What’s Your Preference?

zhxie · #1 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 10:05 PM

I've been using a bridge point-and-shoot and feel like I really need to upgrade to a DSLR. I'm trying to decide between the D5000 and the D90 but there are so many factors that I don't know what to think.

The main concern I have about the D5000 is the lack of autofocus in the body. But it's a lot cheaper than the D90 and I would be able to get an AF-S 35mm lens with it. (I've decided not to use the kit lens either way.)

If I get the D90, I would have to buy a used one because it is just too expensive for me. Is it worth doing so? Also, with that I would only be able to get the 50mm AF lens at about $120, not any AF-S lenses.

Another factor is that with my point-and-shoot (Nikon P80), I felt really limited really quickly (within months) even though it had a bunch of manual controls. I don't want to spend hundred of dollars on a DSLR that I'm going to outgrow in a year or two and have to replace. Since I'm leaning slightly towards the D5000 because of the price (although I'd love to get a D90), will it be able to grow with me? Or will the D90 be a better investment?

Also, D90 has been out for 2 years…is it too old?

tokyotom · #2 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 10:37 PM

I decided to get a DSLR last summer, my choices were a D40, D60, or D80. The advice I was given was to go for the D80 since I would grow into it.

I did get the D80 and don't regret it at all.

RLucas · #3 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhxie

I've been using a bridge point-and-shoot and feel like I really need to upgrade to a DSLR. I'm trying to decide between the D5000 and the D90 but there are so many factors that I don't know what to think.

The main concern I have about the D5000 is the lack of autofocus in the body. But it's a lot cheaper than the D90 and I would be able to get an AF-S 35mm lens with it. (I've decided not to use the kit lens either way.)

If I get the D90, I would have to buy a used one because it is just too expensive for me. Is it worth doing so? Also, with that I would only be able to get the 50mm AF lens at about $120, not any AF-S lenses.

Another factor is that with my point-and-shoot (Nikon P80), I felt really limited really quickly (within months) even though it had a bunch of manual controls. I don't want to spend hundred of dollars on a DSLR that I'm going to outgrow in a year or two and have to replace. Since I'm leaning slightly towards the D5000 because of the price (although I'd love to get a D90), will it be able to grow with me? Or will the D90 be a better investment?

Also, D90 has been out for 2 years…is it too old?

The choice is up to you and what you want to do. Are you planning to do any off camera flash work, if so, the D90 may be a better option, as it can be used as a commander, where the D5000 would have to have a hotshoe mounted flash to act as a commander. There are several other differences too.
Do your research and find out exactly what you have to have, and what you may need later, and decide from there.
I also want to point out that AF-S lenses will work on the D90, as well as the regular AF. So your lens choices will be much greater. Actually the kit lens is quite good, as long as you know it's limitations.

zhxie · #4 (**permalink**) 06-15-2010, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLucas

The choice is up to you and what you want to do. Are you planning to do any off camera flash work, if so, the D90 may be a better option, as it can be used as a commander, where the D5000 would have to have a hotshoe mounted flash to act as a commander.

I'm not so advanced as to know about off-camera flash and all that. But I think eventually, I don't know when, I will get to it. Does this mean that I should start with a D5000 for my first DSLR and upgrade when I really know what I'm doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokyotom

I decided to get a DSLR last summer, my choices were a D40, D60, or D80. The advice I was given was to go for the D80 since I would grow into it.

I know I would be happy with the D90, and I would buy it immediately if it wasn't for the price.

But are there any reasons I should NOT buy a D5000?

inkista · #5 (**permalink**) 06-16-2010, 12:49 AM

If you need autofocus with a variety of prime lenses (i.e., anything except a 50mm or 35mm).

The focus motor issue is one of the main reasons people seem to upgrade from the entry-level to a D80/D90.

The D3000 and D5000 cannot autofocus a lens that's not designated as AF-S. This isn't typically that big a deal. Most of Nikon's zoom lenses are AF-S. The stumbling block comes when you start looking at one particular zoom (80-400), or at the less expensive prime lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 or the 85/1.8.

The 50mm you can solve by throwing more money at the problem. Instead of getting a $100 lens that doesn't autofocus on a D5000, you could get the $200 35mm f/1.8 or the $450 50mm f/1.4. Both of those lenses are AF-S and will autofocus just fine.

But the 85mm or longer, you're kinda stuck. Even the $1000+ 85/1.4 is still AF not AF-S, and Sigma/Tamron/Tokina don't make versions of this lens.

On the Canon side, if you want to shoot a basketball game, school play, concert, or dance recital in, say, a high school gym, you're up against it, lighting wise. The common wisdom is that you'll need at least an f/2.8 lens or wider to get the shutter speeds you need to freeze action and still get a good exposure, even using iso settings of 1600 or higher. Secondly, you'll likely need a telephoto lens with more reach to bring the action closer. The ideal lens in a situation like this is a 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens, and Nikon's is AF-S. But it's $2000. The cheaper Sigma & Tamron variants (unstabilized, iirc) are around the $800 mark.

But if you shot Canon (or had a D90), you could pick up a $450 85/1.8, and it would work for this kind of lower-light action shot. It won't be as nice as the 70-200/2.8. But it won't be as expensive, either.

Now, this is a relatively limited scenario. If your subject isn't moving quickly, you can use slower shutter speeds and a tripod. If you're not in low light, you don't need a maximum aperture that's that wide. If you can get closer, you don't need the longer lens. So, whether this affects you or not really depends on what and how you plan to shoot, and how much money you have to blow on a lens.

zhxie · #6 (**permalink**) 06-16-2010, 01:09 AM

So I guess, it comes down to how important autofocus is for me in the long run?

The only contact I've had with DSLRs is a few minutes with my friend's D40. He had both an AF-S and AF lens so I tried both. I wasn't paying too much attention to the focusing but it didn't seem too bad without autofocus. All I had to do was to adjust it until a green light lit up (would this be the way it is in the D5000 or will it be more complicated?)

But that was just a few minutes. I'd like to know more about it. I suppose it varies for everyone, but for you, how important is it and why?

kirbinster · #7 (**permalink**) 06-16-2010, 01:18 AM

Put your money in the lenses not the body. Lens retain their value, bodies depreciate very quickly. If you are planning to grow into it you might be better to get the D5000 now, and then in a few years buy the replacement for the D90. I love my D5000, and probably use it 65% of the time. It is small and light weight and takes images that are just as good quality as the D90 or D300.

tasmo2 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-16-2010, 01:55 AM

I have the D3000 and the D80 and I love both! I started off with the D3000 last november, but all the lenses that i wanted were a couple hundred dollars more if you got it AF-S. So I ended up getting the D80 body so that I could get the lenses that I wanted and not worry about AF-S. BUT like I said I am still new at all this, so I don't know if its really all that big of a deal, it was just an annoying thing to me to always pay more for the AF-S. I figured I should just spend the extra one time for the body with AF.