d 5000 for half the price or d 90 full priced , FOR a newbie

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>Im a design student , and we were told to get a dslr as we need one for a lot of projects ad such. <br>

I've never owned a dslr before. But i know basic ideas on how to work with aperture , shutter speeds, and im learning how to work in manual mode. </p>

<p>I have a friend selling his almost a year old d 5000 for half the price, includes everything that came with the kit including lens ( $ 700 sing or US $ 380 ) or i could get a d90 for full priced at ( $1300 sing or about US $ 700 something)<br>

So the question is , is the d90 really worth the $600 sing more? </p>

[angkordave]

<p>Image quality wise you will not notice any difference between the D90 and the D5000 as I believe both cameras have the same sensor as a D300. A/F, complexity and build quality is the principal difference between all 3.<br>

I like the tilting swivel screen of the D5000; so if I was in the market for buying camera of this type , I'd buy a D5000 over the D90 for that reason. You could then budget for better lenses.<br>

The new D3100 has a few new features; higher resolution video and slightly higher pixel count; so may be worth considering only if much cheaper.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For that price, I'd go for it. BUT... the single biggest obstacle you will run up against is if you want to buy non-AF-S lenses in the future, like the excellent 50mm f1.8 that so many buy, or so many used lenses that are out there that are a great bargain for DSLRs. Those lenses will NOT autofocus on that camera, and manually focusing them on a DX DSLR can be very problematic at times.</p>

<p>So, if you are the kind of person who will be satisfied with the kit lens (or similar) and maybe one more "consumer" telephoto zoom such as the 55-200 or the new 55-300, then you'll be fine.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>The D3100 seems to be better than the D5000 (except for the slide out LCD), even though the D5000 is in a higher price category. So it's probably not a great idea to buy a D5000 even at that sort of reduced price.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>There is so much choice in AFS or equivalent 3rd party or Nikon lenses that almost all new lenses will work well in a D3000 or D5000. I don't see the lack of a focus screw as being an important consideration for the vast majority of SLR camera users.<br>

In my experience non AFS lenses are slower to focus. There can be some incompatibilities in lens performance when using cheaper old film lenses. This is due to aberrations or colour fringing; so it is better to use a more modern lens optimized for DX cameras (or FX of you are well off enough to afford pro glass).</p>

[kevin_vo]

<p>For half price the d5000 would be a great buy.</p>

<p>However personally I would recommend the d90. I've used both and I can say that the d90 is a way better camera. Screen better (you can actually see if your photo is sharp or not), dual knob is a must for manual shooting, less fidling when you want to control things (d5000 you have to get into the screen and press a lot of buttons to do stuff). Ppl say image quality is the same, but I get better results with the d90 (looking on computer of course).<br>

And being able to use cheaper non-AFS lenses is very important. You save a few hundred dollars by buying the d5000, however you'll have to buy all the more EXPENSIVE, LARGER, HEAVIER lenses which have built in motor (d5000 is lighter, but you have to fit heavier lenses....stupid and imbalance). Also there's lots of older model lenses being sold second hand for cheap which you can't use. Not to mention that versions adding built in motor seems to mostly be less sharp than its original screw-drive counterpart.</p>

<p>Once you get the d5000 after a while you'll want the d90, so you might as well get it straight.</p>

<p>Of course if you'll just be using the kit lens forever, then i'd stick with the d5000. However from your mention of shooting in manual mode, I don't think you'll be content with that.</p>

[kevin_vo]

<p>PS: the swivel screen gets old very quickly. And live view mode sucks really badly, thus making the use of the screen very useless.</p>

<p>PSS: Don't buy the d3100 either. Don't let Nikon succeed in making ppl buy cameras without motor, when canon sell all their cameras (even the lowest entry ones) to have motor...... for cheaper!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Some disinformation here...</p>

<p>Kevin writes</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>PSS: Don't buy the d3100 either. Don't let Nikon succeed in making ppl buy cameras without motor, when canon sell all their cameras (even the lowest entry ones) to have motor...... for cheaper!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin, not one single Canon DSLR has a built-in motor. They are ALL built-in to the lens. When Canon went AF in the 80s, they ditched ALL their old lenses. So not only won't an old Manual Focus lens work on a new Canon DSLR, it won't even MOUNT. An old Manual Focus AI lens from Nikon, made in the 70s, will mount on all current Nikon DSLRs and even meter on some of them. Heck, you can use them on CANON cameras... So don't go touting this as a "Canon superiority issue". It isn't. It's just a different approach the two companies made towards AF back in the day.</p>

<p>Also, Live View does have some very valid uses, like macro photography, and of course the occasional video. It's not a gimmick.</p>

<p>One more thing to the OP, if you're only viewing on screen and printing up to 8 x 10, all these cameras are capable of taking the same image if you are a careful and good photographer. If you are going to be happy with just a kit lens and perhaps a tele zoom like the 55-200 or 55-300, that deal on the D5000 is great. Is the D90 worth more money? Yes, if you need what it has. No, if you don't. (I, by the way, chose the D90 when confronted with this dilemma. For me it's worth it.)</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Image quality wise you will not notice any difference between the D90 and the D5000 as I believe both cameras have the same sensor as a D300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same sensor does not mean same image quality. You may have better focus, better exposure, more stable holding, ...</p>

<p>Is it worthed? Only you know</p>

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>im NOT going to use live view, in fact i dont really care for it. The swivel screen is a nice option, but honestly i dont have any use for it since im not even using live view lol .<br>

Im starting to see that the d 90 is a better choice for me, since i like how i dont have to navigate some menu to take pictures. Seems too fidgety .</p>

 

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>im NOT going to use live view, in fact i dont really care for it. The swivel screen is a nice option, but honestly i dont have any use for it since im not even using live view lol .<br>

Im starting to see that the d 90 is a better choice for me, since i like how i dont have to navigate some menu to take pictures. Seems too fidgety .</p>

 

[lachaine]

<p>Good grief. Another the D-this does that, but the D-that does this thread. Photography is about getting a picture on something that records light. All you need is a way to control shutter speed, the size of the lens opening, and focus. There isn't an SLR made that doesn't do that, and it makes no difference if it's a Nikon or a Canon. If you really want to expand your photography, forget about the camera model. If you have the extra money because you bought the one that's $600 cheaper, buy yourself a fast prime lens (fast is something like f/1.8). Armed with the kit zoom, and the faster lens, you can take pictures of just about anything at any time, and there is no substitute for a fast lens. With the rest of the dough, consider a good flash and a decent tripod.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Every one of my Nikon DSLRs can drive AF and AF-D (i.e. non AF-S) lenses but pretty much every lens I use on a regular basis is AF-S, other than two macro lenses (105mm/f2.8 AF and 200mm/f4 AF-D) where I don't care about AF anyway and the 24mm PC-E, which has no AF at all.</p>

<p>Given that there are now numerous consumer AF-S DX lenses around, I wonder why the in-body AF motor is still a concern at all. All but one DX lens is AF-S (the 10.5mm fisheye is the only exception) and 3rd prties such as Sigma, etc. are making mostly AF-S type lenses now.</p>

<p>It seems to be clear that the D90 will soon be replaced. There is no point to pay full price to buy a new one now.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>All you need is a way to control shutter speed, the size of the lens opening, and focus. There isn't an SLR made that doesn't do that, and it makes no difference if it's a Nikon or a Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine if you can get to the settings you need to trip the shutter quickly and easily, though. Your statement is a bit of an exaggeration. Sure... My D50 takes 90% the same photos as my D90, but it can't do off-camera flash, it doesn't have those nice gridlines, doesn't have the menu-ease-of-use, stuff like that.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that if you know the difference, then you should buy the better camera. If you don't, you shouldn't worry. If one fits in your hand better (I don't like the "feel" of Canon, myself, even though their cameras are just as good as Nikon's), then go for it. If one has a crucial feature for you, lean that way, etc.</p>

<p>And to add to what Shun says, at this point, I'd only buy a refurb D90 (QUITE worth the price), myself. It is unlikely that the "D95" or whatever they're going to call it will be as much of a leap in camera quality over the D90 as the D90 was over the D80, but it'll be significant for many of us. It will no doubt have AF for Video shooting (something I wouldn't mind, as I occasionally shoot the "kid" photo), and other cool gizmos. I'd love that mode switch and the quiet mode on the 3100, although I don't "need" it... </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Peter : The D90-Next will certainly have 1080 video which will be "major" for some people. I am also expecting/hoping a 2-stop ISO increase :-)</p>

<p>Shun : I believe that the 50 mm 1.8 lens for about 110 bucks is the biggest reason people want a motor in their camera. Of course now that there's a 35 mm f/1.8 that's not too expensive, that reason is not that strong anymore I guess.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Get the camera that is comfortable for you to use with the basic features that you want. Read the reviews and spec on both so you understand some of the subtle differences. We all have different priorities, for me I need a stronger physical camera that I can bang around a bit opposed to super high ISO, I also have big hands. Only you can decide what's really best for you, good luck in school. My motto to students; "Have a great day and get an A."</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, if you end up buying a used D5000, you want to make sure that it is not on the recall list or if it is, it has already been properly fixed: <a href="00U1LR">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00U1LR</a></p>

<p>I would imagine that any new D5000 shouldn't have that problem any more. However, the D5000 has already been superseded by the D3100.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Every one of my Nikon DSLRs can drive AF and AF-D (i.e. non AF-S) lenses but pretty much every lens I use on a regular basis is AF-S</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case every motor built-in your cameras is a waste</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder why the in-body AF motor is still a concern at all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because the top models like D3s and D700 still have them. If the D4 and D800 will come out without a built-in motor, then it won't be a concern anymore... (but it may be a big concern now for many people if there is a rumor that the next pro Nikon camera won't have a built-in motor anymore)</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Because the top models like D3s and D700 still have them. If the D4 and D800 will come out without a built-in motor, then it won't be a concern anymore... (but it may be a big concern now for many people if there is a rumor that the next pro Nikon camera won't have a built-in motor anymore)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the D4 or D800 or whatever came out with no motor, there would be a real problem, there are still a significant number of lenses in pro's lens closets with a screwdriver.</p>

<p>I only need my motor for two lenses, but I don't want to have to replace them, so I went with the D90 over the D5000 for that reason, and others.</p>

[photo5]

<p>D5000 for half the price? Yeah, I'd go for that. The swing out LCD is brilliant, every DSLR should have one. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>In this case every motor built-in your cameras is a waste</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, so are many other features I never use, such as Active D Lighting, shutter priority, sensor self cleaning, the pop-up flash as a source of light (I do occasionally use it as CLS master), auto-area AF ....</p>

<p>The AF motor is still important on the D3, D4 level as well as the D700 and its successor; even though I don't need that feautre, plenty of people who use those cameras still need it. For consumer DX DSLRs, not having an AF motor means lower cost, smaller size, and just one fewer thing that can go wrong.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>So, to summarize, we have:<br>

1. People still need the built-in motor, not only now but also in the future</p>

<p>2. Some of us who don't need the motor built-in at all, still decided to buy one with motor built-in</p>

<p>3. People who buy consumer DX DSLR are those who need a low-cost and small size camera that has as few features as possible because the more features it has the more things that can go wrong</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>1. People still need the built-in motor, not only now but also in the future</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, IMO, if you are buying a consumer DSLR at the D90 level or below, you are better off without an AF motor, but that is just me. It is certainly not true for the future, as all new AF lenses will have motors buit in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. Some of us who don't need the motor built-in at all, still decided to buy one with motor built-in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only because I have no choice. My recent cameras are the D2X, D200, D300, and D700. Nikon does not make a version of any of those cameras without an AF motor inside.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I NEED that motor on my D90 to drive two of my favorite lenses, a Tokina 11-16 and a Nikkor 50mm f1.8, that are not currently available with motors built-in. If I had to, I could buy something different than the Tokina, but I didn't like any of the other offerings as much, and none were f2.8, and I like the brightness and speed of that on that lens. I could also buy the 50mm f1.4 AF-S instead of the f1.8D, but again, I didn't want to spend an extra 300 dollars and didn't need that high-end of a lens.</p>

<p>Bottom line: I suspect Nikon has done their research and determined which models need that motor to give them an extra "push" in sales. I think they've done a great job deciding, but wonder if the next "D90" will go one way or the other.</p>

<p>But we digress, it's very likely that our OP may indeed be very well served by the expanding range of AF-S lenses. Only she knows, and we're frightening her with our extra commentary. She likes the D90 because of its menu system, and I concur. I toyed with a D5000 in the store and couldn't stand the navigation. Could I adjust? Probably. Did I have to? Nope. Thanks, Nikon.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Im a design student , and we were told to get a dslr as we need one for a lot of projects ad such.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The recent announced D3100 has HD video 24fps. It might be quite handy for Ad projects. Also, live-view might also be handy especially if you set things up for shooting. Lowlight IQ shouldn't matter as much since ad shoots should always be well lit unllike, say, street photography where lighting is random.</p>