# Nikon D5000 VS Canon EOS Rebel T1i



## BOOSTED (Nov 9, 2009)

Hey,

New to the forums and I am tired of the regular digital cameras and looking to spend the extra money on an SLR. Out of these two cameras what would you get and why? And what things should I be looking for? Main things I like to shoot would be cars. And example on someones Flickr that I like and somewhat want my shots like would be:
Flickr: Rockets.'s Photostream

Thanx!

Also both kits would be the 18-55 lens unless people suggest other


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 9, 2009)

I would also look into the new Pentax K-x.  It just came out and has been garnering quite a bit of acclaim as being the best entry level on the current market.  It's pretty jam packed with feature, is pretty cheap and the noise handling is amazing.  I have one right now that I'm testing and it's pretty impressive.  I honestly think that it might be the best aps-c for handling high ISO noise.  ISO 6400 is really clean, and 12,800 is surprisingly usable.  I don't know enough of the features of the three cameras to give you a point by point comparison at the moment, but it's definitely worth your time to check into it.  It's a mighty impressive little dslr.


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 10, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> I would also look into the new Pentax K-x.  It just came out and has been garnering quite a bit of acclaim as being the best entry level on the current market.  It's pretty jam packed with feature, is pretty cheap and the noise handling is amazing.  I have one right now that I'm testing and it's pretty impressive.  I honestly think that it might be the best aps-c for handling high ISO noise.  ISO 6400 is really clean, and 12,800 is surprisingly usable.  I don't know enough of the features of the three cameras to give you a point by point comparison at the moment, but it's definitely worth your time to check into it.  It's a mighty impressive little dslr.



Thanx I'll do some research on that.


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 10, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> I would also look into the new Pentax K-x.  It just came out and has been garnering quite a bit of acclaim as being the best entry level on the current market.  It's pretty jam packed with feature, is pretty cheap and the noise handling is amazing.  I have one right now that I'm testing and it's pretty impressive.  I honestly think that it might be the best aps-c for handling high ISO noise.  ISO 6400 is really clean, and 12,800 is surprisingly usable.  I don't know enough of the features of the three cameras to give you a point by point comparison at the moment, but it's definitely worth your time to check into it.  It's a mighty impressive little dslr.




Do you mind posting some sample pics cant seem to find any on the web.


----------



## TodaysPhoto (Nov 10, 2009)

It's hard to beat the D5000 when weighing cost against capabilities. Just my 2 cents worth...


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 10, 2009)

TodaysPhoto said:


> It's hard to beat the D5000 when weighing cost against capabilities. Just my 2 cents worth...



I can get the Canon for $810, Nikon for $850, Pentax for $650.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 10, 2009)

Whichever you find cheapest.  I would also look at the Nikon D3000; it can be had significantly cheaper refurbished (good as new) with lens and will perform the same as the D5000 - just without video and the swivel screen.  But then who cares about that really. . .

I would caution against the Pentax only if you are interested in the "used market" (which you should be) for future camera upgrades.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 10, 2009)

When you buy an SLR camera, you are buying into a system which includes lenses, flashes etc.  So give a thought to that as well.

It's not hard to know that Canon & Nikon are the big players and will have the most options in terms of lenses & accessories.  The Pentax system isn't bad though.  

It should be noted that the entry level Nikon DSLR cameras don't have their own focus motors, so while you can still use most Nikon lenses from the last 30+ years, some of them won't AF with these cameras.


----------



## KmH (Nov 10, 2009)

The D5000 has better dynamic range, color depth, Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), ISO performance and overall RAW image quality than the T1i:

Here is an independent side-by-side comparison. The comparison is only about image quality, not features.

I will mention the D5000 has color aware Auto Focus and Metering, but the Canon doesn't. Neither camera has an in-the-body focus motor.


----------



## KmH (Nov 10, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> It should be noted that the entry level Nikon DSLR cameras don't have their own focus motors, so while you can still use most Nikon lenses from the last 30+ years, some of them won't AF with these cameras.


It should also be noted that none of Canon's cameras have their own focus motors.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 10, 2009)

K-x has it's own focus motor.  I'll try to post up some pics tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 10, 2009)

> It should also be noted that none of Canon's cameras have their own focus motors.


Yes, but ALL of their compatible lenses do...unlike many Nikon lenses.

The trade off is that Canon switched their lens mount back in 1987, so their SLR lenses made prior to that, are not compatible with new cameras.  Nikon didn't switch their mount when introducing Auto Focus, so you can still mount old Nikon lenses to new Nikon cameras....the only issue being that the new entry level DSLR cameras don't have the focus motor like higher level bodies do.
For most people, this won't be an issue at all....but some might be disappointed if they expected their new camera to fully work with older lenses they might have or want to buy.


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 10, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> > It should also be noted that none of Canon's cameras have their own focus motors.
> 
> 
> Yes, but ALL of their compatible lenses do...unlike many Nikon lenses.
> ...



I was at a few camera shops today they said the Pentax no where compares to either the Canon or Nikon. I was thinking of getting a bigger lens not jut the 18-55. Is it cheaper to buy a body then a bigger lens? or a 18-55 kit then buy a lens? or a upgraded kit like and 18-55 and some other one?. Like I was thinking with a different lens stores offer the D5000 for about $1200 why not pay $100 more for a D90 then you get a better body and a good lens like a big one. I might give you a call lol


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 10, 2009)

BOOSTED said:


> I was at a few camera shops today they said the Pentax no where compares to either the Canon or Nikon.  lol



Did they say why?  Most camera shops are filled with such Canon/Nikon fanboys that it's not even funny.  I've had salespersons tell me that what ever pentax thing isn't as good as whatever canon/nikon, then when I ask them to tell me why, they don't even know the specs.  I would love to hear their reasons for why the K-x doesn't come close to the T1i or D5000.  

FPS: K-x - 4.7  - win
        D5000 - 4
         T1i - 3.4

MP: T1i - 15.1  - Win
      K-x - 12.4
      D5000 - 12.3

ISO - K-x 200-6400 expandable to 100-12,800  - Win
        T1i 100-3200 expandalbe to 100-12,800 
        D5000 200-3200 expandable to 100-6400

Screen - T1i 3.0" 920,000 dots - win
             D5000 2.7" 230,000 dots
             K-x 2.7" 230,000 dots

Video - T1i 30fps 1080p  - win
           K-x 24fps 720p
           D5000 24fps 720p

AF - K-x 11 points, 9 cross type  - win
       D5000 11 points, 1 cross type
       T1i 9 points, 1 cross type

IS - K-x - in body, works with any lens  - win IMO
      D5000 - in lens
      T1i - in lens

I'm bored now.  I don't mean that to be an extensive comparison, nor am I trying to say that the K-x is he best of the bunch, but that is surely enough evidence to lay aside any claims that the K-x "no where near compares to the canon or nikon".  Having handled all three, it think the K-x feels the most solid, and like the ergo on it, but that could be opinion.  

For $200 less, it's a pretty serious contender, even if it's only just as good as the other two. For $1200 you could have the K-x with the Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8, which is a pro quality, amazing lens.  Or for $850 you could have it with the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-300.  It looks like the d5000 is the clear loser of the bunch, and the T1i has the edge on the K-c in a few places.  But I would wager that the K-x pulls ahead of the pack in High ISO and IQ.  

I don't have the K-x at the moment, my wife does, but I might be using it for a shoot tomorrow.  I'll try and get some pics up.  After all, none of that crap I listed matters much, it's the images that matter, and more so, it's the photographer.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 10, 2009)

BOOSTED said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > > It should also be noted that none of Canon's cameras have their own focus motors.
> ...



Holy **** no way in hell would I pay 1200 bucks for a entry level camera with lens.  You could get a refurbished Nikon D300 for that cost!  Seriously before you spend any money - let us know your budget.  You can be directed to quality refurbished cameras for a lot less saving yourself a ridiculous sum of money.  

As for the retailers - they no doubt told you that so you wouldn't be disappointed when they told you they didn't carry Pentax.  Pentax's lens lineup might be "weaker" but theres no camera on the market that isn't able to produce excellent photos.


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 10, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> BOOSTED said:
> 
> 
> > Big Mike said:
> ...




Everyone carries Pentax or at least all the camera stores I went too and Futureshop so I don't see any biast things on that part. They also told me to stay away from Sony they're garbage.

All kits come with an 18-55 lens kit which is good but in the future is it worth it? Like should I purchase a body and lens separate?. Like the 5000 has 3 different options 18-55 Kit, Body, 18-55 and 55-200, 18-105.

The prices range from $850 for the 18-55 kits to $1100 *SALE*. I was thinking like when upgrading lens and stuff I might aswell get like a D90 those come with a good lens. 

Main thing Im shooting is cars I want my photos similar to this guys:

Flickr: Rockets.'s Photostream


----------



## DScience (Nov 10, 2009)

BOOSTED said:


> GeneralBenson said:
> 
> 
> > I would also look into the new Pentax K-x.  It just came out and has been garnering quite a bit of acclaim as being the best entry level on the current market.  It's pretty jam packed with feature, is pretty cheap and the noise handling is amazing.  I have one right now that I'm testing and it's pretty impressive.  I honestly think that it might be the best aps-c for handling high ISO noise.  ISO 6400 is really clean, and 12,800 is surprisingly usable.  I don't know enough of the features of the three cameras to give you a point by point comparison at the moment, but it's definitely worth your time to check into it.  It's a mighty impressive little dslr.
> ...



lol that's cause most people have Nikons or Canons...go look at all their web sites and see the lens selections. If you, like most, want really nice fast quality glass, at a low price (in comparison to Leica) then Nikon or Canon are the ones. However, low price is still a lot.

I have looked at the Pentax...I don't doubt it's great. But I just love the glass selections, among other things that Nikon has to offer. For instance I love it's CLS, look into that.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 11, 2009)

Ok, here are some quick and dirty photos, just to show the ISO capabilities.  These are all straight from the camera RAW files.  They could look much better with some NR.  Don't compare these to the out of camera jpegs from the canon or nikon which already have NR applied.  The only way to compare what a sensor can do, is raw for raw.  ISO 6400 is completely usable, and ISO 12800 looks like it could be pretty usable, especially with good NR PP.  It's most likely the best APS-C camera in regards to high ISO.   

Pentax K-x
Pentax DA* 16-50mm F/2.8

ISO 1600






ISO 3200





ISO 6400





ISO 12800


----------



## thebeatles (Nov 11, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> ISO 12800



That looks like my G9 photos do at 600-800 ISO


----------



## BOOSTED (Nov 11, 2009)

Thanx for the pics but looks like Iam going to pass on a Pentax

For the following which kit should I get:

Nikon D500:
-Body $750
-18-55 Lens Kit $840
-18-105 Lens Kit $1000
-18-55, 55-200 Lens Kit $1050

Canon T1i:
-Body $870
-18-55 Lens Kit $850
-75-300 Lens Kit $1100

**Just To Note Might Be Over Budget But If It Worth It Ill Take It Into Consideration **
Nikon D90:
-Body $979 
-18-105 Kit $1279
-18-55 Kit $1129


----------



## Layspeed (Nov 11, 2009)

I was on the fence between the Canon T1i and Nikon D90.  I ultimately chose the Nikon for two reasons.  1.  I liked how it felt using it and the controls.  2. I found a 18-105 refurbished kit from Adorama for less than $1K  It's worked flawlessly and I like it a lot.  I doubt I'll ever out grow it as I'm not that serious about photography, yet.  Look into it.  In the end, the person behind the camera takes good photos, the camera is a tool.  You say you like taking pics of cars, well you know in auto racing the driver wins races, not the car.   Good luck with whatever you choose.  I'm certain any entry level DSLR will serve your needs just fine.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

BOOSTED said:


> Thanx for the pics but looks like Iam going to pass on a Pentax
> 
> For the following which kit should I get:
> 
> ...



Compared with
Nikon D90 (Refurbished by Nikon which means as good as new):
- $760
Nikon 50MM F/1.8 (Refurbished by Nikon):
- $99

Buy used.  Do not buy new.  Your camera will be "used" within weeks of you purchasing it, and will look and operate exactly as a "used" (refurbished) camera.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 11, 2009)

thebeatles said:


> GeneralBenson said:
> 
> 
> > ISO 12800
> ...



I know.  Its pretty absurd, and weird ot get used to.  I would/will shoot without concern at ISO 3200-6400 on this camera, when I used to needing to be cautious above ISO 1600.


----------



## KmH (Nov 11, 2009)

DScience said:


> ....... But I just love the glass selections, among other things that Nikon has to offer. For instance I love it's CLS, look into that.


Unfortunately, the D5000 doesn't have CLS's Commander Mode.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 11, 2009)

KmH said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > ....... But I just love the glass selections, among other things that Nikon has to offer. For instance I love it's CLS, look into that.
> ...



The K-x has a commander mode, and can control the compatible Pentax flashes wirelessly.  Sorry, I'm not a Pentax salesperson, but it's a damn impressive camera for $650 with kit lens.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Whichever you find cheapest.  I would also look at the Nikon D3000; it can be had significantly cheaper refurbished (good as new) with lens and will perform the same as the D5000 - just without video and the swivel screen.  But then who cares about that really. . .
> 
> I would caution against the Pentax only if you are interested in the "used market" (which you should be) for future camera upgrades.



The D3000 is based on an old CCD sensor while the D5000 is new CMOS sensor. I doubt they perform the same.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 11, 2009)

itznfb said:


> The D3000 is based on an old CCD sensor while the D5000 is new CMOS sensor. I doubt they perform the same.



You're right - they don't... not even close.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > The D3000 is based on an old CCD sensor while the D5000 is new CMOS sensor. I doubt they perform the same.
> ...



/sigh - I'm not even going to get into this.  However if you two think those two entry level cameras are so disparate in practical performance that an individual would be hard pressed to NOT find a difference in image quality - well I suppose theres a few in every crowd.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 11, 2009)

I've had the D40, D60, D80, D200 as well as a D90... there's a huge difference in high ISO performance from CCD to CMOS, if you deny that then I'm sorry, you're one of the few, not me...


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

Yea I mean the difference between the D200 and D90/5000 above ISO400 is like night and day. Makes the D200 look like a point and shoot. I've owned all 3 with the D90 and D200 having 200,000 clicks on each and to my knowledge the D3000 uses the D200 sensor.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> I've had the D40, D60, D80, D200 as well as a D90... there's a huge difference in high ISO performance from CCD to CMOS, if you deny that then I'm sorry, you're one of the few, not me...



Reread my statement.  And then go through your photographs, and count the number of high ISO shots you've taken, and among those the number of high ISO shots you didn't delete, and among those the number of high ISO shots you actually took from camera to LR to PS and among those the number you actually kept to be displayed.

Technical performance versus practical performance.  There is a difference most pixel-peepers and "gear heads" will sadly never be able to appreciate.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> > I've had the D40, D60, D80, D200 as well as a D90... there's a huge difference in high ISO performance from CCD to CMOS, if you deny that then I'm sorry, you're one of the few, not me...
> ...



I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Both my hobby photography and my commercial work require high ISO quite often. With D90/D300s many of my final shots are ISO1600-3200. Many shots from my D200 were just thrown out due to noise starting above ISO400. I mean the sharpness and noise control on the D90/5000 at ISO3200 is better than the D200 at ISO800. I just don't know what you're comparing here... doesn't sound like we're on the same page.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 11, 2009)

I don't need to... I've actually used both, apparently you haven't if you can't tell the difference between them - even on print.

Before the D90 I didn't keep much over 800 ISO, it looked like crap without some noise reduction done. Now I'll print photos at 1600 or even 3200 ISO without a second thought, straight out of the camera. The D200 for whatever reason was one of the worst, 800 ISO was really pushing it on that camera.

This is just my experience of course, your mileage may vary.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

> I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.



That's ok.  It's probably not meant for you then.



> Both my hobby photography and my commercial work require high ISO quite often.



You just used anecdotal evidence to argue generalities.  That's not really how that works.  Now if the OP is going to be doing alot of low light shooting then certainly this is something to pay attention to.  Something tells me they aren't even there yet.



> I don't need to... I've actually used both, apparently you haven't if you can't tell the difference between them - even on print.



Because that's what was said right?  I mean I get it - you want to argue.  And that's fine, that's what internet forums are for.  But at least make sure you're aware of what is actually being argued.  Like I said, reread the statements made.  I'm not concerned about technical gotchas; what works in real world continued use for the average shooter - that's what I focus on.  Feel free however to supplement any recommendations with link backs to DXO.com and the like.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 11, 2009)

Shooting as a beginner is even more likely to encounter high ISO. If you use Auto ISO you are likely to be shooting at 800 ISO or higher, especially with a kit lens.

You keep saying to re-read what you wrote...



> the Nikon D3000; will perform the same as the D5000 - just without video and the swivel screen



The major difference here is the sensor... CMOS vs CCD, CMOS will out perform CCD any day of the week.

Regardless, the topic is D5000 vs T1i, both are CMOS sensors anyway.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

I actually recommended the OP go with the D90 as they suggested they might do.  It's understandable you passed that up.  As I've said before, the desire to post is rarely partnered with a willingness to read.  

Cest la vie.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 11, 2009)

Backtrack much? That's not what you were arguing about... but whatever.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok.  It's probably not meant for you then.



Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000... which is terrible advice because it's 100% incorrect. So I just don't see where you're going with this argument.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

> Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000



Youre assigning meaning to a statement instead of asking for clarification.  Nevermind that I already clarified what I said.  No the "ISO performance" on the two bodies isn't going to be the same.  Math will demonstrate why thats not possible.  The real world, practical performance and use of the two however will be.  If you disagree - that is TOTALLY fine.  But again before you do so, be sure - as you said - we are arguing on the same page.  



> Backtrack much?



Never actually.



> That's not what you were arguing about... but whatever.



Before you stepped in and offered your welcome rebute to my post, I wasn't arguing my statement because it doesn't need to be.  I am now arguing this point because it seems you are incapable of "getting it" (or perhaps you're just having a laugh and want to have a go):  for practical purposes those two cameras are going to perform the same, take the same shots, wow the same in-laws and inspire the same consumner satisfaction.  If you want to drag out charts of how the D5000 performs better in X-Scenario over the D3000 thats totally fine, and I will suggest that the OP put that little bit of knowledge in their backpockets for when (if ever) they get to that shooting situation.  However that has never been what I said, or what anyone not looking for a pissing match would ever infer.  The two cameras technical performance will be different because they are (oh my stars and garters) different cameras.  Common sense real world users however will be beleaguered to find a difference.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 11, 2009)

Both cameras are good. As a T1i owner, I can say I'm very happy with it. 
I will add this- forget 1080p video. It's only 20fps. That might not seem a big difference between cinematic 24fps, but it's noticeable. I shoot 720p @ 24fps and that's fine. Smaller file sizes, too.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you. This is not an opinionated matter. You are just flat out incorrect. The D5000 does not perform better than the D3000 in x scenario. It performs better than the D3000 in EVERY scenario.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

> My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you.



They should.  Because I'm right.



> This is not an opinionated matter. You are just flat out incorrect. The D5000 does not perform better than the D3000 in x scenario. It performs better than the D3000 in EVERY scenario.



I'm just curious what part of "practical purposes" esacpes you.  Not to be a dick (well maybe a little since I think you're being dense on purpose), but I'm really stunned on how this argument is escaping you.  You insist on arguing the "technical" superiority of one camera over another, and fail to understand no one is arguing that.  You seem incapable of appreciating the fact that the QUALITY leap between the D3000 and the D5000 is not this wide chasm that will make folks slap their sides of their face and exclaim "My god - the difference is clear. . .Clear eyes!"  And that's cool, willful dissonance and all that jazz.  

Mazel tov.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2009)

I decided after reading all these arguments to stop by an impartial source,and to compare the new D3000 against the output of cameras I am actually familiar with, so I went here:  Nikon D3000 Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

You know what? I think the D3000 is inferior to both the D40 and the D60 in terms of high-ISO output. ALso, the D3000'S autofocus system had problems with their test target AND it had an average outdoors out of focus rate of 7 percent--a terrible performance for a Nikon d-slr camera, in my opinion. They state that the D90 and the D5000, which like the D3000, share the same AF module, do NOT suffer from this autofocusing problem.

I would not buy a D3000, just based on looking at the sample shots,and reading about the AF system's performance. Simple as that.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um... actually it is. How long have you been using both the D5000 and D3000 or D200?

You're obviously the one being dense on purpose trying to pretend that ISO400 isn't practical. I mean seriously... ISO400.

You're right? I honestly don't think you'll be able to find one person that agrees with you.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

*This reply brought to you by DERREL and Image-Resources.com:*



> Um... actually it is. How long have you been using both the D5000 and D3000 or D200?



I'm eating a sandwhich right now.  That statement has about as much relevance to the discussion as yours.  



> You're obviously the one being dense on purpose trying to pretend that ISO400 isn't practical. I mean seriously... ISO400.



Blow my brains out.  Now.  I mean really.  You people can not read.  Who said that?  Did I say that?  Help me out here fella cause, I'm not finding it anywhere in my replies.  But **** I'll bite.  Show me these ISO400 shots of the D5000 that so absolutely DOMINATE the ISO400 performance of the D3000 to render it near obsolete and a joke for consideration and place it's performance on an entirely different plane of existence than it's lower brother.  Please.  

Nevermind I'll do it for you:

D3000!  Woohoo! And, D5000. . .holly crullers!

You're right - the D5000 clearly and impossibly blows the living creme filling out of the D3000 at 400.  Bowled over I am at the quality difference.  And I'm sure at a PRACTICAL resolution (read: not full size) the quality disparity would be even greater.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

Where do you get your weed? I think it's making you hallucinate.

okay I'll add something more relevant....
From our hero Ken http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000/high-iso-comparison.htm

The D3000 doesn't even compare to the D40 at ISO200. I've experienced the same using them first hand in a variety of scenarios. The D3000 is a turd based on ancient technology.

Even in the pictures you posed the D3000 has a retarded amount of color noise.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

So you're saying. . .that at 100% crops, the camera with the newer sensor displays less noise?  Why. . .I've been so blind!  Damnit!  The hopes and dreams of hobbyist shooters who aggressively crop their photographs and display them at large print size have been dashed if they have a D3000!


----------



## itznfb (Nov 11, 2009)

lol. Play it off all you want dude. You're way off. And your advise in this thread is completely wrong. I advise everyone to ignore it.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 11, 2009)

No need to "play it off".  I don't edit my replies or recant; no need to.  Anyone not pixel peeping and with a shred of common sense will be able to qualify for themselves whether the image quality of a D5000 is worth the cost over the D3000.  Or they'll be able to realize what most folks have already been able to get.  Hit me up when you join the rest of us; beers on me.


----------



## Dao (Nov 11, 2009)

Who need the best of the best camera to take a good photo?  I am happy with my Canon 40D.  

If my photo is not good enough, it is not my camera.


----------



## itznfb (Nov 12, 2009)

Dao said:


> Who need the best of the best camera to take a good photo?  I am happy with my Canon 40D.
> 
> If my photo is not good enough, it is not my camera.



You say that like the 40D is some slouch. I'd take a 40D over a D5000 any day.


----------



## seokarbonn (Jun 12, 2010)

The best price for 
  Canon   EOS Rebel T1i  that I found so far is here:
http://www.upiq.com/api.php?pid=84124229


----------



## ZWolfe21 (Jun 12, 2010)

> Everyone carries Pentax or at least all the camera stores I went too and Futureshop so I don't see any biast things on that part. *They also told me to stay away from Sony they're garbage.*



Thats a bit insulting. Sony isn't Garbage. The higher in the Sony line you go the more Nikon and Cannon start to win out, but what you'll notice is that the cost comparison doesn't hold up either. Sony may only be a hobbyist's Camera Line, which is fine, but they're capable of some very good photos. I've got a 4 foot print hanging on the wall where I work right now that came off my a200. 

The only reason I even swtiched to Nikon myself is because I got a very good deal (less then half cost) on my D300. If a salesmen ever tells you to stay away from Sony, 90% of the time it is because they don't make as much money off Sony, they're line doesn't cost nearly as much as Nikon or Cannon. They still have very good stuff.

BTW: Many many cameras these days, Nikon included, usually have Sony sensors in them :er:


----------

