upgrade to a new FX, or a better DX?

kevinpw

I currently own a D5000, and have been pondering about upgrading... if I ever collect enough money...

I wanted to upgrade to a D300s, but my friend said why not just go all the way to full-frame? My reasoning is because that would be much more expensive. I have 3 DX lenses right now that would be just about useless without a DX body. If I sold my current body and all lenses, I don't think I'll fetch enough to even purchase a new D700 body. So I'm thinking it's better if I sell my D5000 and add around $1000 or less and get a D300s. if I go full frame that would cost me at least $1500, and well over that probably.

But is the D300s that much better than the D5000? What makes it so? I know it has 51 AF points, but doesn't it use the same sensor as the D5000?

For that matter, is the D90 better than the D5000 in terms of image quality? I asked this pro photog friend of mine if I could 2nd shoot with him on one of his wedding sessions, and when I told him I have a D5000 he said I should get at least a D90, because the D5000 struggles in low light.

Disregarding the lens in use, is the D90 better than the D5000? I took a look at the specs for both camera and they use the same sensor.... so... why would the D90 be better? how bout the D300s?

Thanks for your input.

cab.in.boston

I have a D90 and a D300, but have never used a D5000. As far as I know, the sensor and autofocus device in the D5000 are the same as in the D90. They both have the same ISO range. They both shoot the same 12-bit compressed RAW. I don't know why your friend would say the D5000 struggles in low light but not the D90.

The big difference between the D5000 and D90, as I'm sure you know from looking up specs, is mostly in the controls/ergonomics (like the dual control wheels - pretty much mandatory when shooting in M), the flip-out vs higher-res LCD, and the ability to use older, non-AFS lenses.

Used with the same lens, you should be able to get the same PQ with a D5000. But a D90 (or D300) should be easier to use, mostly due to the extra controls and customization.

As for your DX vs. FX question, that's something only you can answer. Do you see yourself really needing FX? Are you wanting to become a pro wedding/portrait photog? If so, then you may want to start a savings account for FX body(ies) and glass. I'd advise getting at least some pro glass first, because you can use it on your DX body while you continue to save for the FX body. Nobody says you have to get that D700 before a 70-200 VRII!

Personally, I don't ever see myself going FX, at least not until the prices come way down, and when that happens, DX bodies will still be cheaper, so maybe not even then. I am a hobbyist and have not even the slightest intention to shoot professionally. One can get fantastic images from a DX camera, and that's good enough for me. I highly doubt I'll ever be good enough to 100% exploit DX format, and I just don't see the need for FX. But that's just me. If you think you'll truly be moving to FX, then save your pennies, get some good glass first, then see what happens. It may be that you pair your D5000 or your new D300s (or D400 or whatever comes next) with some pro glass and you discover that you're happier than the proverbial pig in mud.

kevinpw

thanks for your reply, and i feel what you're saying. i think i want an FX mostly because my friends are pushing me. i played with their D700 and of course its a magical beast. but i cant justify spending that much on an FX without making the money back from photography. i heard the D300s is on par with the D700 on some levels, but with a smaller sensor, so that sounds good to me. ill have to try it first tho. ive never used a D300s.

but is full frame a requirement for doing wedding/portrait or any other pro stuff? is a pro photog at a major disadvantage without a full frame gear?

about going pro, that would be real cool. i would love to shoot profesionally. but i like fashion and products more than weddings... wedding photography is so so over-saturated where i am currently, and everyone's copying the top 3 most popular photographers, it's ridiculous. but im rambling...

for fashion photography, what camera would be needed? would one need a full frame, or maybe even a medium format?

thanks

Qarik

If you want to upgrade your current camera..jump to the d300s. The D90 is not much of an upgrade from the D5000. The 51 point AF system is reason alone. I am aware they all use the same sensor but and you can achieve the same kind of images with all 3 cameras..but your keeper rate will increase significantly with the D300s. You won't know the difference until you actually have the camera.

cab.in.boston

kevinpw wrote: »

but is full frame a requirement for doing wedding/portrait or any other pro stuff? is a pro photog at a major disadvantage without a full frame gear?

Nothing is "required" to be a pro photog other than people willing to pay you for your work. I think the better wedding/portrait photogs use FF because they give much better DoF than crop sensors, plus better light sensitivity (larger sensor sites) and paired with good lenses they can give much better images than the crop sensor.

I purchased my D300 used from a wedding photog who was upgrading to FF. She used twin D300's for a couple of years professionally. So it certainly can be done, I just think that the results are "better" with FF, so you can get more/higher-paying gigs. That's my take, anyway.

for fashion photography, what camera would be needed? would one need a full frame, or maybe even a medium format?

thanks

I really don't know, but I think that most of the cameras used for fashion and advertising tend to be medium or even large format. But I'm not really into that, so I don't know for sure.

Mitchell

Sounds like peer pressure is getting the best of you.

What's wrong with your present D5000? Ask yourself what you find lacking in that body before you mindlessly replace it with a more expensive camera.

Buy the tool that fits your needs. Don't just upgrade and waste money without a good reason.

kevinpw

Mitchell wrote: »

Sounds like peer pressure is getting the best of you.

What's wrong with your present D5000? Ask yourself what you find lacking in that body before you mindlessly replace it with a more expensive camera.

Buy the tool that fits your needs. Don't just upgrade and waste money without a good reason.

well a couple of things that's been bothering me on the D5000 is, one, the lack of the built-in commander. that's just really annoying... i have to always carry 2 SB units, or 1 SB and 1 SU800 if i want to use off-camera flash.

another thing is i feel my D5000 hunts a lot when trying to auto focus in matrix mode. to counter that, ive been using a lot of single point or dynamic area modes and choosing manually using the joystick where i want the camera to focus. that way it doesn't get confused. i tried using the 3D focusing on the D5000, and it didn't perform very well compared to the D700's and i think that's because of the 11 vs 51 AF points. so that's definitely one more thing i want from the D300s or D700, more AF points.

thanks!

kevinpw

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I have a D90 and a D300, but have never used a D5000. As far as I know, the sensor and autofocus device in the D5000 are the same as in the D90. They both have the same ISO range. They both shoot the same 12-bit compressed RAW. I don't know why your friend would say the D5000 struggles in low light but not the D90.

That's what I thought.


What do you guys think about my dissatisfaction in the AF capabilities of the D5000?

cab.in.boston

kevinpw wrote: »

What do you guys think about my dissatisfaction in the AF capabilities of the D5000?

I think the D5000 has the same AF as the D90. I've never been disappointed by the ability of the D90 AF, but I do prefer having a (much) larger selection of points in the D300. Being on a crop sensor, the 51 pts in the D300 covers almost the whole frame. Combined with the D300 AF being a better module than is used in the D90, I do prefer the D300 AF over the D90. But that said, I do not think the D90/D5000 AF is "bad." Just like anything, it's a tool, and must be used properly, but certainly good results can be had.

Zerodog

I think there is night and day difference in AF abilities comparing my old D90 to my new 300s. That being said the 300s is also better at low light than the D90. Not sure why, it isn't really supposed to be, but I am guessing it is still AF ability. And I just like the feel of it more. It is SOLID. But there have been a few occasions that I wished I had bought a D700 instead. They were all very low light. More ISO ability would have been really nice. So I will wait, for the D700 replacement, hoping for even more ISO and video, and a genie that comes out of it and grants wishes when you rub it just right. But I will still keep my 300s too.

There are other things to consider for full frame. Not all lenses work on them. So you are kicked right into more $$$ land for all lens choices. Another is DX sensor cameras have more reach to them. So in effect it is like adding free zoom. Do you find yourself wanting wider? Or further reach? For sports or wildlife, further helps.

So what lenses do you currently have? Most likely you will be wanting better glass for any new body. That is where you get more quality anyway. If you don't already have some nice 2.8 lenses. You may want to keep your D5000 and upgrade glass first. That could be part of your hunting problem. Get yourself a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8. Those are the 2 to have for any DX body. The 70/80-200 will go on an FX body and both of them will be great on the D5000 too.

andiamo

kevinpw wrote: »

I currently own a D5000, and have been pondering about upgrading... if I ever collect enough money...

t.

I switched from a D300 to a D700 about a year ago. I am very happy with the move and think there are some definite advantages to full frame cameras; There is noticeably less noise at high iso settings with the D700 and the wide angle results with the 24 - 70 f2.8g are remarkable with the fx frame.

kevinpw

Zerodog wrote: »

I think there is night and day difference in AF abilities comparing my old D90 to my new 300s. That being said the 300s is also better at low light than the D90. Not sure why, it isn't really supposed to be, but I am guessing it is still AF ability. And I just like the feel of it more. It is SOLID. But there have been a few occasions that I wished I had bought a D700 instead. They were all very low light. More ISO ability would have been really nice. So I will wait, for the D700 replacement, hoping for even more ISO and video, and a genie that comes out of it and grants wishes when you rub it just right. But I will still keep my 300s too.

There are other things to consider for full frame. Not all lenses work on them. So you are kicked right into more $$$ land for all lens choices. Another is DX sensor cameras have more reach to them. So in effect it is like adding free zoom. Do you find yourself wanting wider? Or further reach? For sports or wildlife, further helps.

So what lenses do you currently have? Most likely you will be wanting better glass for any new body. That is where you get more quality anyway. If you don't already have some nice 2.8 lenses. You may want to keep your D5000 and upgrade glass first. That could be part of your hunting problem. Get yourself a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8. Those are the 2 to have for any DX body. The 70/80-200 will go on an FX body and both of them will be great on the D5000 too.

thanks for the advice. I currently own:

17-55 f/2.8
35 f/1.8
85 f/3.5 macro

I used to carry an 18-200 around, and I got tired of it and did exactly what you said, sold that and got a 17-55 f/2.8. The constant 2.8 definitely helps in low light conditions. Out of the 3, I actually like the 35mm the best. It's small, very light, and f/1.8 is amazing

I don't know if I'll ever get a 70-200... it's just so huge and impractical. I think I'd rather get a tele prime, which is partially why I got the 85 f/3.5. Originally I wanted a macro lens to do some close-up product stuff. Then I tried it to do some general photography, and it works fine. The f/3.5 isn't awesome, but it's not bad either. I'd like to get a better tele prime, maybe the 85 f/1.4 or the 105 f/2.8, but between those two only the 105 has AF-S, and the D5000 will not auto-focus without an AF-S lens, yet another reason to upgrade.

Thank you.