# Nikon D5000



## kirbyultra (Mar 17, 2010)

So I've been on and off reading about DSLRs and I couldn't decide what I wanted between a few things. But having read up on it, I felt confident walking into B&H and not feeling too foolish talking to the salespeople (I never want to be feeling like I need to take anything the salespeople say at face value) Unfortunately B&H and Adorama are the only 2 stores I know that have a wide selection of all the brands and models that I was curious about...

I concluded that I should have walked in there weeks ago because while I would have known nothing, I would have been able to hold and feel the cameras and there would have only been one clear choice for me: Nikon!

It may be a bit irrational but I really liked the way the Nikon entry level dSLRs felt in my hand. I have really small, clumsy hands with kinda chubby fingers so the feel and grip had to be right since they are a bit heavy to be toting around for long periods of time traveling. 

Anyway, that's a lot of chatter about nothing. I looked closely at the D5000 and D90. The price point is several hundred dollars apart for most a kit lens difference and built-in AF motor, of what I could decipher. I think I'm going to go with the D5000. (I skipped over the D3000 because of Live View and movie capture in the 5000. Apparently the 5000 has a bettersensor that is also in the D90).

Now I am trolling the sites for good prices! Adorama has the standard kit for under $600 -- refurbished. Do you think it would matter if it was a refurb?


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 18, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> Now I am trolling the sites for good prices! Adorama has the standard kit for under $600 -- refurbished. Do you think it would matter if it was a refurb?


Probably not. Adorama's a good company, I don't think you'd get burned by that. Refurbs are a risk, but a small one in my estimation. I've purchased a number of refurbished items over time and had good luck. 

I've never looked at the D5000, but Ken Rockwell is fairly negative on it, primarily because he thinks the D90 is a better value for not much more money. He suggests the D90 over the D5000, if you can go the extra money. See http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

It appears that the 5000 is, essentially, a D90 in a D40 (or D3000) case - it has most of the features of the D90 without the controls of the D90. It also lacks the top LCD readout, which means you have to run the big LCD on the back to read settings - I use the top readout a lot, so that would matter to me. Like the D40 or D3000 it doesn't have the in-camera focus motor, so you need to buy only lenses with internal focus motors. As I've said before that's not a huge limitation if you're starting from scratch, but it does remove a lot of lenses from your range of choice, especially older or more expensive Nikon lenses and those from second-tier manufacturers. 

Of course, the smaller body of the D40/3000/5000 is not a negative if it fits your hands better than the big D90/300 body. Quite the opposite - if you find the smaller body more comfortable, can live with one LCD panel for everything, and are willing to use menus instead of dedicated buttons for some functions (which wouldn't matter at all if those aren't functions you care about much), go for the D5000.


----------



## pocketsizedrhino (Mar 18, 2010)

kirbyultra wrote:


> for long periods of time traveling.


I read that wrong. 

It sounds like you found your perfect camera! Let us know what you end up getting and share loooots of pictures.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 18, 2010)

*pocketsizedrhino wrote: *


> kirbyultra wrote:
> 
> 
> > for long periods of time traveling.
> ...



:shock2::roflmao:

I didn't even realize I wrote that.... funny!


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 18, 2010)

*MikeScone wrote: *


> Probably not. Adorama's a good company, I don't think you'd get burned by that. Refurbs are a risk, but a small one in my estimation. I've purchased a number of refurbished items over time and had good luck.





> *Yay - that's what I was hoping to hear  Pretty sure Nikon refurbs are alright.*





> .....Of course, the smaller body of the D40/3000/5000 is not a negative if it fits your hands better than the big D90/300 body. Quite the opposite - if you find the smaller body more comfortable, can live with one LCD panel for everything, and are willing to use menus instead of dedicated buttons for some functions (which wouldn't matter at all if those aren't functions you care about much), go for the D5000.



I hear ya, and I hear Ken Rockwell also. I was looking at prices since becoming quite determined on the D5000. I'm really starting to waver. Because the D3000 really is *so* much cheaper... I know the sensor on that is not the D90's. However, talking about the total cost I'll be shelling out: I'm getting a huge boost from point&shoot to the D3000 for very little, but _not that much more_ from D3000 to 5000. I thought about going straight to the D90 because it's got more for the long run when I possibly learn more and want to do more. It is several hundred bucks more than the 5000. D3000 seems to be a safer place to be for a newb. Especially a newbie who is prone to things like losing cameras and breaking stuff/dropping stuff of value :?

I do shoot movie clips of my buns but for less than $150 I can get a dinky point&shoot to do that job. I'm pretty sure nobody cares if my rabbits eat lettuce in 720HD. :shock:I always wished that I could get better video but frankly based on the bad reviews of the D5000's and the D90's movie feature, I'm not sure it should be the thing I hinge my purchase on.

I was thinking of justthrowing caution to the windand buy the D5000 with 18-55mm VR kit for ~$640+tax... I just can't shake the fact that for that amount of money, I can get a D3000 with a ton of extra stuff and a better lens, maybe something that goes to 200mm. So, I'd love to hear more opinions on this if anyone has


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 18, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> Because the D3000 really is *so* much cheaper... I know the sensor on that is not the D90's. However, talking about the total cost I'll be shelling out: I'm getting a huge boost from point&shoot to the D3000 for very little, but _not that much more_ from D3000 to 5000. ... I just can't shake the fact that for that amount of money, I can get a D3000 with a ton of extra stuff and a better lens, maybe something that goes to 200mm.


That's sort of what Ken Rockwell was saying - get the D3000 unless you really need more, then go all the way to the D90. If, at some point, you decide that you need a more capable camera, you can always trade up to whatever Nikon's selling then in the D90 range. 

I just looked, and Adorama had a two-lens (18-55VR and 55-200VR) package on the D3000 with US warranty for $596 - less than you were thinking of paying for the D5000 refurb with one lens. The sensor on the D3000's pretty good, too. I don't know if you'd see much, if any, difference on that account on the D5000. I think you'd get a lot more benefit out of the second lens than whatever incremental improvement in the sensor you'd get in the D5000.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 18, 2010)

What is the difference between the 55-200mm lens in this kit:
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3000K2.html

and this kit?
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3000K1.html


$50 difference... but not sure what?


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 18, 2010)

Also, realistically would you use the 18-55 more or 55-200 more? Does it make sense to have both?


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Mar 18, 2010)

Hi Helen,

I haven't seen the D3000 or the D5000 in person, all I know is what I read on the Internet.

Keep checking the different sites, and get opinions from people that ownand usethe D3000/D5000.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/



The $646.95 kit has the 55-200mm AF-SDX *VR* lens (two different lens). It is a better lens because it has the Vibration Reduction feature which is handy for a longer zoom. The $596.95 kit does not have VR, on the 55-200 lens.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Autofocus/High-Power-Zoom.page



The 18-55 lens and the 55-200 lens would cover most of your photographic needs.This combination wouldgive you18-200 mm range, but you have to switch lens if you go from wide to telephoto.

I have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 lens, so I have would have toplay withthree lens. 
Depending on your style, the 18-55 lens would be on your camera most of the time for wide angle, group, close up shots. The 55-200 lens would be outdoor, telephoto, head and shoulder shots.


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 18, 2010)

*Pet_Bunny wrote: *


> The $646.95 kit has the 55-200mm AF-SDX *VR* lens (two different lens). It is a better lens because it has the Vibration Reduction feature which is handy for a longer zoom. The $596.95 kit does not have VR, on the 55-200 lens.


Stan's right - my mistake. I didn't catch that the 55-200 on the cheaper kit wasn't VR. I'd go with the VR kit, no question. It's well worth the extra $50. You will get noticeably sharper pictures under lower light conditions with the VR lens.


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 18, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> Also, realistically would you use the 18-55 more or 55-200 more? Does it make sense to have both?


Yes, it makes sense to have both. 

It depends on what you're doing, but I suspect you will use the 18-55 more. It's an everyday lens, covering wide angle to telephoto. The 55-200 zoom is purely telephoto, and the 55 end is a bit long for comfortable shooting of close subjects. When you're taking pictures of more distant objects, though, the 200mm end of the longer zoom will be very useful.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks to you both.

Now having read more, the attention turns to the in-body focus motor. Googling around got me some opinions of basically what I want to do, how much I'm willing to spend over time, what I want to do in photography over time... It's really just thrown another wrench in my decision-making process. In this discussion the D90 comes into play too. 

Are you sick of my waffling yet? 

I don't think I will take up photography as a serious hobby-- but then again who knows -- I'm thinking I should just bite the bullet, buy the D3000 and buy the built-in autofocusing lenses to go with it as a one time camera-to-lens cost. 

I guessI don't have to worry about the D3000/D5000 kit zoom lenses being able to autofocus. However,I am looking into a prime lens for some bunny hopping action shots. _Are all the lenses that say XXmm f1.x_ *AF* _usable on the D3000/D5000?_ I'm having trouble understanding the difference between AF and AF_-S._ There's a huge price difference (~$140) between these two. If it's only a matter of "loudness" during the autofocus mechanism, but both will work with the D3000/D5000 then, I wouldn't care as much and probably go with the cheaper plain AF lens. If I have misunderstood the two features and only the AF-S will work with the D3000/D5000 lacking the in-body focus motor, then I would have to seriously consider the D90 as a matter of long-term cost savings on lenses...

I hope I am making sense -- this is all so new and confusing!


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 19, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> However,I am looking into a prime lens for some bunny hopping action shots. _Are all the lenses that say XXmm f1.x_ *AF* _usable on the D3000/D5000?_ I'm having trouble understanding the difference between AF and AF_-S._


All Nikon autofocus lenses are _usable _on the D40/60/3000/5000, but only AF-S and AF-I lenses will _autofocus_. 

Any Nikon lens which has AF or AF-D in the lens name is capable of autofocus only with those Nikon bodies which have the motor - basically, any autofocus Nikon except the newer less expensive models like the D40/60/3000/5000. 

Any Nikon lens which has AF-S (or the rare and expensive AF-I) in the name is autofocus, and has the built-in motor, so they will autofocus with any autofocus Nikon body, whenever made. 

Put another way, the D40/60/3000/5000 only work properly with AF-S lenses (they will use, but not focus, AF lenses), the D90 will work properly with any AF (AF, AF-S, AF-I, AF-D, etc) lens, and the D300/D700/D3 will work properly with any Nikon lens including manual ones (with a few very old or very exotic exceptions). 

There isn't necessarily a direct price relationship between AF and AF-S lenses, as many of the AF-S lenses are the less expensive ones sold with kits and many of the AF lenses are the more expensive professional-grade ones. 

Clear?

Ken Rockwell's got an exhaustive list of all Nikon lens codes at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 19, 2010)

*MikeScone wrote: *


> *kirbyultra wrote: *
> 
> 
> > However,I am looking into a prime lens for some bunny hopping action shots. _Are all the lenses that say XXmm f1.x_ *AF* _usable on the D3000/D5000?_ I'm having trouble understanding the difference between AF and AF_-S._
> ...


Yes, thank you.:hug:I get it now. This does really further complicate my decision, though! 

If I were to make a sweeping statement, I'd say the D90 is a real safe (in terms ofoverall lens cost)way to go if I am planning on buying more lenses in the future. It's more versatile and I wouldn't have to manual focus anything, pretty much no matter what I buy.

Conversely, if all I will be doing is stick with 1 or 2 really broad coverage, workhorse lenses, I might as well go with the D3000 and get the AF-S prime lens that I was thinking about.

Decisions, decisions... inkbouce:


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Mar 19, 2010)

*MikeScone wrote: *


> Clear?



I know it can be hard andoverwhelming. 
We have camera shops that have a 2 week return policy, that if we don't like the camerawe just bought, we could return it.I know a friend bought a camera and took it to Hawaii and returned it for a different camera.

A few members on ROhave the Nikon D90.



You can download the different manuals from Nikon.

http://nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D3000_ENnoprint.pdf

http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D90_ennoprint.pdf


----------



## Boz (Mar 19, 2010)

I have the D5000 and I love it! I have pictures on my blog that I've taken with it. Check it out!


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 20, 2010)

*Boz wrote: *


> I have the D5000 and I love it! I have pictures on my blog that I've taken with it. Check it out!



I actually remember commenting on your snow bunny pix! They were very nice. The pics of your hammies are even more amazing. :shock:

I need to get my hands on a dSLR asap!


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 23, 2010)

Ok after allll that agonizing, I ended up with the D5000 anyway! Adorama was doing a deal and I got refurbed camera body and 18-55mm VR lens for $525. I was willing to pay $375 for the refurb 3000 model but for $150 more I simply cannot buy a point and shoot that will take HD video. I searched up and down yesterday for a point and shoot that I'd want to buy and the prices just don't add up for me.

I'm on my way home right now so we'll see how this baby shoots when I charge it up!!! Excited!


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 23, 2010)

Here are some shots on auto with the D5000 in the rabbit room where the lighting is really lousy and it's a very dark and cloudy day out. Flash is on, but Kirby's black fur is still alright.

















"mom, no more pictures please?"

Toby looks ok too but he's snoozing so he didn't want to be bothered.






The result on auto is definitely better than my old point and shoot on auto. I found that when I took pics with flash on in the small rabbit room with my old point and shoot Lumix, the pictures were almost always flooded with light. The dSLR did a pretty good job of making everything look fairly natural.

Without flash, there was still too much blurring, but I guess that's to be expected. 

The camera is quite heavy, especially when I start to contort myself into weird angles inside of the bunny pen. I am finding it quite an adjustment using the viewfinder. The d5000 has liveview in the LCD monitor but I don't really know why, it doesn't snap pictures right away when I hit the shutter. I have to hold it down like a few seconds before it takes the picture. I probably have to read the manual.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 25, 2010)

Calling all Nikon D5000 owners!

Do you have the same problem I do? I find that if I try to use LiveView, it takes forever to autofocus, several seconds long.

I was very disappointed to read the article below when I googled the issue...  Do I have any recourse? Other than find out what Adorama's return policy is? 


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D5000/D5000A.HTM
Autofocus. Though the Nikon D5000's phase-detect autofocus speed tested very well in our lab tests, turning in 0.27 single-point and 0.35 auto-area AF shutter lag numbers at wide angle, I noticed *considerable AF lag while shooting indoors in low light situations, especially in Wide-area AF mode. At first we considered whether it was the kit lens's f/3.5 maximum aperture, but the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G gave us the same trouble, sometimes taking a second or more to make a decision.* It's nice that the Nikon D5000 has an AF-assist lamp, but it really doesn't speed things up much. The Canon XTi I have at my desk is considerably faster in both modes, though it too is slower in auto-area AF, just not as slow.


*In Live View mode, which uses contrast-detect autofocus, it gets worse. In the lab, we averaged 2.3 seconds to focus*. That's not great. It's exacerbated by camera movement, so attaching a VR lens does have some positive effect, but not much. Live view on the Nikon D5000 is best used on a tripod, where you can move the AF point around and let the camera do its work slow and steady. Consumers should know up front that the Nikon D5000 focuses much slower in Live view than the all-in-one digicam that they're used to. Adjust your expectations accordingly, and you'll be happy.​


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 25, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> Do you have the same problem I do? I find that if I try to use LiveView, it takes forever to autofocus, several seconds long.


I never use LiveView - it's really defeating many of the benefits of getting a DSLR. The only reason for LiveView is for very unusual situations where you can't use through the lens viewing, of which I haven't found any (and for movies, I guess, which I have no interest in). 

With LiveView you're using the DSLR as if it were a point-and-shoot, and yes, like a point-and-shoot it's slow to focus and introduces shutter lag and viewfinder lag. It's also not as accurate on focus as regular shooting with through-the-lens viewing as it uses a different (and inferior) autofocus system. 

Rather than return the camera, I'd just give up on LiveView and use the DSLR as it was intended to be used, as an SLR.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 25, 2010)

I use live view because I simply can't get the buns in certain angles. as flexible as I would like to consider myself, I just don't fit into some spaces in the bun pen. If at all possible I'd get down on my stomach and use the viewfinder. Sometimes the angle is impossible.

Live view is a waste of time and effort I suppose. Shoots decent movie clips though.


----------



## MikeScone (Mar 25, 2010)

*kirbyultra wrote: *


> I use live view because I simply can't get the buns in certain angles. as flexible as I would like to consider myself, I just don't fit into some spaces in the bun pen.


I sympathize. More than once I've just put the camera in the pen, pointed it generally, and pushed the shutter. That's how I got this shot, with the camera held down in Scone's cage:






It never occurred to me to use LiveView for that - it's too slow, and I still couldn't get my head in the cage to get a useful angle of view on the screen. 

Luckily, digital photos are free, so point and snap and see what you get is my theory.


----------



## Little Bay Poo (Mar 25, 2010)

*MikeScone wrote: *


> More than once I've just put the camera in the pen, pointed it generally, and pushed the shutter.


I do this all of the time with Ronnie. He has a tendency to run into me for pets, humps, or treats, and will also bump his head into the lens. Unlike my point and shoot, it is impossible for me to see what I'm snapping on a DSLR when I'm dealing with a subject like Ronnie. So, like Mike, I aim, watch the red lights shine on Ronnie to ball park where I'm focusing, and click. More often than not, I get better pictures this way (in situations where the ability to use the viewfinder is constrained). 

Here's a couple using this method:


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Mar 25, 2010)

I don't use live view either.I won'tcare forvideo if I had it too. I am an old fashion photographer that uses and shoots a regular SLR type camera.

In a situation if I triedlive view,the camerawould be on a tripod to shoot landscape or still life, so the time it takesto focus is not important.

Just master your technique and make the best of the camera. 










You just get a feel towhere the focus points are when you don't look thru the viewfinder.


----------



## kirbyultra (Mar 26, 2010)

Thanks for everyone's advice! Exciting new beginnings


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Mar 26, 2010)

*Pet_Bunny wrote: *


>









This was the picture I posted from the gallery.


----------

