Nikon Digital SLR Advice

[Mista Preston]

Just looking to buy my first SLR and wondered if anyone had been faced with the same thoughts as me.

I have done some research and the Nikon D5000 seems to be pretty well rated and reasonably priced.

http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=6943&sd=cont

http://www.simplyelectronics.net/ma...currency=gbp&gclid=CNaIzfralKACFc9i4wodE2dNdA

My question is is it worth me saving the extra 200 quid and getting a D90?

I know its a better camera but given my newbieness is the D5000 going to do me or will (if i get into this) want to get a D90 in the long run?

Just curious on any opinions

Ta
Clive

 

[MadoneRider1991]

get a canon 450D or 500D better cameras for colours

 

[gaz]

Get the D500 and spend £200 on a lens?

the lens makes a huge difference!

 

[Norm]

I know its a better camera but given my newbieness is the D5000 going to do me or will (if i get into this) want to get a D90 in the long run?

My usual advice is to get the best you can afford. If you don't you'll always be wondering if you should have and you may well upgrade later anyway, which means the more expensive purchase will work out cheaper.

However, the D5000 and D90 are pretty similar operationally. If you look just below the middle of this page, you can see the spec for the two side by side. Not a huge amount of difference there. Possibly the most noticeable difference will be the weight, (611g for the D5000 vs 703g for the D90) and that's something that you might prefer. I find a slightly heavier camera to be more stable when taking pix, my camera turns in at 825g.

This is going to sound like bike advice, but get to a shop and try them. When I bought my last camera, I went in for something totally different but, when I got my hands on it, I just didn't find it comfortable at all.

 

[ed_o_brain]

A few years back, I bought a D40. Then a second hand D70 and consequently, because I wanted the best of both, a D80.


I bought the D70 as it was going cheap, specifically to use with a couple of AF-S lenses. The view finder in the D40 was a bit small and a bit dark to even focus them manually so the cheap D70 seemed to be the ideal solution. However I was a bit spoiled by it. I found it much nicer to use, I could change settings by pressing a button and using a jog-wheel rather than pressing the 'i' button and navigating around with keys. The view finder was *much* nicer. It was just more efficient at being a camera. However, the D40 had slightly better IQ and lower noise at higher ISOs.

So I sold the D70 and bought a D80. That made me very happy. I hardly touch the D40 now. It's used for eBay pictures, but really now it's my partners camera. If I ever did a 'professional' shoot for someone, I would take the D40 as a backup body perhaps.

Of course, newer bodies come along all the time. So maybe it's best to spend the £200 on a lens, or a half decent second hand flash because chances are, in x number of years time you will still be using all your lenses etc. with a new body anyway.

I would love a D90 but I can't justify it. I don't make enough time to use what I have got creatively.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Personally, I'd go for a secondhand D200. A much better camera and you can pick one up now for three hundred quid or so. But I appreciate that you might not be happy going for a secondhand camera.

 

[Panter]

I bought a D100 a few Years ago (S/H) as I wanted the "best" Nikon I could get to replace my F65 35mm.

To be perfectly honest though, I've never really mastered the D100 and, in hindsight, I should've gone for something far more novice friendly and more akin to my old F65.

 

[johnnyh]

I am still using a canon 30D as a main body, and it produces fantastic results.
Get good glass, invest in the lenses. The camera body is the cheap bit

 

[rh100]

I really like Canon stuff, had my DSLR for about 6 years now - still going strong.

 

[MadoneRider1991]

im using a canon 20D with a 55 - 200mm lense and i love it!!

fast and not bad picture quality!!

 

[Downward]

Depends how serious you are. We got a D50 5 years ago nearly and it's still fine. Got a big book on it but never got round to working out most features on it,

 

[beanzontoast]

At the risk of cries of "deviation" - thought about Sony DLSR's at all? My a100 has built-in image stabilization so the lenses don't have to. I can even use an old 'nifty fifty' Minolta lens with it.

 

[ed_o_brain]

At the risk of cries of "deviation" - thought about Sony DLSR's at all? My a100 has built-in image stabilization so the lenses don't have to. I can even use an old 'nifty fifty' Minolta lens with it.

I wouldn't get overly excited about in-body image stabilisation. It's not so effective with longer lenses as the movement sensor has to move more in order to achieve the same level of compensation. With shorter lenses, shake is not so much an issue anyway.

I picked up a second hand 55-200 VR lens quite cheap. A tripod is a better investment!

 

[beanzontoast]

I wouldn't get overly excited about in-body image stabilisation. It's not so effective with longer lenses as the movement sensor has to move more in order to achieve the same level of compensation. With shorter lenses, shake is not so much an issue anyway.

I picked up a second hand 55-200 VR lens quite cheap. A tripod is a better investment!

+1 on the tripod - very useful tool to have. But for general use, I've found the Sony quite acceptable, even using a hand-held 300mm lens, though obviously lighting conditions / available speeds make a difference.

 

[swee'pea99]

Depends how serious you are. We got a D50 5 years ago nearly and it's still fine. Got a big book on it but never got round to working out most features on it,

+1

D40 in our case. Superb pics. & pretty much foolproof.