Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-dslr-57/)
-   -   I bought a D5000 over a D90 and am happy with my choice (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-dslr-57/i-bought-d5000-over-d90-am-happy-my-choice-162438/)

Blueberry Nov 20, 2009 3:47 PM

I bought a D5000 over a D90 and am happy with my choice
 
I have received somed PM's from some who were looking at the D5000 and D90 and asking what made me choose the D5000 over the D90. So I figured I would answer here instead of sending several PM's.

You can always pay more money and get better. Yes the D90 is a better camera, but the D300s is better than the D90. So you have to decide what is good enough for what your looking for. What attracted me to the D5000 was the quality of the photos it takes, it is capable of taking the same quality photos as the D90 since it has the same sensor, autofocus, and other important issues, but it cost less. If the D90 took better photos, had a better sensor, and autofocus, I would of went with the D90. However I was able to get the very 18-55 and 55-200 VR lens option for only $900. Of course by the time you get the SB 600 flash, bag, memory card, and additional battery things add up pretty quick.

Besides the lower cost, there are two things that attracted me to the camera. First the size of the camera was smaller than the D90 and it's lighter. So going on vacations having a lighter camera is a welcome. The flip down screen is very handy. My son when in school plays, and concerts and I want to take a photo, sometimes, you will get the better shot if you put the camera over your head to block out the people in front of you. The last thing is I was coming from using a Nikon Coolpix 5700 camera. So the D40 was really good enough for me...what a huge improvement it offfered over my camera. I was ready to get the D60 when I heard about the D5000. With it's improvements over the D60, now it was a huge huge improvement over the camera I was using. So simply it was sooo good enough for me, that I decided not to bother with the more costly D90. But hey if you like the D90, it's a great option too. I would never say not to buy the D90, but for me, the D5000 will be able to meet all my needs, and that is all that really matters. http://digital-photography-school.co...lies/smile.gif

Hards80 Nov 20, 2009 3:54 PM

you are missing the biggest reason to get the D90, full compatibility with all Nikon lenses. the d5000 only autofocus's with lenses designated AF-S or 3rd party lenses with built in motors.

TCav Nov 20, 2009 6:47 PM

... not to mention the better LCD display, the better viewfider, the DoF Preview, more shots per battery charge, and an optional vertical grip.

Blueberry Nov 20, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hards80 (Post 1021288)
you are missing the biggest reason to get the D90, full compatibility with all Nikon lenses. the d5000 only autofocus's with lenses designated AF-S or 3rd party lenses with built in motors.

True, but with the 18-55 and 55-200 lens I have, I have no desire to get any more lens for my camera. Many are casual photographers and like having a lens for close up and one zoom lens. It's all many just need. I know it's hard for many of you to understand who appreciate all the options, but for many consumers, it's all we need.

TCav Nov 20, 2009 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueberry (Post 1021307)
... I know it's hard for many of you to understand who appreciate all the options, but for many consumers, it's all we need.

And I wish you well.

Phyxius Nov 21, 2009 2:41 PM

I looked at the D5000 when I was shopping for a DSLR too, I really like the articulated screen, but the D90 sold me with screen resolution and the fact that I could use my old autofocus 35mm lenses, this way I feel I didn't loose quite as much of my film camera investment.

But if you didn't have any old autofocus nikon lenses laying around. the D5000 would be a fantastic choice.

I am more then ecstatic with my D90 though

Lee

Blueberry Nov 27, 2009 3:58 PM

Update on a consumer photographer
 
1 Attachment(s)
I had a good learning experience with my camera on Thanksgiving on indoor, outdoor, shots with both lens's (18-55 VR, and 55-200 VR). There are a couple things that I found interesting.

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. For viewing photos on a TV, 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 photos, there are no issues with the 5000. However if I wanted to really blow up any of these photos, you would see the grains in the photos. Another issue was the subjects moving all the time so a faster shutter speed was necessary which of course gives less light into the lens.

Indoor shots the camera was choosing an ISO of 1600 even with the SB 600 flash. I found several reasons why the camera did this. First off in homes there are usually lots of windows. I tried to capture the people close enough not have show the windows in the shot, but was only partially successful. The camera picked up information on the windows in the shot which I think caused some problems. I should of chosen spot metering when the windows were in the background. The house also had some ceilings that had cathedral, and others were 9 feet high. I was guessing whether to put the flash straight, tilted at 45 or even higher. This will be something that I will only learn by using the flash on a regular basis.

I have a better understanding why people like Ken Rockwell like using the D40 for family photos and higher end cameras for everything else. For family photos, the D40 is fine camera and can take good photos. It's light, easy to use, and for basic photos with a good flash it will offer you good results. But once you need to use zoom lens, the DX lens may not offer enough light. Plus with it's old smaller sensor, and software I would find myself returning this to the store rather quickly. As you know the higher end lens's offer more light into the camera reducing the ISO and then giving sharper photos.

For my purposes at this time, the D5000 thankfully offers me great photos even with the lower light lens. I think the VR is another reason why the photos turned out as good as they did at ISO 3200. If I got more serious with photography (which I don't see yet) or had different needs, I would want to buy a Nikon 300s body and some very good lens options that would allow more light than the standard Nikon good consumer lens.

Lastly, LightRoom 3 (beta) is the software that I have chosen to use to work with reviewing my photos. Though the Nikon Capture NX2 does similar things, the complete gray screen, work flow, and less capabilities make the LightRoom 3 a big step up.

deadshot Nov 28, 2009 6:00 AM

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. So I contacted Nikon thinking there was a fault in the system. Their reply was that the set up was designed to avoid camera shake at a long 200mm end.
So if you leave Auto ISO enabled and use P you will always get this at the long end as the camera will up the ISO to give you a fast shutter. The D5000 is the same as I now have one. I imagine the D300 will be the same also. So try setting your ISO at what you want it to be i.e 800 then use P then use Program shift to get the desired shutter speed /Ap that you want ,or use A or S in the same way, obviously without program shift..

Blueberry Nov 30, 2009 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadshot (Post 1023151)
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. So I contacted Nikon thinking there was a fault in the system. Their reply was that the set up was designed to avoid camera shake at a long 200mm end.
So if you leave Auto ISO enabled and use P you will always get this at the long end as the camera will up the ISO to give you a fast shutter. The D5000 is the same as I now have one. I imagine the D300 will be the same also. So try setting your ISO at what you want it to be i.e 800 then use P then use Program shift to get the desired shutter speed /Ap that you want ,or use A or S in the same way, obviously without program shift..

Thank you for sharing that information. I left it on auto since I was not sure which ISO to choose for my situation. However I am sure I would of been able to choose 1600 instead for my parade shots and received sharper photos. I will turn this auto mode on ISO off for P mode.

deadshot Nov 30, 2009 1:02 PM

Just as a matter of interest. What I have done is I have made my Function button over to ISO and that enables me to quickly flick over to whatever ISO I need at the time ,without having to go through the Menu or i routes.

TCav Nov 30, 2009 1:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadshot (Post 1023151)
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 Nov 30, 2009 2:54 PM

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 Nov 30, 2009 3:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueberry (Post 1023020)
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 Dec 1, 2009 8:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimC (Post 1023994)
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 Dec 7, 2009 6:54 AM

D90 ----- Lense option
 
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 Dec 7, 2009 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fabiotichy (Post 1025835)
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 Dec 7, 2009 8:22 AM

hmmmmmm
 
which lense would you suggest?

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

TCav Dec 7, 2009 9:02 AM

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 Dec 7, 2009 9:22 AM

thanks a lot
 
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 Dec 7, 2009 5:01 PM

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.

Blueberry Dec 10, 2009 3:43 PM

I took my D5000 to a Flyers hockey game this week. I set the ISO to 800 and used my 55-200 Nikon VR lens. I was very pleased to see such great shots. In using the 11 point focus, it was able to keep the players in focus while they were moving on the ice, and the clarity was pretty dang good. I love this camera! I will post a shot or two with the setting info when I get a chance.

barryg9999 Dec 14, 2009 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueberry (Post 1021287)
First the size of the camera was smaller than the D90.

Not to debate the D90 vs. the D5000 as both are excellent choices however to clarify, the D90 is NOT bigger than the D5000. The D5000 is actually slightly larger. See the specs:

D90: 132 x 103 x 77 mm
D5000: 127 x 104 x 80 mm (5 x 4.1 x 3.2 in)

Multiplying this out shows that the D90 is 1,046,892 square mm while the D5000 is 1,056,640 square mm

TCav Dec 14, 2009 6:33 PM

That would be cubic millimeters, not square millimeters.

barryg9999 Dec 14, 2009 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1028164)
That would be cubic millimeters, not square millimeters.

Good point. You are correct.

rjseeney Dec 15, 2009 8:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barryg9999 (Post 1028114)
Not to debate the D90 vs. the D5000 as both are excellent choices however to clarify, the D90 is NOT bigger than the D5000. The D5000 is actually slightly larger. See the specs:

D90: 132 x 103 x 77 mm
D5000: 127 x 104 x 80 mm (5 x 4.1 x 3.2 in)

Multiplying this out shows that the D90 is 1,046,892 square mm while the D5000 is 1,056,640 square mm

Physically, they are virtually the same size. However, the D5000 is a couple ounces lighter (about 10%) which is noticeable and may be what the poster was referring to.

jack55 Dec 21, 2009 3:21 PM

I may as well add that I chose the Nikon D5000 over the D90 myself.
The swing factor for me was since at age 57, I can't bend over or lay in awkward positions anymore like I use to, so the tilting LCD was the deal breaker.
Besides, I had the Nikon P90 for awhile and got very spoiled using the tilting LCD on that.
I really missed it when I was using the Pentax K20D, so I made the switch to the D5000.

Also lenses aren't a factor as I only use two lenses. The Sigma 18-250mm & 50-500mm.

So, it is really a matter of preference on which camera you want, the D90 or D5000.

kazuya Dec 22, 2009 6:27 AM

i bought a D90 to replace my pentax k20D, i felt the autofucus let the camera down so i switched to nikon. the D5000 wasnt out when i bought the D90 however i still think id have gone for the D90 as the D5000 would have been to much of a step backwards from the K20D. i would have loved the D90 to have tilt screen, ive had a tilt screen fuji before and it was a fantastic feature.

Jim Bledsoe Dec 22, 2009 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadshot (Post 1023942)
Just as a matter of interest. What I have done is I have made my Function button over to ISO and that enables me to quickly flick over to whatever ISO I need at the time ,without having to go through the Menu or i routes.

That is exactly what I did with my D-60 and it works great. The ISO can be changed very quickly with this method.

.

rlewis0083 Dec 27, 2009 4:41 PM

I have an older Tamron Zoom I used on my D90S. Would this Zoom work with the D90? It is a Tamron 28 to 200 AF, Aspherical.

rlewis0083 Dec 27, 2009 4:41 PM

I mean my old N90S, sorry about that.

jack55 Dec 27, 2009 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazuya (Post 1030362)
i bought a D90 to replace my pentax k20D, i felt the autofucus let the camera down so i switched to nikon. the D5000 wasnt out when i bought the D90 however i still think id have gone for the D90 as the D5000 would have been to much of a step backwards from the K20D. i would have loved the D90 to have tilt screen, ive had a tilt screen fuji before and it was a fantastic feature.

I did the same... but I'm not so unhappy. :D

mtclimber Dec 28, 2009 9:29 PM

rlewis-

If your old Tamron zoom has a built-in focus motor, it will probably work fine. Take it to a camera store and check it out.

Sarah Joyce

MarceloRSC Feb 27, 2010 12:28 AM

Blueberry,

Today, after much more experience with the D5000, do you keep your choice? If have to choose, would you choose D5000 again?

How are the results of it in low light?

I see everybode passes the same doubts... Pros and Cons... I also think the tilt screen will make me to disconsider the low resolution LCD and choose a D5000...

jack55 Feb 27, 2010 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarceloRSC (Post 1058385)
Blueberry,

Today, after much more experience with the D5000, do you keep your choice? If have to choose, would you choose D5000 again?

How are the results of it in low light?

I see everybody passes the same doubts... Pros and Cons... I also think the tilt screen will make me to dis-consider the low resolution LCD and choose a D5000...

I also had the Pentax K20D and made the switch to Nikon D5000.

Many people said I went backwards when I made that switch. But I wanted the choice of more lenses, the tilting LCD, 4 frames per second continuous shooting, low light ability, D-movie mode etc, so I switched.

I also chose it over the Nikon D90 as the only difference was 1/2 frame per second difference continuous shooting & 1/2" difference, brighter LCD oh... no auto-focus motor in body or top LCD. The tilting LCD negated that difference and 1/2 a frame faster? Whoopee. Not worth the $200 difference.

As for performance, I'm very happy with the Nikon D5000 now that I've had it for two months.

Low light is phenomenal! Outstanding (absolutely stunning) image quality, especially in low light and difficult lighting (high dynamic range) situations I can shoot in daylight at 800 ISO all day long. I use 400 or 800 ISO most of the time. A couple times at 1000 ISO and even that was good.
Here is an action picture of one at 800 ISO:
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/Jan25eagle4-800.jpg

Yep, no looking back for me.

TCav Feb 27, 2010 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack55 (Post 1058517)
I also chose it over the Nikon D90 as the only difference was 1/2 frame per second difference continuous shooting ...

From Steve's review of the D90:

"... Switching the camera to CH mode allowed me to shoot 10 frames in only 2.0 seconds (5fps!), which again surpassed Nikon's claims. This was done using Program mode with the ISO set at 200. The D90 didn't stop there. When I raised the sensitivity to ISO 800, I saw speeds as fast as 5.9fps! ..."

MarceloRSC Feb 27, 2010 12:40 PM

Thanks Jack55 - very good picture - makes me anxious for the camera! We always must give-up some thing... If D90 had the tilt, probably I would pay for it there, but as I never had a hi-red LCD, maybe I'll not miss it. I KNOW that with higher res we can see better details while checking a shot, but... (in some cameras I had I missed more zoom) As my three "amateur like" requirements that I brought from the prosumers (tilt, video, liveview) are present ONLY in D5000*, and the overall set of features is very good, this is my favorite model now. The final decision probably will be done in the store "hands on" test...

TCav, I'ts clear D90 has more processing speed. But 4fps at full resolution is not a bad result - probably enough to get action or special moments from children... BTY, like D90, can D5000 be faster than the nominal speed in some specific configuration? Does it's speed increase if shooting at lower resolution?

*Based in many replies in this forum. AFAIK currently there is Tilt only in D5000 and in Sony A550 (that does not record videos). Is it right?

MarceloRSC Feb 27, 2010 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack55 (Post 1030214)
Also lenses aren't a factor as I only use two lenses. The Sigma 18-250mm & 50-500mm.

Witch one did you use for this shot?

Are you satisfied with the results for the 18-250mm?What about in low light?

TCav Feb 27, 2010 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarceloRSC (Post 1058556)
*Based in many replies in this forum. AFAIK currently there is Tilt only in D5000 and in Sony A550 (that does not record videos). Is it right?

The Nikon D5000, the Sony A500 and A550 (neither of which can record video), and the Olympus E-600, E-620, E-30 and E-3 (none of which can record video), all have tilting 'Live View' displays.

jack55 Feb 27, 2010 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarceloRSC (Post 1058562)
Witch one did you use for this shot?

Are you satisfied with the results for the 18-250mm?What about in low light?

I recently sold the 18-250mm for the Nikkor 18-200mm VR and that is the lens I used for the shot.

I'm pretty impressed with the low light. I've only gone as high as 1000mm but that was pretty good too for very little noise. I usually keep it between 200-800 ISO for most shots.

MarceloRSC Feb 27, 2010 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack55 (Post 1058623)
I recently sold the 18-250mm for the Nikkor 18-200mm VR and that is the lens I used for the shot.

I'm pretty impressed with the low light. I've only gone as high as 1000mm but that was pretty good too for very little noise. I usually keep it between 200-800 ISO for most shots.

Why did you exchanged the (Sigma/Tamron?) 18-250mm for the Nikon 18-200mm? Is the image quality so superior to justify the change?

Did your prior lens had VR/VC ? Thats why the change? Is the stabilization better in the Nikon than Tamron/Sigma?

About 1000mm what lens did you use?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:39 PM.