Camera/Photogs HERE!!! Need new DSLR advice.
 

Looking at DSLR's and my homework is a disaster. There are so many damned choices I'm losing my mind. I think I've narrowed it down to the package deal at Costco for the Nikon D5000. Online reviews of this thing are outstanding.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...US&Sp=C&topnav=

Problem is I don't really know what features and shit I need and only speak basic photo-talk. I understand shutter speed, aperature, F-stop and that shit, but will probably never use any of the manual settings EVER. My long string of trust sony Point&Shoots have been fucking awesome, but the wife and I agree the WAY better photo quality of a full-size DSLR is worth the cost.

I'd like to keep it in the $800 range, one or two lenses, extra battery, case, big flash-card, basics.

I'm looking for advice from somebody who really knows their shit and has a better answer than the D5000. It's gotta be a significantly better choice for the same or less money, otherwise I'm gonna buy it and be happy.

D5000 is discontinued but still great. the D3100 is probably cheaper and pretty much just as good with the addition of a few minor improvements like the shooting mode switch.

I have the D5000 and Brain has the D3100 and you probably couldn't tell photo quality apart.

Stick with the 18-55 VR lens for 6 months before buying any other lenses and determine what you really *need*.

Also get the SB400 flash and point it up at the ceiling for indoor shots.

Then get a tiffen UV protective filter for each lens and leave it on all the time.

the end. you wont be sad with the D5000 kit.

D5000 with kit lens taster shot:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_e2V9DRRikhU/TK...Y/DSC_2663.JPG

Id rather have this camera and lens combo.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...atchallpartial

I have the 55-200mm and I think it's a little too short. I'd love a 250-300mm range.


but like y8s said, the camera with 18-55mm VR is great alone.

Used D300 on eBay, and a 18-55 lens.

Both the D5000 and 3100 are excellent. I prefer the 3100 myself, but hate losing the top display, which I use quite a bit for changing settings without having to use the back LCD and menu. How do you feel about refurbs? You can get a Nikon refurb D90 for $720 and then a 18-55 VR refurb lens for another $100. So right at $850 with shipping, and it's to me a much better camera. Buy from Adorama dot com. I've purchased two refurb items from there recently and both you can't tell they aren't brand new.

^Refurb items are good enough for me. I'll check that website for stuff. I had looked a the D90, but all the commercials with Aston Kutcher pretty much sunk that particular model. Fuck that guy.

Good advice coming in... gonna pull the trigger in a day or three.

I've been very pleased with the Nikon D40x I'm using. It's not the top of the line or the newest by any means, but a very great camera overall. It's great for a beginner as well, I've enjoyed learning on it and it's not overwhelming with a ton of options/functions. Downside for me is I'm selling it, I have a great Sony point and shoot that I'm happy with and I'm shoving money into the bank for important purchases (house, wedding, etc.), so some of my "toys" have to go.

Link to FS thread here: https://www.miataturbo.net/stuff-sale-trade-70/fs-nikon-d40x-accessories-54218/ I'd like it to go as a packaged set so I'm not left with camera remnants, so if you want, research it and let me know if you're interested. It gets really good reviews just about anywhere you read about it. Even some people that posted in my for sale thread have one.

To me the D90, though older than both the 5000 and 3100 is a better, more "professional" camera. The D5000 lacks many important buttons that the D90 and the other newer high end Nikons have, like ISO, WB and the Quality buttons. Going through the menu every time you want to change white balance or iso sucks balls. Even my 6 year old D50 has those. D5000 also requires two hands for a lot of functions, taking time away from shooting. Also has a very inferior LCD when compared to the D90. D90 just has features and functions out the ass compared to the D5000 or D3100. I hate Kutcher too though. If you can swing $200 more, get the D90, you won't regret it. Then again you probably won't regret any of the three, but I would hate knowing I left features on the table.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD90R.html

with this:

http://www.adorama.com/NK1855VRR.html

I just picked up that lens last week and have been loving it. It replaced my non VR 18-55, and is 1000 times more usable in all conditions.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The size of the 3100 and 5000 is not good if you have regular or large hands. I have pretty normal size hands and the 3100 felt like a toy compared to the D90 and my D50. Not very comfortable to hold for more than a few minutes. So if you have large hands, I would for sure avoid the newer and smaller cameras.

I really wish you hadn't said that... I might not have ever known the difference. I'm 6'5" and 250lbs... not exactly small hands. It looks like I'm gonna hafta run into BB and actually hold some cameras and do a little hands on just to make sure about this.

I'm totally hearing you on all the "features" stuff. I keep saying that I'll never take the thing out of "auto" but then again, I've never had a grown-up camera either. I may geek it out and be one of those assholes who takes forever because he's fucking around inside the menu after EVERY FUCKING PICTURE.

Oh yah... it's 43* here in Ventura... WTF?!!?

^Probably the best thing I've read yet... choice is getting tougher yet easier.

Adorama shows this:

D5000 refurb w/18-55, 8gb card, spare batt, case: $611

D3100 new w/18-55, 4gb card, spare batt, case: $672

D90 refurb w/4gb card, spare batt, case: $790
18-55 refurb lens: $100

FWIW. I owns the D3100. Really like it. I sold my D40 for it. It's newer than the D5000, but you get the flippy screen with it.

make sure you get the VR 18-55.


The D3100 handles low light really well: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compari...-iso/index.htm

I would go test them in person first if you can. I'm not lying about the size. They are amazingly small, which I wasn't expecting. You may not need all of the features the D90 offers, just depends on what you are willing to spend. The 3100 and 5000 are better bangs for your buck probably, but the D90 is the feature king for under $1000. The best camera Nikon makes for less than several thousand is the D7000, which I want SO much, but can't swing $1200 right now. Basically in the affordable Nikon rankings, it currently goes (in my opinion, and most reviews) D700, D7000, D90, then everything else. Of course you have the FX cameras for $5000+.

While we are posting Rockwell, here is the D90 vs the Nikon big dawgs...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90...comparison.htm

and general D90 review.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm

FWIW i just got the Canon xsi 12.2 mp for about 400 shipped w/o the lens.

I stuck with canon because my gf already had the kit lens from her film slr. I am very happy with it and its a great starting platform.

Get that Canon garbage out of here!!! :vash: This is a Nikon thread!

:giggle:

Went to a 3yr olds b-day party yesterday and played with a D5000 for a little bit. WOW! If that thing is a little mild on features, then I will never know the difference. I felt like I was trying to program a VCR back in 1984 reading instructions in Korean. It'll take me a month to crack the manual on it. It's got plenty of tech.

I've got a couple good friends here that are photog gurus and they've said they'll help me out getting the basics down pat. Looks like I am going with the D5000, although the D90 is tempting, it's $300 more in the end, and every time I picked it up, I'd think of Asshole Kutcher and hafta kick my own ass a few times.

I'm pretty surprised that no one else mentioned the D300, you should really, really have a look at that one too. It is superior than all the other cameras mentioned so far. A used one in excellent condition can be had at the same price as a refurb D90 these days.

I noticed that trend.....thats why I havn't said a word until now lol!

But, I absolutely love my T2i....my next will be the 7D in a few years (or maybe the 5DmkIII when it comes out)

Not really. The old D300 in a lot of ways is inferior to the D90, and costs more when you can find them used, since they are no longer made. The new D300s is a pretty good camera, but still isn't really that much better than the old D300 or D90, and it costs ~$1300 for the body. Only real major upgrade from the D90 to the D300s is a more sturdy body, but that also adds weight. AF sensors are also better, more of them. If one was going to get a D300s, you might as well spend a few more hundred dollars and make the huge leap in performance to the D700.

Canon makes good cameras, they are just so much different. Kind of like trying to sell a Mac to a life long PC guy. Menus seem foreign and backwards, and function buttons are strange. I couldn't do it even if I had the chance for the best deal ever.

It'd be the same for me going to a Nikon now lol... For noobs I always say to go to the store and hold each camera, then buy which ever feels most at home in terms of ergonomics. Other then that, its pretty much a dead heat between Nikon and Canon. Sure each has some stronger points, but they're both excellent.......... but Canon's better :giggle:

fanboy or not, the bottom line is to get the camera you want to actually use.

if you want take it everywhere, get a canon s95. if you want to dick around with a DSLR, get the D5000.

Yep. Both are great, just depends on where you start. I don't know of many or any people that go between brands. Once you learn one cameras ways, you're typically stuck with it, so choose the one best for you.

I have a Pentax K-x. It's been updated recently to the K-r.

My main complaint with the K-x is the low res screen (230k pixels), which is now 1 megapixel on the K-r.

It's a pretty good camera, with image stabilization built into the body vs into the lens. It has a magnesium chassis and feels very sturdy in the hand without being too heavy.

[ tangent ]
I'd like to also add something about "HD video".. Maybe the brand new cameras are better at it, but I'm not a fan of the 720p video my camera produces. It doesn't seem fluid, focusing is not good, overall just not a pleasant experience. I got my K-x for christmas last year.. In July, i bought a canon (hehe) HD camcorder for like $300 and it's friggin awesome.. Much more purpose built machine, haven't regretted having two dedicated devices at all!
[ end tangent ]

Part of what swayed me towards this camera vs the canon (and i've had nothing but canon prosumer cameras prior to this) is that these supposedly have superior low light capability, and the used lens market should be good, though i don't really see myself taking advantage anymore.

That brings me to the next point -- to second Braineack -- get the higher zoom lens out of the box.

With the pentax, you have a choice of just 18-55, 18-55 + 50-200, or 18-55 + 55-300.

I chose the 55-300 kit even though it was $100 more than the 50-200 kit. My reasoning was that 200mm is OK, but really isn't a super zoom, and you end up getting a $500 lens for like $200..

I also have the Pentax K-x. I was looking @ the D3100 and the T1i before choosing the Pentax. The main reason, action photography. The Pentax low light performance, FPS 4.7 and chassis anti-shake (less expensive lenses) make it an inexpensive hobby DSLR that can crank out some nice pics.

Pentax K-7 seems like a damn good camera, but it's even more foreign to me than Canon. Also not sure about the lens selection out there for a Pentax camera. They seem to lean more towards weather sealed components, for more outdoors shooting, which I like. Also seems well constructed, magnesium over SS chassis. Priced on par with a D90.

O rly?

D300 has 51 AF points, D90 has 11.
D300 has 1005px RGB sensor for metering, D90 has 420.
D300 has 14bit image processing, D90 has 12bit.
D300 has less shutter lag (45ms) than D90 (65ms).
D300 has 100% frame coverage on the viewfinder, D90 has 96%.
D300 can do 8fps (I have the extra battery but can be done without it), D90 can do 4.5fps.
D300 has faster AF than D90.
D300 is weather sealed (I like taking pictures in the rain).

Both have the same image quality when using the same lens, settings etc.

O rly? Yes. All of those points are picky points except for the sealed body and 8fps. Not enough to warrant the extra $200 refurb D90 compared to used D300 (since it's no longer made). Every camera has weaknesses and strong points. I like what the D90 has vs what it does not have.

Just to save time I'll take this from KenRockwell.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's better on the D90 than the D3, better than the D700 and better than the D300:

Easier selection of advance modes, frame rates, remote control and self timer, especially in the dark.

Works with the superior $17 ML-L3 wireless remote release.

ADR is on by default.

Adds the AF-A AF mode.

Easier Live View mode with dedicated button! The other cameras use the rotary top switch, which sucks!

Makes movies with sound. The D3 at least records sound alone, which the D90 can't.

The AF Selector Lock is better designed so it won't get knocked by accident.

The Self Timer can make multiple exposures, helping ensure everyone's eyes are open in at least one of the shots.

Nikon finally fixed the design flaw where by default the Modeling Flash fired if you hit the Depth-of-Field preview button. Thank you Nikon!

The dials work during playback by default. In the other cameras, I have to look for a few minutes to find this option hiding in the Custom Settings > Controls > Customize Command Dials option.

By default, the D90 won't shoot without a card. The D3, D300 and D70 default to the very dangerous DEMO setting which lets you happily shoot an entire wedding, look at each shot on the LCD in every display mode and zoom setting, and not realizing until the end of the day that you had no card in the camera!



Better than the D3 and Better than the D300:

Can call up the top item in My Menu with the FUNC button. This makes the D90 much faster to use, because I now can get into the menus and set everything with just one hand!

Dedicated rear INFO button.

ADR modes include AUTO.

The rear LCD Monitor-on times are selectable separately for Playback, Menus, the INFO panel and Image Review.

The D90 has both the My Menu menu and Recent Items Menus. (D3 and D300 lack the Recent Items menu)



Better than the D300:

Far nicer rear multi selector. The D300 has a mushy single piece of crap, while the D3, D700 and D90 have much better two-piece controls with a separate center OK button.

ALSO:

What's missing compared to the D300, D700 and D3 (not much!)

No ability to program the center OK button to zoom-in full-size in playback.

No options for JPG optimization.

No selection of NEF/raw characteristics.

No Shooting and Custom Setting Banks.

11 versus 51 AF points. I didn't miss the extra 40, which are just in-between points.

No AF Area Mode switch; need to call this up in a menu (easy if you use the FUNC button to get to My Menu, and put this selection in My Menu.

No PC connector for studio flash. No big deal, I use the pop-up flash to trigger my studio strobes, or you can buy a hot-shoe to PC adapter.

Can't program the Preview button to do tricks.

No ability to use a custom prefix, like KEN_0123.JPG, for the file names.

No Mirror-up mode. This mode sucks in the D3, D700 and D300 anyway.

WB/ISO/QUAL buttons shared with other functions, but still easier to use than the hidden ones on the D3, whose locations date from the F5.

No option for seeing the Focus Point Selection in playback, but who cares?

No Intervalometer (automatic timed shooting).

Can't set ISO or exposure in full stops: ISO sets only in third stops, and exposure only in third or half stops.

No ability to change the focus and release priorities in the AF-S and AF-C modes.

No metering, finder read-out or EXIF data with manual-focus lenses. (buy a small light meter and a hot-shoe adapter if you can't use the LCD to guess exposure.)

No macho-man metal body, so the D90 weighs much less. The D90 has a metal lens mount.

Maximum sync speed fixed at 1/250. (The D3, D700 and D300 can be set from 1/60 ~ 1/320 FP.) All these camera allow setting the slowest sync in P and A modes to any speed as slow as 30 seconds.

No compatibility with Nikon's 1970s-inspired wireless transmitter.

No compatibility with Nikon's expensive (like $500) Image Authentication software.

No ability to Save/Load camera settings and Picture Controls to an SD card.

No AF fine tuning, which I never use, and for most people, just lets then screw up a good thing.

No RESET option in Easy Exposure Compensation.

Only uses SD, not professional CF cards. This matters because SD cards don't come in professional speed grades, like Lexar 300x and 233x and SanDisk Extreme IV, and because SD card readers aren't available in Firewire to support those speeds. This means that it takes too long to download photos in the large quantities shot by pros. This is too bad, because the D90 is up to pro needs in every other way.

No 4:5 professional aspect ratio, but only the D3 does this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any newer Nikon camera will be excellent either way, but to me the D90 is the best camera for the dollar Nikon makes or has made. $720 for a refurbished body is absolutely a steal for what you get compared to their high dollar cameras.

Dude, the pro-D90 list you posted is THE definition of picky points. Everything I mentioned determines how fast and how well the camere focuses, how accurate the exposure is, what you look through the viewfinder is what you actually shoot, etc. How are these things not important?

holy specification throwdown.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm

This is why:

D300, not D300s. And I specifically said used on eBay (~$800), not new. The D7000, while superior to the D300, is very hard to find as it is out of stock almost everywhere.

I love the talk... somebody will search this thread sometime and get some great advice like I have. My purchase has been decided.

We cashed in 70k points on our USAA rewards card for a $500 Amazon gift card. The card should be here early next week. Gonna buy the D5000 w/18-55 refurb package deal from Adorama through Amazon. About $620 w/shipping... comes with bag, 8gb SD card, spare battery, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...sr=8-26&seller=

I went to the Navy Exchange and palmed a bunch of cameras and I could tell if I was going to have to live with one, I'd probably spend the extra $$ and get a bigger-body-more-features model. But for 99% of even my full on geek-mode shooting, the D5000 will be plenty. I've got 2 good friends who do semi-professional shooting as a side-job and are gonna school me up to an intermediate level.

At some point, I'm thinking a wide-angle lens or maybe a way longer zoom... probably be searching CL for a deal on used newer Tamron.

I'll post up some interesting shots if I take any and be glad for the critiques. First pic will be a close-up of my nutsack.
http://media4.officialmancard.com/om...n_Kangaroo.jpg

Yes but none of them would be really noticeably, even by a pro. 20ms shutter lag, not noticeable, 4% viewfinder size, basically not noticeable. Only one I really see that everyone would notice is the much faster 8fps shooting.

(If you shoot all day every day, you may notice all of these things, but your usual casual or enthusiast shooter will not really miss these things. I understand what you are saying though, I just don't feel those things are worth the extra $)

I hate to keep quoting Rockwell, but he seems to know his stuff and has already reviewed and written out everything Nikon, so it's hard not to. He said this at the opening of his D90 review.


"The Nikon D90 is a fantastic camera. It's Nikon's newest and best DX format DSLR. I prefer it to the old D300, which costs almost twice as much. That's the way it goes with digital cameras: new is almost always better, even for much less cost. The D90 has identical, or slightly better technical image quality than the D300, the exact same rear LCD, and adds several very useful ergonomic features for faster handling compared to the D300. These handling improvements will let you react faster to conditions, meaning you're more likely to get better pictures by being better prepared.

If you're considering a D300, forget it. Get the D90 instead."

You'll be happy with the D5000 I'm sure... I hope it's the 18-55 VR, since compared to the VR, the non VR is almost not usable.

Eww, Tamron... I would not suggest Tamron. Good prices, but you et what you pay for. Stick with either Nikon lenses, or if you must stray, Tokina makes some great stuff, some superior to Nikon in quality and optics.

What exactly do you want to shoot, or do you not really have an idea? I'd start with a decent long lens, the Nikon 55-200 VR is an excellent lens, and still cheap at only $220 new.

http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRU.html

That covers the 18-200 range, and is all most people will need, since 18mm is already pretty wide. Anything wider than 18mm can practically be compensated for by stepping back and framing the shot differently. If you need wider, it will get a bit more expensive. You can get wider lenses with a faster f/ but you will lose lower light performance unless you use a tripod. My pick for an excellent wide lens is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ATX Pro, but it's a bit pricey at $600. I've heard and seen nothing but great things though, one very sharp lens.

http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html

I'd also highly suggest a good low light lens. My choice was the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, which is a perfect little gem of a lens. Nikon's smallest and one of it's cheapest at only $120 new. Also one of their sharpest lenses. Lets in huge amounts of light compared to the kit lens at f/3.5

http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.ht...utm_term=Other

Whatever lenses you get, try not to overlap the focal length, since it would be a waste to get say a 18-200 AND a 55-200. You duplicate the 55-200 range of course. Here is the all mighty gods point of view on the ultimate selection of lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

I'd suggest the 50mm 1.8D over the 35mm version though. Or if you want to spend the extra money, the 50mm 1.4D which is still a bargain at $300 and lets even that much more light for even more amazing low light performance.