why is nikon d5000 cheaper than d90?
hi
can someone explain to me why the nikon d5000 is cheaper than d90?
from the reviews i have read they state that its almost the same thing but with less weight and easy functions.
also, which one of the 2 is better? does the photo quality in d5000 is less then the d90?
thanks in advance.
:dunno:rofl:D:lust
ivar:bow:deal:barb:rolleyes:huh:scratch:scratch:scratch:dunno
can someone explain to me why the nikon d5000 is cheaper than d90?
from the reviews i have read they state that its almost the same thing but with less weight and easy functions.
also, which one of the 2 is better? does the photo quality in d5000 is less then the d90?
thanks in advance.
:dunno:rofl:D:lust
ivar:bow:deal:barb:rolleyes:huh:scratch:scratch:scratch:dunno 0
Comments
a friend of mine showed me his d5000 he got when it first came out, i was like WTF is that trash? but i respect it now and its a great cam for a beginner on a budget, but more so for a casual shooter.
And the lack of the AF motor in the camera is a big one. No clue how much those run, but it also limits the camera as to what lenses it can use.
But otherwise, it IS a solid starter camera.
is dat true? image quality the same? I was gonna be a 2nd shooter for this photog, cept he told me my D5000 is not good enuf, should get at least a D90.
Same sensor, same autofocus system (Multi CAM 1000, 11 focus points), both D90 and D5000 go from ISO200 to 3200... used properly you should get the same output from the D5000 as from the D90 (or even D300s).
It's the ergonomics and build quality that are different, as well as lack of in-body focus motor. D5000 has only one command dial, so when you're shooting in manual you don't have separate wheels for aperture and shutter speed. I actually have no idea how that works, I imagine you have to hold down a button while you spin the dial to adjust one of those parameters.
You lose the top of the camera LCD, which may or may not matter to you.
As mentioned, the lack of in-body focus motor means you have to limit your lenses to AF-S only, but that's not really a huge deal, there are all kinds of very capable lenses available in AF-S. You're missing out on older lenses that may or may not matter to you.
I debated this myself on whether I should get a D300 when I already had a D90. The output quality is (or can be) the same, although the D300 does have 14-bit RAW as opposed to the D90's 12-bit. However, after using my D300 for a while now, I don't regret it in the slightest. I very much appreciate the more solid camera and all the extra controls. Ease of use goes a long way when shooting, and IMO that's where the main difference is between D5000 and D90 (and then again to D300/s).
My site 365 Project
The only thing I can think of is the photographer wants you to "look" professional.
perhaps... which I think is rather silly
I don't think it is unreasonable. Your lens choice is limited and likely your keeper rate will suffer with less dedicated function wheels. The missing LCD screen on top is curious as well. I use that all the time to check stuff. Finally it speaks to your "seriousness" to photgraphy lacking any other input.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Not to be argumentative, but I don't think it's silly at all. These days, everybody has an Uncle Bob who "has a camera just like yours." When people are paying good money for professional photography, they want to feel like they're getting something for their money. Sure, the end product is the end product, and we all know that an accomplished photographer can produce really good images with amateur equipment. That's not the issue. The issue, and it is a real one, is the image on the job. The bride's dad, who's probably footing the bill, wants to see some big black cases disgorge some impressive looking bodies and glass, even if he has no idea what it all is.
When I was starting out shooting interiors for designers, I carried crap with me that I hadn't used in years, and laid it all out. I still use battery grips that I don't really need. I use tripods that would support view cameras. Why . . ? To help the client "feel like" he or she was getting a product that no one on their salaried staff could produce. Call it "street cred" or whatever you like. The last time someone said to me that their uncle had a camera "just like yours" it turned out he was a big-time portrait photographer and used a big-ass Hasselblad. I was quite happy for the comparison. How different I'da felt if she'd said, "My but you have a small camera." I'm a guy, after all.
Just my $.02.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I think I'm quite proficient in the use of my D5000 now. I can change aperture, shutter speed, and ISO quickly and without looking for the buttons. I've set one of the buttons to be the ISO shortcut.
I never knew about the other models' dual wheel and top LCD screen until well after I learned to use my D5000, so I never felt lacking.
I don't know if I agree with this "seriousness" business. At the time I knew zero about DSLRs and lenses. I learned all the theory I could from reading, and my friend suggested I buy the D5000 and an 18-200mm. I found the price to be within my budget so I bought it. I have since sold the 18-200mm and gotten a 17-55 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8, and 85 f/3.5 macro, as well as an SB-900.
Perhaps if I was more "serious" when I was going to buy my first camera I would've gone straight for the D300s, but I simply didn't have the funds, not to mention it's a Catch-22 right? I need to have a camera to determine my "seriousness," yet to gauge my "seriousness" I first need to get a camera. At the end of the day, I feel alright with my decision, though I would like to upgrade to a full-frame someday, when I have the funds.
I was thinking, though, that if I buy a full-frame camera then I'll need to buy another set of FX lenses, which will cost even more. I was wondering that perhaps I should just upgrade to a D300s first, although now that cab.in.boston said it has the same image quality as the D5000 and the D90, well I don't think that's very cost-effective in the least bit.
I don't think its silly depending on the reason. A pro grade camera makes it easier to get shots. When you are paid to get the shot, a camera with better features, more control, faster AFS, and sturdier body can make a difference.
You cannot tell a difference IQ wise between a D5000, D90, or a D300. However, making adjustments on the fly are much easier on cameras with more controls at your fingertips than in menus.
Now, if the photographer didn't want you to use a D5000 because he thought the IQ is better on a D90 or D300, then I don't think I would want to work for someone who had that mindset.
Unfortunately that was / is his exact mindset ...
Certainly don't take my words as gospel. I'm just parroting what I've read/been told, that the same sensor is used between the 3 bodies. One thing I know is different regarding IQ about the D300/s is that you can shoot 14-bit RAW, as opposed to being "limited" to 12-bits in the D90 and D5k. Does that make a difference? Maybe, maybe not, depending on your PP ability. But if you are determined to squeeze every last piece of IQ from your bits, having more bits to begin with is important. Am I anywhere near that ability level? Not even close, but I'm learning every day!
Mastering your camera's controls and being able to adjust everything without looking for buttons is great, but I still think that the sheer number of customizable controls on the D300/s body makes it worth the price. However, I say that as someone who got a GREAT deal on a used D300. I paid less for my D300 than a D5k would have cost. Granted, it's a couple years old, but it's in great shape. If I was buying new, I'd have a lot harder time justifying the expense, and could easily understand getting a D90 or its forthcoming replacement (I do prefer having the extra wheel and in-body focus motor over the D5k) and putting the extra $1k towards glass.
But like I said before, now that I have been using the D300, I don't think I would go back to the smaller body. This camera just feels "right" to me. Even though I used the D90 for over a year before getting the D300, when I pick up that body now, it feels strange. That doesn't mean the photos are bad, I just vastly prefer using the larger body. I understand it's silly, but it makes me "feel" more serious, and I think that's helping me develop (no pun intended) as a photographer. I am a self-admitted gearhead, though. If you pick up a D300/s and don't care for it, or it makes no difference at all, no big deal, that's why there are different bodies out there. And certainly if the only thing you care about is good IQ, and you're happy with what you get, I don't think you can go wrong with a D5k (excepting the 14 vs 12 bit deal from above). The important thing is that you're happy. Different strokes and all of that...
If you are thinking of going FX someday, I'd recommend buying lenses first. You can absolutely use FX glass on a D5k, and once you've built up a stable of pro quality glass, not only will it make the jump to FX easier since you will only need the body, but your DX photos will improve as well. Just be sure not to get older lenses with screw drive AF, unless you enjoy MF, and of course you'll lose the wide end. But you could have a couple of wide DX lenses to go along with your 24-70 and 70-200 (or whatever lenses float your boat).
My site 365 Project