# nikon choices



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

i currently have a d40 and i do alot of sports photography for my school and just for fun (paintball)

what nikon should i step up to next


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

has anyone had any bad experiences with it

and i wanna hear the good ones toooo


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

i was actually signing on to write a post about the D5000 i received in the mail today. my girlfriend has been using my D50 until now but she's been unhappy with the poor ISO performance above ISO400. so i ordered her a D5000 yesterday, got it today and started playing with it.

first thing i can say is i really though the D5000 was in the same league as the D90, but it's truly not. not even close. as far as basic image quality they are identical. ISO performance is good, IQ is good, metering sucks compared to the D90 and i can't figure out hot to shoot continuous. the D5000 has basically no dedicated controls which drove me insane.

i would consider the D5000 more of an enhanced D60 than a stripped down D90. i thought i could use the D5000 as my second body when my girlfriend isn't with me but so far i really prefer the D50 over the D5000.


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

well do u have any idea on what i should step up to on what nikon makes now


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

what do you have now?


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

d40


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

ok, now why do you feel you need to upgrade?


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

In his quote he talked about the D90!   that is the step up above the D60 and the D5000

I think I would really go with the D60 before the D5000.  

As I research everything it looks more like the D5000 runs with the D60 but with Live View and Video?

Others my argue my thought but it is my thought!   If you want a step up from D5000 then you go to D90


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

i need something a lil faster and higher megs so i can prvoide my yearbook production this year with a pic that isnt blurry like alot of the one they had this year


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

How much are you looking to spend?


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

Jeffro said:


> In his quote he talked about the D90!   that is the step up above the D60 and the D5000
> 
> I think I would really go with the D60 before the D5000.
> 
> ...



well... let me add this. even though i hate the D5000 after using it, for most scenarios the increased ISO performance over the D60 is probably worth the additional $250 if it's in your price range and the D90 isn't. *EDIT* don't get me wrong, the D5000 is a great camera, but it does not compare to the D90


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

whatever just as low as possible
and maybe something that will work with my current 18-55 form ym d40 and a sigma 70-300 that ill soon be getting


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

As low as possible then I say stay with the D40 it is a good camera... If not Put a number to it?

600?   1000?  1500?


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

prob 600-800
i also want to go with something to work in low light conditions ok
cause of basketball and cheer stuff


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

Then that price range narrows you down... 

D60 or D5000 but you could also look for a used D90 on alot of sites and Ebay??  WATCH the sellers you buy from!

I dont think you are going to need anything more than the D90....   But have you had the chance to play with the D5000 yet yourself?

It might not have been what ITZNFB was looking for but it might work out really well for you


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

nahmy uncles said to find a photo forum and see what others think bout it cause i really need something better than my d40 its kinda slow for what i shoot which is soccer track paintball cheer and last but not least softball


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

either the D5000 or D90 would work. find a store that has them both and try them out.


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

oh ok
i have sammys or bel air camera that i know of near me

if u had to choose what would u say


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

Then if you want burst shots the D90 is the one but like I said you will have to find a used on.   I wont even tell you about how awesome the D300 is!!! WOW!



IF I HAD TO PIC ONE OF THE D60 or D5000 I would take the D5000!

If we are picking between D5000 or D90 I take the D90


so 
FIRST   D90
Second D5000
Third    D60


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

thanks guys


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

Very welcome!!! Keep posting your shots here!! I am new here too and I really like this forum so far!!! Great people and you can learn alot!


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

again, i'd take the D5000 over the D60. to me, the D5000 is just a new revision of the D60.

to be more specific, the things i didn't like about the D5000 that immediately turned me off:
1 Poor metering performance
2 slower focusing (non-afs)
3 body size
4 no lcd on the top
5 lack of front command dial
6 lack of additional dedicated controls
7 flip out lcd
8 no continuous shooting???? the site says there is but i couldn't find it in the manual or figure it out
9 seemed like there was a little delay in the shutter release, and the sound it makes when the shutter actuates is annoying

if those things don't bother you than the D5000 might be perfect for you


----------



## Rere (Jul 7, 2009)

Google some info about the D5000--there's lots out there. I've heard different things about it. I've read that this camera (and the D90) were brought out for their video components, rather than for still photography. 

I have a Nikon D100, D70, and D60. The D60 can do practically all that the other Nikon DSLRs can do--and more than some!!! Of course, it can't do video. The body is smaller and lighter, which makes it great for the field. The only thing the D60 doesn't have is Auto bracketing for Exposure Compensation--though you can do it manually. 

I believe that your lenses have a lot to do with the quality of your images if you have a good basic digital camera that has A, S, and M, modes on it. Check out some of the images here that people have taken with the D60 and some taken with the more expensive (what's considered above an "entry level" camera) and you'll see what I mean. I've seen not so good photos shot with the top of the line cameras, and spectacular ones shot with the D60.

 The photographer has a lot to do with it. A mediocre tennis player can buy a tennis racket that a champion tennis player uses, and it won't do a thing for the mediocre player's game.

There's talk of Nikon coming out with a D400--an upgrade to the D300--but so far they are only rumors. There are some Nikon user forums out there.


----------



## itznfb (Jul 7, 2009)

Rere said:


> I've read that this camera (and the D90) were brought out for their video components, rather than for still photography.



this is not true. while the D90 and D5000 did add video (and it's a stupid addition) that is by no means the reason for the nikon to release these cameras. the D90 is vastly superior to the D80, and the D5000 is vastly superior to the D60. too many reasons to list.


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

D300 is way out of his range so no real reason to bring it in even thou I kinda did.... LOL


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 7, 2009)

so sohuld i do the d90 or d5000

but wait theres more

which one will wokr with the lenses that wokr with my d40


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 7, 2009)

Both will work 

I still say go to the store and hold them both and play around a little! 

They are both good cameras but is money is ok then pick the D90

I might be buying the d90 tomorrow morning


----------



## Garbz (Jul 8, 2009)

Why the camera?
Have you explored all the other places where you'd get more bang for buck. Like lenses, decent flashes?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jul 8, 2009)

D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens 

Enjoy.


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Jul 8, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens
> 
> Enjoy.


 

Pff, thats exactly what I want.  I second this motion.  :thumbup:

Though I reeeealy like the full frame D700 I just cant see dropping the extra cash.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 8, 2009)

Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost  identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 8, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Rere said:
> 
> 
> > while the D90 and D5000 did add video (and it's a stupid addition)
> ...


----------



## Rere (Jul 8, 2009)

I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients, and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes; and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other. And by the time the lighter cameras' bodies give out newer, lighter, and more mp cameras will also have come and gone).

 I'd list more reasons here, but you'll get more from your own research and not the opinions of people out there who do not own the d60 (or tested the quality of the images) or who really haven't researched it _themselves _and are saying what they have read or heard from other people who also haven't personally done this. 

Now I'm doing what I'm advising you not to do, and that is to listen to a quote from  another photographer close to me. He said that the D5000 is basically a "point and shoot" camera. I personally don't know how much truth is in this statement, but I do know, personally that one cannot say that about the D60. 

Just some of my thought and opinions. To each his own.

Good luck on whichever camera you choose


----------



## Jeffro (Jul 8, 2009)

Let us know when you decide!


----------



## kundalini (Jul 8, 2009)

peanutbuttersports said:


> i *need* something a lil faster and higher megs *so i can prvoide my yearbook production this year with a pic that isnt blurry like alot of the one they had this year*


The D40 is more than capable to handle that need. The higher FPS or MP's is not the answer. There are three answers that come to mind straight away. 

1) Learn how to properly expose for your shots. 
2) Learn good shooting techniques.
3) Get yourself an external flash and learn about how light works and how to manipulate light.
.
.
okay, 4) better glass....... 




Sachphotography said:


> Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.


Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:


----------



## Rere (Jul 8, 2009)

Quote: Originally Posted by *Sachphotography* 

 
_Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range._




> Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:




Okay, I'm presuming that you and the first quote writer are using a D60 and know the exact differences between the two cameras?  See the previous page with my post.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 8, 2009)

Rere said:


> Okay, I'm presuming that you and the first quote writer are using a D60 and know the exact differences between the two cameras? See the previous page with my post.


Your presumption is incorrect, but I do know how to read specs.




> I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients,.


6MP will still give a very clean enlargement if exposed correctly.



> and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes;


A $15 Giottos air blower works wonders.



> and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) *(metal)* instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. *(plastic)*.


Using the heavier metal bodies is like doing curls with dumbbells without the gym membership that never gets used.



> But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other.


I&#8217;d give the edge to metal chassis since there are still many out there that are several decades old and still in use and clicking happily away.


The point was not to say the D60 is not worth having, but instead, the upgrade fron the D40 to D60 is not a financially viable option. Stepping forward of the D60 is where one should be looking to upgrade. I still have my D80 and like it very much when I want to go small and lightweight. But it can't hold a candle to the D300 or D700.


This is my opinion only.


----------



## Rere (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, thanks, Kundalini for being so nice about our differences of opinion. You really do keep to the PACT. I could keep arguing (like telling you that some commercial clients will not hire you if you don't have at least a 10 or 12 mp DSLR, and that I had to blow out my other two DSLRs constantly, which was really a pain to do), but, I've hijacked this thread too much as it is.

 Just wondering if the D40 has Active D Lighting. I love it on the D60, keeps detail in the highlights and shadows if the contrast is too much for a properly exposed picture. My D70 and D100 lack this and do not produce near the quality images that I get from the D60. 

In the future I'd like to upgrade to something like the D300. But don't want the weight of the d300. So bought some books on the d60 and have learned a lot more about this camera than I ever could from the specs online or the manual that came with it. For now, I'm about to order the Sigma 150-500 OS lens for Nikon and the teleconverter, which has good reviews. 

By bringing out all of these different models and lenses so often, Nikon (and other companies) keep us buying, don't they?

Love this website!!!!!


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> peanutbuttersports said:
> 
> 
> > i *need* something a lil faster and higher megs *so i can prvoide my yearbook production this year with a pic that isnt blurry like alot of the one they had this year*
> ...


 
aaaaaaaaand that's the ballgame.:thumbup:


----------



## kundalini (Jul 8, 2009)

Aww, c'mon Rere, I was having a bit of fun while at work and waiting for three Project Managers to return calls for answers.... that's all.  Not poking fun at the D60 or their users.

I keep the Active D-Lighting set to OFF in camera, but use it quite often in Capture NX after exporting from Lightroom 2.  There's only a few tools in CNX that are worth keeping the resource hog of a program on my computer and ADL is one of them.

The Sigma 150-500mm weighs in at +4lbs.......... hmmm, maybe that gym membership ain't such a bad idea after all.  

I thought the PACT was for critique btw.


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 8, 2009)

well the d40 doesnt keep up with the sportrs i shoot

i need something faster and higher megs cause of the thing i use the shots for


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 8, 2009)

Rere said:


> I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients, and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes; and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other. And by the time the lighter cameras' bodies give out newer, lighter, and more mp cameras will also have come and gone).
> 
> I'd list more reasons here, but you'll get more from your own research and not the opinions of people out there who do not own the d60 (or tested the quality of the images) or who really haven't researched it _themselves _and are saying what they have read or heard from other people who also haven't personally done this.
> 
> ...




The D60 is what it is. It is not a bad camera. After using one I felt it was a little lacking. Yes it shoots 10.2 but that is about where the goodness stops. Trying to differentiate between the d40 and d60 is very small. They are almost identical in every aspect. I have used them both side by side. I choose the D80 over both of those cameras as it is a significant step up. The point I was trying to make was that moving from the d40 to the d60 would be a move that would not offer very much at all. 
Heavier materials area  pain to handle in the field? WHAT? I would so rather be shooting with a durable magnesium body than a flimsy plastic body. I was shooting waterfalls today in 5 feet of water with my camera about 6 inches out of the water. I would want a heavier body that has better water protection. I sports is what he is shooting. I would say move to the D200. It has a body that has better water resistance for shooting in rain and has a better FPS for sports. I would not shoot sports on a d40/d60. Plus moving up to a d200 or similar would offer the ability to use non AFS lenses due to the fact it incorporates the motor in the camera itself. And um just FYI the Mag bodies are going to hold up for a lot longer than the plastic body will. They are made to be more rigid and long lasting. The better bodies will run circles around plastic bodies. seriously.......


----------



## Rere (Jul 9, 2009)

I also shoot sports--mainly Taekwondo testings and tournaments. I've used my D70, D100, and D60 with the SB 800 speedlight. Get good results with all.

My friend, another photographer who is also a pro, has the D200 and because it's so heavy uses it mainly in her studio. To each his own. I'm in pretty good shape---Kundalini--(got my black belt last year in taekwondo), but I think you can be quicker in sports, wildlife, and every kind of photograpny with a lighter camera. Plus when you put a 4 lb (like the Sigma 150-500 OS lens) onto the camera you add more weight, and I feel the lighter weight for this is a plus--not a minus.

 That's my own opinion, though, since I hate tripods and don't use one even in the studio setting. With my studio set-up I move around the room with my camera a lot. Believe me, with pets (I do a lot of pets with their families), this is important. I also use the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, among others,and love the VR and OS lenses.

In my studio (either at home or on location with studio strobes I use the small flash on the camera to set off the strobes. In fact, the pictures are better with the D60 than with my other two DSLRs _and_ to use it in with the strobes I don't have to go into the CSM menu to set it up like I do with the other two cameras.

Has anyone here heard of a possible D400 that Nikon might bring out? Read some rumors on other sites.


----------



## itznfb (Jul 9, 2009)

c'mon now... the D40/60 has nothing on the D80/90/200/300

as far as a D300s/x/400 or whatever it may be... no one knows. i talked to a Nikon sales rep and he said he didn't even know. (he very well could have been lying) but all he said was there are new products coming out in august. that could be a new lens bag for all i know though.


----------



## Crazydad (Jul 12, 2009)

peanutbuttersports said:


> well the d40 doesnt keep up with the sportrs i shoot
> 
> i need something faster and higher megs cause of the thing i use the shots for


 
I still say the best investment right now would be glass. If you are going to be shooting basketball, the kit lens with either body is not going to cut it. You really need a faster lens.

I would suggest the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM. It will auto focus on the D40 and is a sharp lens. The larger aperture would allow you to get a faster shutter speed so the shots aren't "blurry".

I would use that for a while and save up for at least the D90 or D300. Just jumping to a new body for a higher mp count doesn't make sense if you are not getting a faster lens.


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 12, 2009)

i have the lensevi just need the mp and fps now


----------



## Crazydad (Jul 12, 2009)

In that case, go for the D90 body only. It has more control and the in-body focus motor which opens up the use of older lenses. plus, the onboard flash can act as a commander for wireless flashes like the SB600.

Think of the D5000 as a D40 with the D90 sensor (plus video - if that matters).

I had a D60 for a year and just upgraded to the D90 - wonderful camera.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 12, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens


 



 



Arkanjel Imaging said:


> Though I reeeealy like the full frame D700 I just cant see dropping the extra cash.


 


 



Garbz said:


> Why the camera?
> Have you explored all the other places where you'd get more bang for buck. Like lenses, decent flashes?


 


 





:lmao::lmao::lmao:​


----------



## peanutbuttersports (Jul 12, 2009)

lenses and flashes are not really needed for what i do

i only shoot indoors for cheer

and thats when i use my uncles 600 flash

and he doesnt mind he rarley uses it anywyas


----------



## Rere (Jul 13, 2009)

There's a great in-depth review of the D60 on Photo.net.


----------



## Joves (Jul 13, 2009)

Well since you already have a body that doesnt work with all of Nikons lenses I would say the D90. The D5000 to me is the same as your D40. The D90 will open your lens choices later.


----------



## Josh220 (Jul 13, 2009)

D90 at the very least, D300 if you can afford it.


----------

