's a bit awkward to handle when you're trying to do multi-button functions (which there are a lot of on this camera). I'm a female, and I don't think it's easy to comfortably manipulate while still trying to hold with your right hand.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">2. Durability. Compared to D90 and up, it seems very flimsy. I think if you're planning on taking it out into the outdoors, you'll notice the difference. YES. The D90 will be heavier, but that will come in use when you drop it on a backpacking trip.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">3. Buttons. The D90 controls are much more accessible. You will appreciate those when you learn how to use them and would like to constantly be playing around with settings. I find that the D5000 is very limiting for what I can do on the back of the camera.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">4. No "temperature" white balance abilities. I don't think cameras are all the time the best at guess WB, and "Fluorescent" "outdoor" "shade" etc doesn't always fit nicely into those niches and there is something to be said for being able to fine tune it by going up and down on the Kelvin scale</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">5. That autofocus issue with "old" lenses. Sure, everyone is saying don't worry about it. But you never know when you'll need it and it does restrict what you can choose from. Manual focusing is always a good thing to know how to do, but there might be times when you're in an awkward space and can't necessarily be looking through the viewfinder to see if it's in focus. Been there, done that. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<br>

These are all things the bug me beyond belief with it. I'm sure there's more, that's all I'm coming up with right now. I'm not a very good photographer, but work regularly with 4 different Nikon DSLR's, and those are my thoughts on it. I know it's easy to say that this is your starter camera, but you're looking at THREE YEARS at a possibly upgrade. If you're serious about photography and do it a lot, I think you'll find yourself growing out of a lot of the settings with the D5000. Considering the price difference isn't all that much when you average it over 3 years, I'd go with a little bit more "advanced" camera and grow into it. If you would have said you'll be looking to upgrade in 6 months, that would be one thing. But 3 years is a long time and that's a lot of learning you can do. I just think the price difference now will end up being a wash for you because you'll be wanting to get a new camera sooner that if you would have gone with the D90. Sure, IMAGE QUALITY isn't better, per say, with the D90. But it is a step-up in photographic freedom and convenience. </p>

[ncooke]

<p>Thank you for taking the time to write a very good post Justine. I'm sadly thinking I won't be getting the camera as soon as I thought (car issues). I've been reading and reading more every day though. I've come to the conclusion the 5000 is never worth buying if you are serious about photography it makes a great home family camera step up from a point and shoot. I've been reading other forum threads about best lens to take on trips or best for certain shots. Which really starts to put in perspective the serious limitation of the camera motor. You really are limited to kit lens which in my case would be some what fine to learn on for a year or so but the whole idea of building glass kind of losses momentum when they don't function on current camera or cost more then the D300s. Starting to think more of just going for the D300s but the D90 is sounding very good too. So I've been looking into which one to get I'm leaning towards the D90 for the simple reason of more beginner friendly and save some money. Plus all in all it is the best all around camera in my opinion it has a lot from both worlds (pro/beginner) all rolled together in one camera. Mind you I didn't say best camera just best all around. So long winded but I think I'll choose the D90 for now and watch for a new version of the 300s in the following years. <br>

Thank you for every ones posts. They are truly appreciated <br>

My dilemma now is more, are used or refurbished really a good deal they don't seem to be a huge price difference about $200 at best. Same for glass are they worth getting refurb or used. is 1 in 10 bad or more like 5 in 10 bad. obviously saving money is good means more glass or accessories. So would love to hear your opinions and that you've bought 5 refurbs from where ever and all been great investments or the opposite. I believe I read something about not posting this sort of thing if thats right. Maybe you can send me a link pointing me to the store reviews and such. I've really been trying to read as much as I can and there is so much on this site I love it. It's overwhelming though so any good reads you can point me to would also be very appreciated. I read a good one today on Sigma glass that was a little more up lifting about possibly purchasing some Sigma instead of all Nikkor. <br>

Thank you all again very much for taking the time to respond. </p>

[justine_k]

<p>I bought a refurbed D300, but it had a battery drain problem (which was actually a semi-common issue with the D300's, I just happened to get one). Luckily, I got it from the oh-so-reliable Adorama, sent it back and within 4 days had a new one. It was a pain and there was a little miscommunication at times, but the new one seems to be working fine. I went with the D300 over the D300s purely for cost. The savings difference was astronomical for what amounts to adding an SD card slot (which, admittedly would be great since I don't have a CF card slot on my computer) and video, which I don't use. </p>

<p>I think refurbed is great as long as you're going with a good company with a good return policy. There is generally a 2 week window you can beat up on the equipment before you return it. Granted, it can always develope problems later, but then again, so can a new one.</p>

<p>So +1 for refurbished, with reservations as to knowing (with any equipment--used or new) that you might have issues that need to be worked through. </p>

<p>And good choice on the D90. You probably don't need the D300 right now. THAT on the other hand might be too overwhelming to learn on. You have it right when you say the D90 is probably the best all-around. It has all the beginner features and a ton of more advanced features that will last you a long time. The only reason I went with the D300 instead of the D90 is because I needed something that faster and had a stronger motor for action stuff (lots of moving dog and horse pictures). </p>