ampguy
Veteran
This camera, which I've only used in a Costco, seems like the deal of the year. Or is it just me?
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Agreed—it's a helluva camera from what I can tell. If I were taking a long trip, it'd be my choice.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
A new DSLR never is the deal of the year - there is almost nothing non-edible that depreciates quite as fast as them. But it might cause used D5000's to become the deal of the year...
ampguy
Veteran
I think this model, and it's sibling the 7000, are really going to put the nail in the coffin for film ...
braver
Well-known
Again?
I don't think film users are following DLSR releases that closely. I sure ain't. I'm watching film availability (it's fine these days). So, what's this one about then? Is it full frame?Edit: Oh, I read something about it now. D-lighting, HDR, swivel screens, more pixels than you can swing a scanner at... any local electronics store has had those on offer for years already.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Digital's been banging in the lid nails of film's coffin for a long time now ... so, just another one really!
Seems like a great camera though.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The sensor is the same as the D7000, the Sony A55, and the Pentax K-whatever.... so whichever is the least expensive yet decent box to house it in... is the deal of the moment. Nikons are known for having good metering and auto-focus, Pentax for using legacy lenses and nice build quality, Sony for loading on all kinds of features, bells, whistles....
Those Sony Nex cameras, as awkward as they are, also have a great sensor.
It's a shame the camera companies, whose job it is to build a box to operate the sensor, can't refine these boxes a little better, especially after 50-60 years of feedback. The user interfaces at still so especially bad....
Those Sony Nex cameras, as awkward as they are, also have a great sensor.
It's a shame the camera companies, whose job it is to build a box to operate the sensor, can't refine these boxes a little better, especially after 50-60 years of feedback. The user interfaces at still so especially bad....
Last edited:
PatrickCheung
Well-known
Being a Nikon user for the past few years, I feel as if the D5100 is just another "trap" for the uneducated beginner. No motor drive or wireless flash system (i think) is a huge no-no for me. I'm using the D7000 and it's great, video, motor, wireless flash system, great low light handling. I've also heard great things about the D3100 (which I think are the best deals, great sensor, small size, low price, and everyone wants video now).
I just shot a wedding using the D7000... it really made me wish I had a digital M. They're just too big and heavy. Wide angle lenses exhibit huge ammounts of distortion, autofocus is not always spot on and the viewfinders are too small for quick and accurate manual focusing.
DSLR's might be sealing the coffin for film, but to me, they'll never replace the rangefinder. No bull****, just straight shooting. That's something that can't be topped.
I just shot a wedding using the D7000... it really made me wish I had a digital M. They're just too big and heavy. Wide angle lenses exhibit huge ammounts of distortion, autofocus is not always spot on and the viewfinders are too small for quick and accurate manual focusing.
DSLR's might be sealing the coffin for film, but to me, they'll never replace the rangefinder. No bull****, just straight shooting. That's something that can't be topped.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I wonder about sensor technology because it seems to be going ahead in leaps and bounds of late but obviously not in the direction that is going to suit Leica and their digital M with it's handicapped lens to film plane distance courtesy of choosing to stick with a heritage design!
There are so many sub $1500.00 cameras out there now that can kick the M9's butt image/dollar wise (particularly above ISO 1600) that it makes you wonder where Leica will go to next. I'm sure a sensor could be developed to give better results at that difficult registration distance but what company would spend the money to develop a sensor for them based on how many units they can sell in world dominated by DSLR's like this latest little gem from Nikon?
I'm not bagging the M9 here because it has it's own qualities unique to a rangefinder, I'm just curious about how they will deal with this. Especially if someone else builds a DRF based around the needs of the sensor rather than a particular style.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
For me, it's the sensor properties, specifically the dynamic range, which is now wider than film. Second, it's what it's not, which is the heavy D7000. It's barely larger than the D40/3100, but has the same sensor as the D7000.
In other words: D5100 > NEX > M9 > M8 (except for IR and 1/8000 shutter).
Sure, it will be a different line up next year, but things always change.
In other words: D5100 > NEX > M9 > M8 (except for IR and 1/8000 shutter).
Sure, it will be a different line up next year, but things always change.
ChrisN
Striving
For people who enjoy the qualities and characteristics of film, and who enjoy using their film cameras and processing film and printing in the darkroom, no digital camera is ever going to be an adequate substitute. No digital camera can provide such a satisfying (and sometimes frustrating!) set of experiences and involvement in the photo-creating process.
That said, I certainly appreciate the quality of images produced by my Pentax K5 and its excellent Pentax prime lenses. If this new Nikon has the same sensor, it should be quite good, for a digital.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Dynamic range ! To use an analogy, finally the level of an MP3 song compared to a vinyl record is reached ...
Frank Petronio
Well-known
While I haven't tried a 5100, I am skeptical of it's auto-focus compared to the 7000. My wife has a D60 and its AF sucks to the point that it's inadequate for portraits, kids, and running around. Of course if I didn't know from using better cameras then I might think that's the way it is supposed to be ;-/
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Frank
Hi Frank
The AF speed on AF-S non screw drive bodies like the D5100 (and D60) are dependent on the lens. So if you get a fast AF-s high end lens, it should focus fast.
dpreview says it focuses faster than equivalent Canons, fwiw.
With my D40x, slow lens focus slow (e.g. kit lens, 3rd party Sigma 70-300, etc.). While prime AF-S lens, even the low-end 35/1.8 G, are snappy.
There are tricks you can do with some zooms, like getting them in the range so the AF works quicker, and some zooms have range limiting switches (e.g. turning off macro mode) to speed up the AF.
Definitely try them both out, they're in most major electronics and box stores. The D7000 to me, feels about twice the size, and I can't imagine carrying it around regularly, while the D5100 is about the size of the D40/D60.
They both feel very plasticky, but the D7000 does have some weatherproofing, while the D5100 likely has little/none. Like a Leica.
Hi Frank
The AF speed on AF-S non screw drive bodies like the D5100 (and D60) are dependent on the lens. So if you get a fast AF-s high end lens, it should focus fast.
dpreview says it focuses faster than equivalent Canons, fwiw.
With my D40x, slow lens focus slow (e.g. kit lens, 3rd party Sigma 70-300, etc.). While prime AF-S lens, even the low-end 35/1.8 G, are snappy.
There are tricks you can do with some zooms, like getting them in the range so the AF works quicker, and some zooms have range limiting switches (e.g. turning off macro mode) to speed up the AF.
Definitely try them both out, they're in most major electronics and box stores. The D7000 to me, feels about twice the size, and I can't imagine carrying it around regularly, while the D5100 is about the size of the D40/D60.
They both feel very plasticky, but the D7000 does have some weatherproofing, while the D5100 likely has little/none. Like a Leica.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I think it's just 'a nail' (not 'the' nail) and yet another in a long line of many, but it's going to take more than a couple of consumer model DSLRs to put the old girl down for good.
However, Nikon does have some decent models in their DSLR line—all of which are 'good enough' for most purposes.
/
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Frank
AFS lenses are a puzzle to me, my 50/1.4 AFD will focus faster than the 50/1.4G AFS lens on my D700. I think the speed and accuracy of focus depends on how good the camera's AF system/module is and not so much on it being AFS or screw drive.
Bob
AFS lenses are a puzzle to me, my 50/1.4 AFD will focus faster than the 50/1.4G AFS lens on my D700. I think the speed and accuracy of focus depends on how good the camera's AF system/module is and not so much on it being AFS or screw drive.
Bob
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Moot point on the 3000/5000 series, they only play with AF-S. The 35/1.8 DX is a great lens and the new 50/1.8 G looks nice too. Now for a reasonably fast wide DX prime that costs less than $400 and maybe some serious photographers could consider these more seriously?
nightfly
Well-known
I'd need a fast wide prime (28-35 equiv) that isn't giant to consider something like this.
It always makes me laugh that the bodies get smaller but the lenses are always huge and not wide enough.
I'll keep my GRD III for digital for now. Low iso files look good and the lens is nice.
It always makes me laugh that the bodies get smaller but the lenses are always huge and not wide enough.
I'll keep my GRD III for digital for now. Low iso files look good and the lens is nice.
I'd say if you are into 50mm or longer lenses, it is a thrifty purchase that will allow one to make great photos...but the Bees Knees?
robert blu
quiet photographer
I m planning to buy a DSLR for my wife (and occasional use for me) to replace her F70 and it seems me that 5100 could be the correct choice (on paper, not yet tried). Size, weight, articulated LCD and easy to use are more suitable to my wife comparing with the D-7000. And the price has the benefit to leave some money left in the family photo budget for a possible m9 in future, if one day I'll...
robert
robert