I bought a D5000 over a D90 and am happy with my choice

[TCav]

Originally Posted by deadshot

Originally I had the D40x + 18-200.
When I first used it on P, I found that it always tried to shoot at a very fast shutter speed even when there was enough light for a slower speed.I.E 1/2000th at F11, my logic was why didnt it go for a wider ap and slower speed.

A wider aperture would would not compensate for a slower shutter speed. A wider aperture would call for a faster shutter speed, and a slower shutter speed would call for a smaller aperture. A shutter speed of 1/2000 is one stop down from the fastest available on the D40X, which is an appropriate place to stop. You got fast shutter speeds and small apertures because the scene was very bright, and the camera chose appropriate settings.

[deadshot]

You're right T Cav ,I meant to say smaller.(hadn't noticed my mistake)
When I had my Canon film EOS .I used ISO 400 film with a 200 mm lens and it used to select what I felt were sensible combinations in Program.When I got my D40X plus the similar lens, it always wanted to shoot as fast a shutter speed as it could at 200 mm. Nikon told me to take out Auto ISO, as the camera was set up to use fast shutter speeds at 200mm to avoid blurred pics through shake.It was fine at the shorter lengths.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by Blueberry

With my 55-200 lens shooting on a cloudy day in P mode, the camera choose to shoot at ISO 3200 on most shots. This lens was used mostly for zooming on the floats and people in the street. This could of been a big concern. My lens does not offer as much light as some higher end lens options, so it needs to shoot at a higher ISO. If the D5000 was a camera of just 3 years ago, the photos taken at 3200 would be too grainy and not acceptable. Since Nikon improved the quality of their sensor and internal components since, the photos taken at 3200 still look great.

That doesn't sound right at all, unless *you* had the ISO speed set to ISO 3200, especially with as much light as I'm seeing in that parade image, unless you stopped down the aperture significantly from wide open (spinning the control wheel).

Unfortunately, the editor you used to downsize that image stripped out the EXIF information. So, we can't tell what camera settings were being used. If you're using Photoshop for downsizing, do not use "save for web" (or that does strip out camera settings).

As a general "rule of thumb", most dSLR models will tend to target a minimum shutter speed of approximately 1/35mm equivalent focal length using Auto type settings. IOW, around 1/300 second at the longer end of a lens like your 55-200mm. There is no way that a 200mm f/5.6 lens should require ISO 3200 in typical daylight lighting (overcast or not), unless your settings influenced it in some way.

IOW, something is wrong with your settings if that's the way the camera was behaving. I'd post a sample that includes EXIF information so that we can figure out why it behaved that way.

[Blueberry]

Originally Posted by JimC

That doesn't sound right at all, unless *you* had the ISO speed set to ISO 3200, especially with as much light as I'm seeing in that parade image, unless you stopped down the aperture significantly from wide open (spinning the control wheel).

Unfortunately, the editor you used to downsize that image stripped out the EXIF information. So, we can't tell what camera settings were being used. If you're using Photoshop for downsizing, do not use "save for web" (or that does strip out camera settings).

As a general "rule of thumb", most dSLR models will tend to target a minimum shutter speed of approximately 1/35mm equivalent focal length using Auto type settings. IOW, around 1/300 second at the longer end of a lens like your 55-200mm. There is no way that a 200mm f/5.6 lens should require ISO 3200 in typical daylight lighting (overcast or not), unless your settings influenced it in some way.

IOW, something is wrong with your settings if that's the way the camera was behaving. I'd post a sample that includes EXIF information so that we can figure out why it behaved that way.

I used Adobe Light Room Beta 3 to send the photo over. I will send a larger photo and will include the information on the camera shot. In P mode I had the camera set to ISO 800, however I allowed the camera to make changes to the ISO if it was not an adequate setting. I am thinking in the future to take one shot before I need an event and see what ISO the camera has chosen. Then bring it down a bit and see the difference. My son is playing in his jazz band concert in school tomorrow. I will get there early and test my settings before the concert.

I agree that I should have been able to shot with only 1600 ISO on a day like I did. Bear in mind I added +3 on my lighten/darken button as it was too dark initially. About an hour into the parade, the sun came out more, and I reduced it to +1 exposure. I also set the WB on cloudy.

[fabiotichy]

Dear all,

In reading some of the posts I see that many of you really understand SLR´s and lenses.

I am going to buy the D90 but cannot decide on the lense.

I am trying to decide between the 18-105mm or 18-135mm.

Given the cameras video option, which one is a better fit?

Thanks a lot.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by fabiotichy

I am trying to decide between the 18-105mm or 18-135mm.

Given the cameras video option, which one is a better fit?

Actually, neither of them is particularly good. They both suffer from a lot of vignetting and distortion.

If you want to shoot videos, a camcorder would be a better choice. But for shooting videos with a D90, of the two, I think I'd go with the 18-105 because of the image stabilization.

[fabiotichy]

which lense would you suggest?

One that gives me similar range to the 18-105.

[TCav]

If you want a good zoom range while shooting a video, there aren't any lenses that are particularly good. There are better lenses that cover part of that range, but you'll have to change lenses to cover the entire range, and that breaks up your video stream. That's why I said that if you want to shoot video you'd be better off with a camcorder.

For video, sharpness isn't an issue, but vignetting and distortion are. and both the 18-105 and the 18-135 don't fair very well in those areas. There are better lenses, but no single lens is better through that range of focal lengths.

The 24-120 is better at vignetting and distortion than the others, and it's stabilized. It's not as sharp, which will hurt your still images, but for video it will do fine.

[fabiotichy]

I guess I was not as clear with my original post.

My main priority is still pictures, and video as a bonus. Not worried with the video quality as much as the still pics quality.

So I think the 18-105 will do just fine.

Thanks a lot.

[TCav]

The problem with shooting video with dSLRs is that you need to use relatively poor lenses in order to get the zoom ranges that even basic camcorders can do with ease. The lenses aren't very sharp for still images, but sharp enough for video. The problem is with vignetting and distortion. Better lenses for still images are available for not a lot of money, but the zoom range isn't as good for video.

The 18-105 suffers from vignetting and distortion, but is reasonably sharp, so it would be ok for still images but not so good for video.