What camera should I buy?
If I were one of those guys who had a readership, I might receive this question frequently.
“Dear Tim, with all the digital cameras out there, how can I know which one to buy?”
I have received that question a few times in the past year from some friends. (One went with my advice, while the other jumped into the Canon world.) And what I’ve been telling them is what I’ve been telling myself: get a Nikon D90.
But wait. I’m realizing now that it’s not quite that simple. A D90 is going to be too much of a camera for most. And what about those great Canon’s out there?
Now I don’t personally believe that a Nikon is “better” than a Canon… it really just comes down to what you prefer based on the feel of the equipment. It’s like getting a new puppy. You’re gonna like some at the pet shop better than others and you’ve just got to make your choice and love it and learn how to care for it once you’ve got it.
I entered the DSLR market in 2006 and went with a Nikon simply because I liked the solid feel of it. (And Ken Rockwell’s review didn’t hurt either.) After that choice was made, I ended up getting lucky by receiving 3 very nice lenses, all for the Nikon, from friends along the way. The body itself is but a small fraction of the entire package of equipment and now that the collection has been started I’m darn likely to continue using Nikon.
From the Nov. 2009 issue of “Photography Monthly” I’ve just finished reading (from the U.K.), I’ve been convinced of a few things: if I don’t follow this stuff closely, I’ll very soon be out of date (just like anything in technology) and I’ll still be recommending stuff that might no longer apply. I’ve also learned that there’s something called “bridge” cameras now which help to “bridge” the gap between those who are used to using point-and-shoots but want to upgrade their equipment and abilities to override settings and get better images.
But for those who want a true DSLR but aren’t looking for full frame sensors (and consequently spend easily double the cost), there’s a few new offers out there from Nikon.
The D3000 is currently considered the replacement for the D60. It offers 10.2 megapixels and a handy intelligent guide mode for novices. (On the Canon side of things, the EOS 1000D is it’s closest cousin.) At $600 it’s a bargain. However, the D3000 doesn’t have an HD movie mode (nor does the Canon EOS 1000D or the Sony Alpha 230, another cousin of similar ranking). For me, movie making and photography go hand-in-hand. I love the idea of using one piece of equipment to get both video and stills, as much of my own filming comes in short bursts. But does it really mean I can use a DSLR to get quality video?
The D5000 (12.3 megapixels, Hi Def video, 2.7″ LCD, Live View, EXPEED processing) is also an affordable choice at $600 (body only) and does have filming capabilities. It is the replacement for the D80, slotting itself between the D40 and D90. It uses the same 12.3 megapixel CMOS sensor that is on the D90 but adds another bell (or is it whistle?) with the flip down and swivel LCD. The D5000 is constructed of polycarbonate over stainless steel. (Canon’s closest competitor is the EOS Rebel T1i). One of the most attractive features of the D5000 is the quietness with which it shoots. Perfect for shooting on the sly.
Ken Rockwell’s review points out the following: “The D5000 is Nikon’s least expensive camera with the same technical image quality as the $4,300 Nikon D3 in normal light, but unless you’re making prints at least three feet (1 meter) wide, it just doesn’t matter. It requires a very skilled photographer to get great photos from any camera; buying a technically better camera has nothing to do with getting better photos.” About the video feature, Rockwell warns “the D5000 can record video and mono sound as a goof, but any camcorder gives much better moving picture and sound quality. The Nikon D5000 has relatively poor video and audio quality, and can’t focus while you shoot. Just buy a camcorder if you want video. (Nikon doesn’t make camcorders, so they’re not going to tell you that.)” I like his honesty.
The D90 ($800) is touted as the world’s first high definition movie SLR. It’s still a very popular camera and my top choice. But the D300s (a bit newer than the D300), running at about $1500 as of this post (12.3 mexapixels, self-cleaning sensor, Hi Def video, dual card slots–1 SD and 1 CF, magnesium alloy body) is another option when a bit more money is available. Still, in regards to the video function, Rockwell calls it “a gimmick” and is “useless for things that move”. With double that money, I might go with the entry-level of Nikon’s full frame sensor cameras: the D700 running at about $2400 (12.1 megapixels, Live View, EXPEED, full frame sensor). It replaces the older D3. But, unless you do a lot of shooting in the dark or use ultra-wide lenses, it looks like the D300 will do mostly the same thing as the D700 but for a lot less money. (For more reviews of each of these models, visit the ever-honest kenrockwell.com.)
And, after taking all this into consideration, I still long for a D90.
