Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:16 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
Default

I see that the D5000's display isn't quite what it could be on higher end models like the d300, etc. How important is a hi-res LCD when shooting? I know it' s probably a matter of preference, but I thought I should ask anyhow.

Given my experience (solely with P&S) I usually take an abundance of shots and use the LCD to only detect obvious shot problems, like the subject moved, or the shot is out of frame. For these needs, the LCD on the D5000 should be adequate. Should I be using it to determine sharpness of photos, or take extra shots and sort them out post-production?
fbords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:24 PM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The better LCD is nice, but not a deal breaker IMO. Even at 230,000 you should be able to tell if the shot is OOF or not. That's what I use my LCD for - not for critical sharpness.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
Default

That's sort of what I was hoping to hear. Reading a lot of different reviews with folks criticizing the resolution of the display seems a bit nit-picky to me.

Has anyone compared the D5000 to the Canon T1i? Some of the added options of the T1i, like the 1080p video for example, dont seem worth the extra $50 or so over the D5000. Any other things that stand out over the D5000 (besides ergonomics)?
fbords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:41 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

yes they have at a bunch of different sites, some like the canon some like the d5000. But most individual comparisons, they like to compare the t1i to the d90 instead. Like it was stated, it has the best AF system in this class. It uses pretty much the same sensor as the 50d, which allows a super high iso. Here is a direct head to head review.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/29/c...n-d5000-fight/

Last edited by shoturtle; Dec 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:45 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

To me the focus motor is really an issue. When I got my first DSLR, the 2nd lens I bought turned out to be a 50mm 1.8 (cost me $70 - price is now about 110). This opened up a world of shallow DOF photography. Now that I have a son - that shallow DOF photography is a real boon. And when you're indoors so much you can't always back up enough to get shallow DOF with even an f2.8 zoom.

Now, I use an 85mm 1.8 lens for my shallow dof. On the Canon camera you would get AF with the lens. On nikon you couldn't. If everything else were equal and the handling /ergonomics were just as good to you, I think the added flexibility is worth $50 even if on this day you don't think you'd want to use a 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 lens

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:45 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
Thought I would take a quick snap form my window showing the difference between 16-6400. So actually here is bit better example of the different between iso 3200 and 6400, I try taking it a 1600 but there were next to no details. first one is 3200 2nd one is at 6400. I know that these are lousy pics. But you can see that at 6400 you get more details. I used a bright lens and it was hand held.
Sorry. But, that's not accurate.

Something is wrong with the way you're taking those photos. The exposure is obviously different between them, as if you used the same settings for shutter speed and aperture for both (causing a brighter exposure with the higher ISO speed photo).

Those photos do not include EXIF information so that we can see the camera settings used. But, your methodology is obviously flawed. Otherwise, the exposure (how bright or dark the image is) would be identical, regardless of ISO speed used.

Each time you double the ISO speed, you can use shutter speeds twice as fast for the same aperture and lighting for the same exposure (how bright or dark the image is). If you're trying to keep the shutter speed the same for the same lighting and aperture when increasing or decreasing ISO speed, you're doing something wrong.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 12:48 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
Default

it seems the manufacturers like to play intricate price wars. For example, "If you're looking to get a D5000, try a T1i, it's only $50-$100 more." Then, "If you're looking to pick up a T1i, why not check out a D90? It's only about $100 more than that." Lol, like it was stated earlier, it never ends.
fbords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:12 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
Sorry. But, that's not accurate.

Something is wrong with the way you're taking those photos. The exposure is obviously different between them, as if you used the same settings for shutter speed and aperture for both (causing a brighter exposure with the higher ISO speed photo).

Those photos do not include EXIF information so that we can see the camera settings used. But, your methodology is obviously flawed. Otherwise, the exposure (how bright or dark the image is) would be identical, regardless of ISO speed used.

Each time you double the ISO speed, you can use shutter speeds twice as fast for the same aperture and lighting for the same exposure (how bright or dark the image is). If you're trying to keep the shutter speed the same for the same lighting and aperture when increasing or decreasing ISO speed, you're doing something wrong.
actually both photos were taking right after each other using a ef 50mm 1.8 mkii at 3200 then at 6400 in manual mode, at 1.8 and 1/80 of a second. the reducing software ripped it out. If you like I can send you the full size photo with the exif info.

Last edited by shoturtle; Dec 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:15 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
Default

John, so if i were to get the D5000 kit w/18-55mm 3.5/5.6 AF-S lens would I not really be able to produce a good shallow dof? I know it obviously, wont be as dramatic as with the lens you speak of, but will it be at all similar? By the way, please excuse my ignorance, I'm still learning as I go.
fbords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 1:32 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbords View Post
it seems the manufacturers like to play intricate price wars. For example, "If you're looking to get a D5000, try a T1i, it's only $50-$100 more." Then, "If you're looking to pick up a T1i, why not check out a D90? It's only about $100 more than that." Lol, like it was stated earlier, it never ends.

Actually for 2 lenses the t1i is around 800 bucks, the d90 is 1200-1500 for one lens depending on the one you want. It is a big price jump.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:42 AM.