Debate : Expensive body/Cheap lens v Expensive Lens/Cheap body

B16JUS

B16JUS

Messages
166
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
No
I would like some view on this for e.g

e.g i have a d3000 with a few good lenses but am in thought to chop the body and get a d90 so

d90 v d3000 same lens same setting on the cameras would the d90 take a better pic ?

J
 
i think the d90 uses the same sensor as the d5000, but i have no idea about the d3000 but i don't think there is much in it!
 
If I had to choose I'd go for a cheap (new) body and expensive lens.

I borrowed a friend's D5000 in Afghanistan and to prove a point to both her and myself, did a couple of low-key 'easy' jobs with it, using my 24-70 f/2.8 (which felt a bit unwieldy, it has to be said).
By the time I'd done what editing I do for Press release, those images were to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from those taken on my D3 bodies.

It wouldn't cope with everything I throw at my D3 bodies by any means - and it's not meant to. But it would get by until it fell apart.
 
Ordinarily I'd say "cheap body and good glass" - it doesn't matter how many megapixels your camera has, if you're trying to take pictures through a lens with all the optical qualities of the bottom of a milk bottle then the IQ is going to suffer.

Why then did I say "ordinarily"? Because in your case the lack of a motor in the D3000 is going to limit the pool of useable lenses available unless, of course, you like manually focussing...
 
.

Google..... .this....Nikon D90 vs D5000 vs D3000
 
B16JUS said:
d90 v d3000 same lens same setting on the cameras would the d90 take a better pic ?
Click to expand...

Essentially, no, and I'm normally the one suggesting cheaper body and more expensive glass too, but FITP's point about not focusing with non AF-S lenses is worth considering.

If you're only planning on using AF-S lenses, then no problem. If you think you'll be picking up some regular AF lenses at some point (and there are some corkin' good ones out there), then go for the D90.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Ordinarily I'd say "cheap body and good glass" - it doesn't matter how many megapixels your camera has, if you're trying to take pictures through a lens with all the optical qualities of the bottom of a milk bottle then the IQ is going to suffer.

Why then did I say "ordinarily"? Because in your case the lack of a motor in the D3000 is going to limit the pool of useable lenses available unless, of course, you like manually focussing...
Click to expand...

Not sure that is strictly true anymore, there are a great many AF-S lenses available now and not all of them are top end by any means.
 
In the old days of film the answer was easy go for the glass but with digital you have to consider noise control and other sensor related situations,the other thing is that the 90 is a bit smaller and will it feel as good to use as the 300 especially with big heavy glass on the front
 
He said 3000, not 300. :)

The 3000 is even smaller than the D90.
 
PsiFox said:
Not sure that is strictly true anymore, there are a great many AF-S lenses available now and not all of them are top end by any means.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say there are "a great many", some, yes, but the lack of an af motor still limits the D40/60/3000 etc owner's field of choice.
 
please do not take this too serious

cheap camera cheap lens (low budget / getting started)

cheap camera good lens (getting more interested)

good camera Cheap lens (as above but want to do more)

good camera good lens (im takeing this serious)

just remember that good lens cost.

Cheers Steve
 
CaptainPenguin said:
As its the 3000 though I bet thats very iffy with big glass on the front
Click to expand...

Aye, it might be a little front heavy, although I have always wanted to try a D3000 or D5000 with my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 just to see how it feels. :)
 
Kaouthia said:
Aye, it might be a little front heavy, although I have always wanted to try a D3000 or D5000 with my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 just to see how it feels. :)
Click to expand...

You want "front heavy"........:D

launch.jpg
 
B16JUS said:
would the d90 take a better pic ?
Click to expand...

Only you, the photographer can make it take a better pic.

I'd always say buy the fastest lenses you can afford. Camera bodies change so fast with the progression of the technology that its pointless spending top whack unless you've got a specific requirement for a cameras particular features.
The D90 is a better camera than the D3000 in many ways, but as far as image quality goes, it'll only produce what the user programs it to.
 
Love the pic Flash.

I have a 70-200mm that I couple to a D60 and I have no idea why the centre of gravity is important. it works just fine.

Flash in the pans set up looks a little more tricky though!
 
Kaouthia said:
Aye, it might be a little front heavy, although I have always wanted to try a D3000 or D5000 with my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 just to see how it feels. :)
Click to expand...

A bit wierd on the D5k...the balance with the 24-70 bolted-on was 'interesting' and we tried the old 80-200 as well...which was even more odd after the D3...
Can you get a grip for the D5k? It'd be better then I think...
 
Interesting so it seems a good lens is needed more than a good body, BUT everyone refers to the d3000 as a entry level body so would this not sway the decision or is it still classed as being able to take a fantastic shot.
 
I'd usually say better glass, but having been in a situation where I upgraded from a D60 to a D90, I'd definitely go for the D90.
 
B16JUS said:
Interesting so it seems a good lens is needed more than a good body, BUT everyone refers to the d3000 as a entry level body so would this not sway the decision or is it still classed as being able to take a fantastic shot.
Click to expand...


Any modern camera is capable of taking a fantastic shot in good conditions, good light etc, with a better body you get the chance to take better pictures in fading light with better high iso performance etc. It's not just that but that's a big one.
 
I reckon Expensive Body/Expensive Lens is the way to go, can't take the money with you
 
Always invest in glass but do not totally scrimp on the body!

A D90 with 70-200 f2.8 would be better than a D300s with 70-300 for example but I wouldn't get a cheapo D3000 body without the focus motor.
 
B16JUS said:
Thats what i currently have and deciding weather to change or not, prob looking at £300 - £350 to change to a d90
Click to expand...

Excellent choice. My son is doing his A level in Photography from September and his current camera is a D40x. I really need to upgrade it to a D80+ or upgrade my D200 to a D300/s and give him the D200.... The lack of a focus motor is an absolute pain.
 
Maybe hang on a bit if you are thinking about the D90, replacement must be due soon and more than likely a drop in price of existing stock
 
Arkady said:
A bit wierd on the D5k...the balance with the 24-70 bolted-on was 'interesting' and we tried the old 80-200 as well...which was even more odd after the D3...
Can you get a grip for the D5k? It'd be better then I think...
Click to expand...

yes....here's a Hahnel D40 grip I kept and now fits 99% on D5000

with a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 HSM -----perfect

there is a slight mismatch on one end but works 100%
.
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
B16JUS said:
Interesting so it seems a good lens is needed more than a good body, BUT everyone refers to the d3000 as a entry level body so would this not sway the decision or is it still classed as being able to take a fantastic shot.
Click to expand...

D5000 over D3000 any day.......:thumbs:

incoming...........:exit:

..
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
Seems to be a lack of buttons for the oft used settings, presumably they are menu based,is the D90 the same?

Would put me off a bit compared to their Canon counterparts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top