Upgrade from d5000 to ????

[cindygillespie]

<p>Okay.. I shoot some events out doors and more like old school night club periodically.... I also shoot children and adults in studio with strobes and outside...<br>

These are my findings of why I need to upgrade..<br>

1. I don't crop (this has been an issue with the senor on the d5000) I understand the d7000 is a full frame? Ergo, I won't end up cutting things off or not having crop room?<br>

2. I feel that the quality my images could be better...less noise, less breaking up(of colors at large print sizes)<br>

3. I feel that the overall use of the d5000 is good but, I need better. I finding that it's not my lenses:<br>

Nikkor 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, Macro 105 f2.8, 18-105 f3.5, 55-200 f4-5.6, 70-300 f4.5-5.6 all ED glass<br>

I personally feel that it is either the senor or just the fact of it NOT being a full frame that I limiting.<br>

I have been contemplating the d7000 for these reasons and I could ergo in return also purchase the 24/70 which would benefit my group of lenses now.<br>

If someone has a better outlook, advise, or thought I would deeply appreciate this. I just personally feel that I am pushing this d5000 to it's limits.<br>

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions once more</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D7000 has the same format (size) sensor as the D5000. What do you mean that you <em>don't crop</em>? Do you mean that you don't like to, or that you forget to leave room in your compositions/framing to make it possible? You can control how much room you leave around your subjects by either moving your body, or using a shorter focal length lens. This is true regardless of which format sensor you're using.<br /><br />Can you be more specific about "breaking up of colors" in large prints? Do you mean that you're seeing individual pixels, or that you're seeing banding and other artifacts in smooth color/tone gradients? That might be related to how you're handling your files. Are you shooting straight to JPGs, and then manipulating those? Are do you have a RAW workflow?<br /><br />If you are indeed shooting events, those slower, variable-aperture zoom lenses may indeed by keeping you from using lower ISOs - especially in the nightclub type situations.<br /><br />It's possible you're thinking of the D700 (which is an FX format body), rather than the D7000, which is DX format, just like your current body. While the switch to either of those bodies will buy you some cleaner higher-ISO exposures, if won't help with your composition/framing problems. That's a technique issue, and reguires you to be thinking about it as you shoot.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Matt...<br>

I for one don't use the zooms in the "night club" venue.. I only use my primes due to the low light and no flash. <br>

You are right that I need to pay attention better to leaving a bit more room. I totally agree. <br>

The breaking up I am seeing in jpeg and it's more of a pixel looking or what you could refer to as artifacts. Maybe I am being hyper critical of my images. But, I don't see the smooth in mine that I find in a lot of others works.<br>

Right now my d5000 yields a 8x12 image no problems.. what will I gain in image sizes with the d7000 or suggested?<br>

By doing the d7000 or a suggested (please insert suggested upgrade) am I going to get the cleaner smoother looking images or do I need to figure out a raw workflow to do so?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>A D7000 has the same <em>size</em> sensor as a D5000, it's just newer. A D5000 or D7000 (or D90, D300s or any other DX camera) has a sensor that's 24x16mm. A "full frame" sensor, like on the D700 (note: two zeroes, double the cost) is 36x24mm.</p>

<p>FX has certain advantages over DX. The viewfinder is larger and many people consider that an advantage. The larger sensor (still 12MP but the area on the sensor representing each pixel is larger) leads to lower noise at high ISO. Also, incidentally, a D700 has a better AF system than a D5000 that is better at focusing in low light, and a D700 is a good bit larger and heavier than a D5000. But none of this has anything to do with cropping.</p>

<p>Lenses have some differences when used on FX cameras. First, your lenses that are marked DX will not cover the frame - the corners will be darkened. Your DX lenses are the 35, the 18-105 and the 55-200 - if you change to FX you'll need to replace those with non-DX lenses that have similar functionality. But the field of view your lenses provide is wider on FX than on DX. This is the 1.5 multiplier people talk about. When you see a photo taken at a certain focal length on a DX camera, if you took the same photo with an FX camera you'd need a lens with 1.5x that focal length. So in the situations where you'd use your 35mm lens on you D5000, you'd use your 50mm lens on a D700. Where you'd use your 55-200 lens on DX, you'd use your 70-300 on FX.</p>

<p>If all of this makes you shy away from full frame, that's okay, because you probably don't need it. A D7000, while not full frame, is excellent - but it's not magic. The difference between 12MP and 16MP isn't really that much. The most difficult thing you've mentioned is shooting in night clubs, which means low light. The improvement in low light performance from a D5000 to a D7000 is about one stop, so if for example you think your D5000 images are good at up to ISO 1600, on a D7000 you'd probably think they're good up to 3200. That's nice but it's not blow-you-away-fantastic. The D7000 does have an improved AF system that will focus better in low light. It also can act as a remote trigger for off-camera use of certain Nikon flashes (the SB-600 and up).</p>

<p>But before you give up on your D5000, it's actually got quite a good sensor in it, the same one as a D300S or a D90 (which is what I use and it's surprisingly good in low light when used properly). Have a real look at whether there are ways you can improve your use of it without having to buy a new camera. For example, do you get the exposure dead on accurate? That's key, especially in low light. Did you remember to turn off "Active D-Lighting"? That causes underexposure and adds noise. Are you shooting raw and have you got processing figured out? Are your shots focused? Are you using those slow zooms in low light? (That's a downside of your 18-105, 55-200 and 70-300 lenses - they are terrible in low light.) So if you're shooting in the dark, nailing the exposure and using your 50mm or 35mm lens instead of your 18-105 would have a <em>much</em> greater effect on your image quality than buying a new camera would.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The D7000 has the same size sensor as D5000, but it has more pixels. That means you can crop more if you need to. The D7000 and D700 have very similar low light performance. Main differences is D700 has bigger sensor but D7000 has more pixels (and is Nikon's newest model.)<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Andy..<br>

Thank you for clearing some of that up for me.<br>

Yes.. I turn off the active d lighting...I haven't ventured into "raw" just yet. And I only use primes in my low light settings. I am very careful and accurate in my focusing.. But, as you pointed out "The larger sensor (still 12MP but the area on the sensor representing each pixel is larger) leads to lower noise at high ISO".. this will also sharpen my images to what I am seeing a lot of on here. I know you have a lot of experience.. seems that there is many on this forum. That's why I am asking. <br>

Thank you for taking time to reply and your knowledge.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Okay... .<br>

"Main differences is D700 has bigger sensor but D7000 has more pixels (and is Nikon's newest model.)"<br>

So... what is the advantage for me is what I am trying to figure out. <br>

Sorry... I research and read things to death and want to be sure of my choices and my understandings.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D5000 uses a similar sensor as the D300/D300S and D90. While its technology has been superseded, it is not that old. If you need better auto focus or more advanced features, it may be a good idea to buy a newer, more advanced body. However, AF issues aside, you should be able to get good large prints from the D5000 on more static subjects. If you can't, I would look into improving your post-processing skills first. Another better body will not necessarily be the answer.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, which focal lengths do you tend to use the most, and how much cropping do you do? Realize that if you shoot a lot with the 50mm because it's your fastest lens, but end up cropping a lot, if you were using that same 50mm lens on a D700 you'd have to crop <em>more</em> to end up with the same photo - you wouldn't end up getting an advantage. This would not be the case on a D7000 - and if your technique is good, the low light, cropped image from the D7000 would certainly come out a bit better.</p>

<p>But first step, move over to shooting raw and learning some processing system (Capture NX2, Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, and Apple Aperture are all good, with Lightroom and Aperture being particularly good for handling large numbers of images). You'll be able to get more out of your current camera, and if you do decide to go to a new camera the skills you'll pick up will translate. The raw file retains all of the data the sensor picked up, where the JPG conversion in the camera discards data by converting the 12-bit output of the sensor electronics to 8-bit with lossy compression, and this will make a big difference in any manipulation you do later on - especially anything that alters the value of pixels, like color correcting, changing the white balance, messing with the curves, etc. When you're in a difficult situation like low light shooting, every advantage you can give yourself helps.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Before you make up your mind that you need a new camera here's what I would suggest that you do:</p>

<p>1. Stop pixel-peeping. It's bad for your health. Realize that, if you were to print a picture at the size represented when you view an image at 100%, it would measure in feet, not inches. Pixel-peeping an image from a camera with higher mega-pixels will only make things worse because any minute flaw in technique or exposure settings will be even more magnified.</p>

<p>2. Pick your favorite, sharpest, most well-exposed image and another image that is just-OK-but could-be-better. Load them both on a thumb drive or memory card, take them to you local Wal-Mart or Wallgreens and have them printed out at 8x10 to see if there really is that much of a difference <em>in the finished product</em>.</p>

<p>3. Change your image capture setting to RAW and leave it there. Then get a decent post-processing program and learn how to do some basic post processing. 95% of the post processing that I do involves setting a white point and black point adding some sharpening and some local brightness adjustments. I typically spend less than 2 minutes in post per picture, usually much less than that. I use Nikon's Capture NX2, but I think View NX2 has most of these features too, and it's free from the Nikon site. The main advantage to shooting RAW is that it is a lossless format and it is much more tolerant to post processing than jPEG.</p>

<p>4. If you are using Auto or P mode, start taking a bit more control of the camera so that you know what it's up to. The settings that the camera chooses are not always right for what you want to do. Play around with aperture priority and shutter priority and learn how those settings affect the image. And turn off Auto ISO and leave it at the base ISO until you have to go higher to get a fast enough shutter speed for the aperture you want to use.</p>

<p>5. Study up on proper technique so that you know that the problem doesn't lie within <em>you</em>.</p>

<p>If you do all of this and still feel like you need to upgrade, then go ahead. But my gut tells me that you won't see that much of an improvement, if any at all.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"I understand the d7000 is a full frame?" </em>- Simple answer is: Wrong understanding. You were already given the best and elaborate explanations.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Why don't you post some (bad) examples with all the EXIF data.</p>

[kevin_chow1]

<p>Just hold on there.</p>

<p>1) This is a composition issue (i.e. technique) and nothing to do with the camera. If you're going to shoot the same way with a full frame camera i.e. leaving no margins, you're still going to cut things off;<br>

2) Noise may indeed be an issue; as Walt suggested, post an image with EXIF information intact so we can take a look at the issue as well;<br>

3) Looking at your list of lenses and how you say you feel about your camera, I would guess that you have upgrade fever - you feel that your system is inadequate because something isn't working out. You should step back and take a deep breath and then try and analyse the situation before going straight to hardware purchases. If you can't identify precisely why you need a new system, you're just succumbing to lens/camera envy and wasting money.<br>

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem - you know that there is a problem - but it's not clear yet. I would guess that it's a shadow ISO/noise problem, but we really need to see an example of what you're concerned about first.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Cynthia,<br>

While I agree with most said, there is a small piece of sentence in your OP that makes me wonder a bit, though: "<em>I feel that the overall use of the d5000 is good but, I need better</em>."<br>

Do you maybe mean handling and controls of the camera? None of those will fix colour issues in JPEG (RAW will do that, to fifth that notion), nor fix pixelpeeping things, but when one uses a camera frequently, well, controls and handling matter. A lot.<br>

To me, a D5000 is a bit too small, for example. Misses a few buttons for things I like to access directly and frequently. My D300 fits like a glove, but I had to get used to its weight and heft. Now, no way I will go back to smaller with less controls.</p>

<p>If this is part of your issue, then by all means, go to a shop and try different models. See how they work for you. And, if you do these shoots for money, then you will need a second body anyway. But that could also be a D5100.<br>

If it's not the handling being the issue, then safely disregard my rambling, and all the advice already given should suffice. Shoot RAW, and check prints, not pixels.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Cory....<br>

You are more than likely correct. I use paintshop pro x3 and exposure. When I view things at a100% I guess I am pixel peeping. Because I am thinking that viewing at 100 % is my 8x12 image and I don't want to lose details.<br>

I NEVER have shot in any mode but Manual... I control things. <br>

I guess about the post processing IF I went with the d7000 I could use both cards and do jpeg and raw and learn the raw process verses the jpeg.<br>

Thank you !</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Thank you all ! I am pixel peeking I am sure. I have images posted here that I can see pixels.<br>

I am now believing that I need to change my post production and shoot RAW. I will do the jpeg and raw over the next month and see what that yields for me.<br>

I guess the way some feel about the d5000 is that its not worthy of being used professionally. I am almost timid about saying that I have the d5000. <br>

My images are good when printed. I have never seen anything really show up in print. Like I said I have a habit of viewing things at 100 percent and thinking that it will look that way printed and I guess I have become ocd on that. I have had many people look at my images pros and not and they don't see a lot of what I see. <br>

Again, I only shoot manual so I believe some of the case is my lenses and some is pixel peeking and another is post production.<br>

Thank you all</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"I finding that it's not my lenses:" You may not be quite accurate on this.</p>

<p>18-105 f3.5, 55-200 f4-5.6, 70-300 f4.5-5.6 - While these are good lenses (although I will take exception to the 70-300mm unless it is the new VR version) these are not the best lenses Nikon has to offer. The 50mm f1.4 is not an easy lens to use wide open.</p>

<p>"Right now my d5000 yields a 8x12 image no problems." I can make great 12 x 18 prints (and much larger) with my 6mp D40. Assuming your camera is not defective, the problems you are having are likely related mostly to technique and post processing (or lack thereof). To get the best results out of any DSLR camera under less than ideal shooting conditions, you want to shoot RAW and process with good software. </p>

<p>All things being equal, another body will likely yield the same results you are getting now. I am not saying you shouldn't upgrade, especially if you really want to. Just that some minor adjustments in how you process your images may be needed to get the most out of your gear.</p>

 

[cindygillespie]

<p>Elliot...<br>

sorry.. I don't have the 18/105 it's a 105 macro... and yes the 70/300 is the new vr<br>

Yes the 50 1.4 is very difficult wide open I couldn't agree more.<br>

And I am thinking that I really do need to shoot raw and jpeg for a bit and see if that is clearing things up that I am peeking at.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Also, if you can post a sample, we might be able to give you some better idea. Perhaps a 700pixel wide jpeg and a 100% crop of a problem area.</p>

[jorish]

<p>Anybody who gives you the feeling that your D5000 is not good enough for a (semi-)pro, is very likely not worth listening to. The most important aspect when taking a picture is the photographer (IMO), not the camera.<br>

Quality wise the D5000 is probably as good or even better as the first generations of digital SLR's (D100, D200, D70, D50, etc.), and most of the pros here will have used those and were satisfied with it. The race for better equipment is one that probably never can be won; a better camera is right around the corner.</p>

<p>From what I'm reading here you need to start learning about your postprocessing, and -as so many others pointed out already- that is something that is best learned based on RAW images. Shooting in RAW+jpg will give you the option of keeping on working like you have done until now (based on jpg's), but also the options to see if you can get more out of a RAW image.<br>

This might even lead to less artefacts on a pixel-level; I for instance find it very hard to get white-balance right in-camera during very busy (lighting- and action wise) shoots like theater performances, and I guess that might be the same in nightclubs. Problems with white balance might lead to overexposure in certain colour channels and thus to artefacts.<br>

RAW enables me to correct the white balance in post, and leaves a lot more leeway to correct under- and overexposed images.</p>

<p>My advice; put your money and/or time in (self-)education instead of a newer sensor.</p>

<p>Good luck :)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Wow, you do like taking pictures in pitch black! Your management of ISO, and aperture is very conservative, not what I was expecting. You may want to experiment a little with higher ISO settings to achieve slightly higher shutter speeds. I assume you are handholding for the people shots. For the still life's you may want to consider a monopod or tripod to help out. I can only judge by your portfolio shots but I think you are doing quite well. You may indeed simply be doing too much pixel peeping. I know you are in extreme lowlight conditions but you may want to close your primes by at least 1/2 to 1 stop. This can make a huge difference in resolution and contrast which may help your overall image quality. You may be able to strike a balance between aperture, shutter speed and ISO that fulfills your needs.</p>

<p>I also recommend RAW. I don't do "no-light" photography but many that do use something like Noise Ninja to help to.</p>

<p>I highly suspect that a D7000 or even a D700 will not help. The "no-light" weapon in Nikon's arsenal seems to be the D3. Experiment for now and have a look at the D700 successor when/if it comes out as resolution and high ISO performance will both be boosted considerably, and still be cheaper than a D3 or "D4".</p>

<p>P.S. Put those point-and-shoots away! Let's see some outdoor macros and telephotos done with your D5000! Have fun!</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>John...<br>

Thank you VERY much for viewing my images to get an idea of what I am doing and expecting. I know that took time but, now you know that I am shooting total manual and what I am goaling for. I seem to be a bit of a perfectionist by pixel peeping yes.. I see that now.<br>

Yes I hand hold for people and most outdoors even... I am thinking that you are very right about needing the tripod more for outdoors. I also have looking into the noise ninja..I am glad you brought that up. I was considering it.<br>

And I will update my portfolio over the weekend. I have many macos and telephotos done with the d5000 just haven't updated it. My bad.<br>

I am on the way to the store to purchase some bigger memory cards and I will dedicate the next couple of weeks of shooting RAW and Jpeg and seeing if that will give me the quality and detail that I am trying so hard to achieve. I personally just feel that I could be doing so much better compared to what I am seeing on here by you and many others. I don't feel that I have the quality in my photography that you do... I want that.<br>

I am self taught and to be truthful I have only taken photography seriously for the past 2 years. I am an old woman trying to to catch up so to speak.<br>

Thank you again for taking time to view my images.</p>

 

[cindygillespie]

<p>I have updated my portfolio a bit to show macro and night club type enviroment... please check and see that I am either being very critical or new lens suggestions or body suggestions.<br>

Thank you all once again</p>

[lisae]

<p>As a fellow D5000 user, may I add my humble 2c.? I bought mine never expecting that it would ignite the passion for photography that it has. And by the end of year, I expect to purchase a replacement, only because I need higher ISO for gymnastics photos. </p>

<p>I think you will be surprised by the difference you get from shooting in raw. Not only is there more material to work with, you have many more options for processing. And I think it is the post-processing that makes pictures look "professional". It won't allow you to make a bad picture look great, but it will help your good pictures really pop. </p>

<p>I glanced through your portfolio, and I think your "no-light" pictures are very good. As others have said, you can take some of the pressure off yourself by raising the ISO. For gymnastics, I almost always have to shoot at 3200 and remove noise afterward. At 1600, I have very little noise in correctly exposed pictures. I think you have some room to experiment there as well.</p>

<p>Good luck! I'm rooting for you!</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>get the d7000 and 24-70.</p>