First camera purchase

[matthew_wade]

<p>I work at a major retailer here in the United States and have been recently (past 5 months) transferred into the cameras department. I have become obsessed with photography and have learned an enormous amount about it given that I have never taken a full on class about it. I've been told by a few people that my knowledge is enough to start my own beginner's photography class. After looking at different brands, reviews, statistics, and models have become set on purchasing a Nikon DSLR. This said I've been looking at the DX models and after quite a bit of research decided that the D5000 would be the crop factor Nikon for me given its lower price tag and near capability of the D90. Now that I've been set on the D5000, however, I just keep looking at FF shots and with the emergence of what seems to be a new D700 I feel like I should just save the $700 I would spend on a D5000 and spend it on the D700 replacement. Given the fact that I work at such a big company I can get a pretty decent discount on this camera and I know I would be satisfied but I would like some feedback on what others think. I, literally, enjoy shooting everything under the sun. I play a plethora of sports including hockey, soccer, and baseball but I also hunt and enjoy spending time outdoors as well as being very social and having a variety of friends that I would love taking portraits or candids of. Like I said, I'd simply like a little feedback on experiences and overall thoughts. Anything else will be wasting my time and your own.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>Do not buy the D5000. You will be bumping up against its limitations in days. The only FF cameras I have use film, but I would love to have a D700 or its replacement, but that would be a serious investment. In the meantime, I enjoy and am still learning the capabilities of my D90 and my D300, both bought used.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I play a plethora of sports including hockey, soccer, and baseball but I also hunt and enjoy spending time outdoors...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recommend a d300 and you read the DX vs. FX link in the thread below.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>The order of investment:</p>

<p>1- Knowledge. The more you know, the better you will be and you will also realize that the camera is the least important part of the equation. </p>

<p>2- Lenses. A great lens (along with #1) on a lesser expensive camera will give you better results than a cheap lens on an expensive camera. </p>

<p>2b- Lighting. I say lighting as 2b because if you are doing nothing but natural light then that would fall under #1, knowledge. If you are using strobes, then in terms of equipment, having a reliable lighting set up is more important than the camera. This shoot was done with an iPhone! But consider the photographer's knowledge and use of lights:<br>

<p>3- The camera. In a nutshell, the camera is a light tight box that records the image. In one sense, all cameras do this. Do some cameras have advantages over another? Sure. But in the end, it just records the image.</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>Welcome to photo.net!<br>

You came to the right place to learn and share knowledge.<br>

From advices given, you see that one recommends D700, another D300, and the last one just an iPhone that has already a built-oin camera. You may also get an advice just to use a pinhole camera.<br>

You see how confusing it can get ? right?<br>

You will need to work out your own path...</p>

<p>In John's sequence I woud put 3 - The camera before the 2b - Lighting, for simple reason, that some flash systems are now dedicated to a camera brand or model. Therefore having camera and match to it compatible flash would be possible. Better yet purchase a camera and the flash system at the same time, assuring that they will work together, utilizing latest technology advances, e.g CLS, or ETTL II, or pTTL, or whatever your camera selection was.</p>

 

[nishnishant]

<blockquote>

<p>and with the emergence of what seems to be a new D700 I feel like I should just save the $700 I would spend on a D5000 and spend it on the D700 replacement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D700 body is about USD 2400 and the D5000 body is about USD 600. The difference is approximately 1800. The D700 replacement will surely cost more than the D700 does, so your "$700" difference figure is not right.</p>

 

[nishnishant]

<p>Uhm, ignore my last post. Seems like what you meant is that you'd just save the D5000's cost and apply it towards your D700-replacement purchase. Probably a good move if you are that keen on FX.</p>

<p>As for me, I've been waiting for months for the D-90 successor. No sign of one so far :-(</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The main question would be: why do you think you need FX? What advantage does it bring to you to make the extra amount spent worth it? (do not forget, the FX lenses are also going to cost a bit more, it's not only the cost of the body). A lot of people talk themselves into FX because bigger seems to be better; but for many people, the extra cost spend on it does not seem to translate into anything that could not be done just as well with a D300.</p>

<p>Despite you thinking I waste your time now, do reconsider the D90. Just check the difference in viewfinder, if the argument of being able to fully use all AF lenses isn't enough.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you don't know you need FX, you very likely don't. It's that simple.</p>

<p>And I agree that The D5000 should be skipped in favor of the D90 if at all possible. Just the screwdrive motor and the wireless flash control is worth the diff for me. The depth-of-field preview is nice, but I never use it, higher speed flash sync is nice, I rarely use it (I'm pretty sure you don't have that on the D5000). I also use the top LCD a LOT and find the LCD and the way it behaves while shooting on the D5000 pretty annoying (although that articulated LCD screen is nice). obviously YMMV.</p>

[Two23]

<p>For sports and wildlife, you need good lenses. That takes priority over a camera body. Your post was mostly about cameras. In my own experience they seem to make the least difference in photography. A used D300 would more than do what you want. Start looking at the lenses needed for sports and wildlife instead of looking at cameras.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Always think about "the system." When thinking about the cost difference between full-frame and DX, building a system means you will be spending quite a bit more on lenses, also. The additional cost of the D700(x?) body over the D300 series or the D90 is only the beginning. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>My suggestion... stick with the D5000 to start. You may be overwhelmed with anything else. And when/should you outgrow it, trade up. Invest your money wisely on the best lenses you can afford. I would rather have a D5000 with a great lens than an advanced body with a lesser lens. </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i will second elliot b.</p>

[jacob_kerns]

<p>I also agree that the D5000 and good lens is all you need. The screw drive focus is pointless reason not to get it. I would get a D90 later and use the D5000 as a backup. </p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>From reading your brief interest resume, it doesn't seem as if you <em>need</em> a full frame camera. The biggest advantage of a full frame camera is the low-light capability. I don't see anything listed in your original post that would lead me to believe that a cropped sensor would fall short of fulfilling your needs.</p>

<p>I've got a full frame system that I use for paying gigs and other important shoots that require low light shooting. I've also got a ton of fast lenses that I use with it. However, 90% of my everyday photography work is done with an old D50 and two kit lenses. I can get similar results (in decent to good light) with the crop camera - and it's a lot more fun to use.</p>

<p>Another point you brought up is your reason for bypassing the D90. I think this is a serious mistake. The D90 offers the ability to autofocus lenses that don't have the AF-S motor in them. This is a <em><strong>big deal</strong></em>. It's also the reason that I still use the D50 instead of a D40 or D60. In a pinch, I can mount my 85 1.4 on the D50 and get spectacular results. I prefer it on the full frame camera because I've gotten used to the shift in depth of field (I shoot a lot of film as well.), but it performs extremely well on the D50. The D5000 is limited to AF-S only lenses (if you want autofocus), and that's a deal-breaker...to me. Keep this in mind when you make your purchase.</p>

<p>Another camera to consider is the D300. The reason I suggest this camera is because it offers metering ability with the older Ai and Ai-S lenses. I believe that metering on digital cameras is a bit overrated since you can chimp your shots. But then again, I've been shooting for over 20 years, so measuring light has become somewhat second nature to me. Just keep in mind that neither the D5000 nor the D90 will meter manual-focus lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

[c.p.t_.___cap__dundas]

<blockquote>

<p>Like I said, I'd simply like a little feedback on experiences and overall thoughts. Anything else will be wasting my time and your own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arrogant much? There are professional photographers here with 30-50 years of experience. Photographers who have forgotten more than you are likely to learn in the next couple of years. If one of us decides to give you our experience free of charge I suggest you just listen and not worry about our "wasting your time". Right;)</p>

<p>Now. You said you like sports. That argues for the crop sensor camera. Without a press pass you will probably need to use longer lenses for soccer, hockey and baseball. That argues for the D90 as well. You can get some pretty good screw drive glass for sports for considerably less than the AFS. For example the 80-200 F2.8 is about $1000.00 and the 70-200 AFS VR II is about 2500.00. The 70-300 VR is a good lens as well but not up to the 80-200 F2.8 league. You can get a good used one for about the same as the 70-300. I still use my D2X for sports and I get to shoot up close. </p>

<p>IF you progress in photography, you may want to consider a D700 or even a D3. If this is the case you will have done well to have invested in FX glass. I would recommend you do that right from the start. Why not? Get the plastic fantastic 50mm F1.8. The 80-200 F2.8 and get the 16-35 VR. This lens assortment will cost about the same as the difference between the D-90 and the D700 with one lens. </p>

<p>Then set time and money aside for training. Take every seminar that comes along. Go there to learn. They will not be interested in discussing equipment. </p>

<p>For your consideration: Last Sunday I went to a get-together for professional photographers. There were about a dozen of us, most with quite a few years of experience. We talked about all kinds of things. Not so much about equipment. HDR took up most of the time. Anyway. Towards the end of the day four of us started talking about equipment so we played whats in your bag. I was the only one coming from a gig so I had a bunch of stuff. Two of the guys had D90's in the car and one of them had a D200 also. The other guy had a D300 in the car with an 18-200 on it. That was his walking around camera. All four took turns playing with my D2H and D2X which I had been using at a sports event. Not one of them asked me why I did not use my D3. They already knew. </p>

<p>My point is that you should try to avoid becoming a gear head. Buy nice stuff but only buy something new if you can answer the question....what picture that I want to take can I not take without this equipment? And since no one else mentioned it this is manditory. Don't even think of buying a more expensive camera unless your budget includes money for a SB600/800/900. No excuses. If you want to take your photography to a new level you MUST master flash photography. If you ever have designs of making money with your camera you will find that a huge proportion of the shots you get paid for are taken with artificial light. You need to know how to do that. Even your candids will take on a new dimension indoors and out if you become a flash guy. The built-in flash on the camera does not count. Notice that professional cameras often don't even have built in flash. </p>

<p>So there is your free advice. I hope I didn't waste "my time and yours". </p>

<p> </p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>As others have said, you probably should get a D90 or better. Not being able to use AF and AF-D lenses is a serious limitation of the D5000 and D3000. It seems like every other week there is someone posting a thread "what lenses will work on my D5000". Only the AF-S ones so you are pretty limited in your lens selection.</p>

<p>The D300 / D300s is probably your best bet for sports shooting. While the sensor is effectively the same as the D90 and D5000, you get a <em>much </em>better and faster autofocus system, twice the frames-per-second of shooting speed, as well as a weather-sealed body - all things that are useful for sports shooters. If you're on a budget, get a used D300 - I see them on my local CL all the time for about $1000 - 1200. The only major difference between the D300 and the D300s is that the "s" shoots video.</p>

<p>Also, as an aside, try to be polite huh? As others have said, here are a lot of really experienced people here (myself not included). Working at the camera counter for five months gives you just enough knowledge to be dangerous - there is a lot to photography and you should be reading everything you can at this point. <br /></p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Another vote for the D90 or used D300. First, the ability to use non-motorized lenses is important because you don't know now which lenses you'll need in the future. Second, the D90 and D300 should meet all of your needs. And third, the money you save compared to the D700 can be put toward lenses and a flash.</p>

<p>I hope that I didn't waste your time, and welcome to the forum.</p>