Canon 500D or Nikon D5000?

Von Luck

Von Luck

Von Luck

Soldato
Joined
24 Nov 2005
Posts
2,508
Have got fed up with the poor low light performance of our compact when taking indoor pics of our toddler - you have to use flash otherwise the longer exposure blurs the manic little fella and the non-adujustable flash washes him out. Used my father-in-law's 400D at the weekend and the output with flash was so much better it was daft.

So going to get a DSLR. I had a 450D a while ago (flogged it on here actually) which I liked but I found the images very soft. Having read up a bit more it seems like that's just down to the default jpeg settings and can be tweaked?

Currently looking at either the 500D (can't justify the extra money for the 550D) or going Nikon with the D5000, using both with the kit lens.

Anyone have any experience of these? Reviews say that both are good and there's less than a fiver between them in price.

Anything else around the £475 mark (including a lens) or cheaper I should consider? Not interested in shooting video.

Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
Back when I was first looking, the 500D and D5000 were the choices that I was looking at as they had only just come out. I went with the 500D although this was mainly due to system choice, especially lens compatibility (the in lens/body AF spooked me with Nikon, although I know better now!) at the budget end. I have to say though, that now I would most definitely be having a very close look at the D3100. It's hard to beat in that price range.

Have you thought about buying second hand?
 
I have looked at them all and got a nikon d5000 yesterday,the d3100 felt like a toy to me the 5000 is a mans camera just the right size for me.

Its my first dslr and its amazing could not be happier.

Its basically a D90 in a smaller body same sensor metering ect,plus the swivel screen rocks! just go get it!
 
Thanks for the comments & suggestions - went down to Lakeside yesterday to try the various models out. Although the D3100 has a nice chunky grip, I found the positioning of the sprung lever to activate live view annoying, as my thumb tended to rub against it when shooting. Preferred the layout of the Canon.

Not bought anything yet, will head to Best Buy again before the weekend for some more camera fondling. ;)

The 3100 must be popular as every shop I went into only had display models remaining.
 
This is CRYING out for a 40D + Tamron, but the cheapest i've managed to find would be £550 2nd hand, but it's worth considering as it would take better photos than the xxxD + 18-55 (Either IS or non IS) would take.

However, if it's out of your budget it's out of your budget!
 
Concorde Rules said:
This is CRYING out for a 40D + Tamron, but the cheapest i've managed to find would be £550 2nd hand, but it's worth considering as it would take better photos than the xxxD + 18-55 (Either IS or non IS) would take.

However, if it's out of your budget it's out of your budget!
Click to expand...

I really don't think it is, he's buying an SLR because the response times and low light capabilities of compacts are rubbish, that's a market the entry level DSLRs were almost designed to cater for. If he wanted creative control and the like and to learn about exposure, aperture and the like fair enough (though I'm still not sold on the previous generation prosumer vs new amateur argument myself).

In his position the D3100 sounds great, or stretching to a 550D. Either will do exactly what you want...
 
Having spent the afternoon trudging between Best Buy, Currys and PC World to get my hands on as many (camera) bodies as possible, I'm starting to think I might need to raise the budget, as I find all of the lower-end DSLRs a bit cramped to hold.

I found the Nikon D90 ideal and the Pentax K-7 even better (although the poor low light performance mentioned in reviews of the K-7 puts me off a bit).

Thinking perhaps a D90 body + 50mm f1.8 lens? Should certainly solve the low light issue and could get both new for under £650, as opposed to the £769 which Currys wanted for the D90 with kit lens.

Concorde Rules said:
This is CRYING out for a 40D + Tamron, but the cheapest i've managed to find would be £550 2nd hand, but it's worth considering as it would take better photos than the xxxD + 18-55 (Either IS or non IS) would take.

However, if it's out of your budget it's out of your budget!
Click to expand...

Not even considered a 40D - what Tamron lens were you thinking would be good? Cameraworld has a 2nd hand 40D body for £450.
 
Gun9 said:
I have looked at them all and got a nikon d5000 yesterday,the d3100 felt like a toy to me the 5000 is a mans camera just the right size for me.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm biassed or anything, but how can you consider the D3100 to be a toy when it produces better pictures than the D5000? No point having a bigger camera unless its going to take better pictures... :o
 
Better image quality 72.0 vs 67.0
Around 10% better image quality

Dynamic range Significantly more dynamic range 12.5 EV vs 11.3 EV

1.4 f-stops more dynamic range



Sensor size Significantly larger sensor APS-C 23.6x15.8mm vs APS-C 23.1x15.4mm



Continuous shooting Shoots faster 4 fps vs 3 fps


More than 30% faster continuous shooting
Color depth Better color depth 22.7 bits vs 22.5 bits

Distinguishes more than 10% more colors

so no the toy 3100 does not take better photo's plus the rear screen is really Poo.

for gods sake its exacty the same sensor as The D-90 so the 3100 is better than that also?

no you are wrong!
 
Last edited:
bigredshark said:
I really don't think it is, he's buying an SLR because the response times and low light capabilities of compacts are rubbish, that's a market the entry level DSLRs were almost designed to cater for. If he wanted creative control and the like and to learn about exposure, aperture and the like fair enough (though I'm still not sold on the previous generation prosumer vs new amateur argument myself).

In his position the D3100 sounds great, or stretching to a 550D. Either will do exactly what you want...
Click to expand...

That may be the market, it doesn't make them the best performance/price ratio tho does it?

As for the latter argument, why can't the 40D do that as well? :confused: It has the 'green box mode' as well as all the proper modes, just as the xxxDs do. Besides, he says the lower end bodies doesn't feel right in his hands, where as a 40D would be much better being a bigger body.

@ Von Luck:

Either of the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, one is IS/VR (Image stabilisation) and one is non VR, the former being about £80-100 more than the non-VR.

As I said above, to get a 40D+Tamron 17-50 F2.8 you are looking at £550 at a minimum.

However, as I haven't used the Nikon's and haven't been looking at samples of them I'm a tad biased, but a number of people on this forum post the same thing about the 40D & Tamron combo so hopefully im not too far off the mark ;)
 
Last edited:
Thinking perhaps a D90
Click to expand...
I agree the D90 is a really good camera, It took a bit of getting used to the settings at first,( being my first DSLR ) but I found the Ken Rockwell site very informative in helping me get to grips with mine.......I've had it for about 14months now and have been really happy with it. But now I've seen the D 7000 I'm going to trade up to one of those.
 
Guys, thank you for all the suggestions and comments.

As a result I've had a complete change of mind and have gone second hand. Have just ordered a Canon 40D body plus 4gb CF card, card reader and the Canon 50mm f1.8 as a starter, came in almost on budget at £500.

Will let you know how I get on with it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom