Nikon D5100 or Sony A57

fozzybear

fozzybear

fozzybear

Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2004
Posts
7,653
Location
Manchester
I've had a sudden improvement in my finances so I'll be buying a new DSLR/SLT in the next few weeks.

I'm torn between the Nikon D5100 and Sony A57. I've got around £750 to spend on the body and one lens.

My thoughts:

Buy the Sony A57 (with crappy kit lens) for £560. Sell the kit lens and claim the £30 Sony cashback. Then I'm looking at buying the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) for around £250. The body and lens combo would cost me around £750.

or

Buy the Nikon D5100 for £419 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 for around £340. Total of £759.

For me, the only huge plus about the D5100 is it's sensor. I'd no doubt be shooting outdoors in lower light so it's high ISO performance would be a bonus. The pluses of the A57 to me are it's larger body size, faster FPS, better auto-focus with video and in body stabilization.

My main use for the camera would be fast paced sports like horse racing.

I've ruled out buying Canon, especially their APS-C bodies.

Any ideas? Should never have sold my Sony A580 really! :confused:
 
DigitalREV have the A65 for £569,

The OLED viewfinder is that bit nicer again then the A57, and whilst absolutely no advantage (or disadvantage) at higher ISOs, at low ISO, I guess 24MP does allow for more 'cropping'..

It also has GPS built in..

The only A57 advantage I know is the upper Auto ISO is ISO3200 rather then ISO1600 and the max fps is 12 (but reduced resolution), the A65 is 10fps at full res..

I know a lot of people think more MP = worse noise at high ISO, and if you look at them 1:1 at the pixel level, this is true, but if you compare at the same size, worse case there is no difference, best case is you do still get more detail. Many have done tests recently on DPReview to prove the science behind that stands true, and it does..

Just food for thought, the A57 has reduced the A65 price down, and it's worth considering just for the slightly nicer OLED VF..
 
The Sony A57 has just been put up £25 at the place I was looking at so the D5100 is now looking the favourite.

I'm not sure about getting an A65. I'm not too keen on the high ISO performance on that or the A77. The A57 is supposed to be slightly better.

The Nikon D7000 would be ideal for me really. My head is telling me to save a bit more cash and get that instead although I'm paranoid it will drop £50 in price as soon as I get it! :)

I'd gladly pay the extra £150 to get a D7000 rather than the A57. Not certain I'd pay the extra £300 to get the D7000 over the D5100 though.
 
fozzybear said:
Not certain I'd pay the extra £300 to get the D7000 over the D5100 though.
Click to expand...

Well in terms of image quality there's nothing in it.

If the viewfinder, AF points, mag alloy body, top lcd, larger grip and in body motor don't add anything for you then the 5100 is the way to go imo.
 
ManCuBuS said:
Well in terms of image quality there's nothing in it.

If the viewfinder, AF points, mag alloy body, top lcd, larger grip and in body motor don't add anything for you then the 5100 is the way to go imo.
Click to expand...

Body size and AF points are probably the only 2 things that would bother me. Worth paying £300 more? I think I've answered my own question. :)
 
fozzybear said:
I'm not sure about getting an A65. I'm not too keen on the high ISO performance on that or the A77. The A57 is supposed to be slightly better.
Click to expand...

The A57 is identical to the A65/A77 at high ISO..

X9lHJ.jpg


The only reason people think it looks better is the 24MP is effectively blowing up the noise when view 1:1..

Many have done tests on DPReview comparing the 16MP and 24MP variants of the NEX and SLT cameras and the differences are miniscule even at ISO 6400.. infact, in good light the 24MP will still resolve more detail up to quite reasonable ISO values.

The science of sensors backs this up, at high ISO, for the same generation of sensors, the 'image' noise is solely based on the sensor size, not the number of MPs..

Of course with a 24MP sensor you are looking at the image much closer, so it appears to be noisier, but displayed or printed at the same size, worse case you won't see any difference..

All I am saying is, don't fall into the trap of buying small MPs because your gut tells you more MPs = worse ISO performance.. in the most meaningful way, that is not the case.. you would be better making the decision based on the camera's other abilities..

Sony SLT's all have 1/3 stop disadvantage in the light given to the sensor, that is quite a small difference, but if you don't care for the many superb SLT features, and just want high ISO, then you want a non-SLT camera..
 
I can't recommend the D5100 for fast-paced sports as I don't think the AF is up to it. I used mine for some motorcross and I have a lot of fuzzy pics where the AF hasn't panned with me.
 
Snapshot said:
I can't recommend the D5100 for fast-paced sports as I don't think the AF is up to it. I used mine for some motorcross and I have a lot of fuzzy pics where the AF hasn't panned with me.
Click to expand...

What lens is that with? AF with the D5100 is lens dependent surely?
 
I'll be ordering soon but still haven't decided what to get.

The D7000 is favourite but I still haven't ruled out the D5100 and Sony A57.

I've also had a crazy idea to get a 2nd hand Canon 50D (or 40D) and a new 70-200L F4 lens. I remember a previous thread elsewhere advising that combo. I wasn't too sure at the time but I've seen seen a few examples of what the combo can produce. I was impressed.

I'm sure I'll end up ordering something tonight when the wine starts to take effect. :p
 
fozzybear said:
The Sony A57 has just been put up £25 at the place I was looking at so the D5100 is now looking the favourite.

I'm not sure about getting an A65. I'm not too keen on the high ISO performance on that or the A77. The A57 is supposed to be slightly better.

The Nikon D7000 would be ideal for me really. My head is telling me to save a bit more cash and get that instead although I'm paranoid it will drop £50 in price as soon as I get it! :)

I'd gladly pay the extra £150 to get a D7000 rather than the A57. Not certain I'd pay the extra £300 to get the D7000 over the D5100 though.
Click to expand...

i was the same i couldn't justify the extra to get the d7000 so as the d5100 has the same sensor as the d7000 i went for that
 
ShakenNstirred said:
i was the same i couldn't justify the extra to get the d7000 so as the d5100 has the same sensor as the d7000 i went for that
Click to expand...

I'm liking the D7000 for the bigger body size, better build, weather sealing, better battery life and 2 card slot.

Just trying to weigh up if it's worth paying £310 more for the D7000. After all, it won't give me better photos than the D5100 will it? :confused:
 
Well, I went from a D5100 due to the lack of controls and other 'advanced' stuff that technically doesn't contribute a lot to IQ. I immediately thought D7K and it is one hell of a camera.

I went in to Jessops and had a good. play with all the cameras, it was only then that I found the A77 (wasn't on my shortlist). I am not recommending that camera though, but I do recommend going and handling them in store because the big thing when you pay more is the handling and other features, and since the cameras are all different (especially SLT), you'll probably know straight away which camera seems to fit your personal preferences,.

you can't make a bad choice, which is a good thing!
 
Definitely ordering tonight but I'd like your thoughts on the following combos. Main use will be for horse racing and portraits.

Sony A57 + Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Tamron 70-300 USD. (approx £1030)

Nikon D7000 + Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USD (approx £1030)

Nikon D5100 + Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM and Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USD (approx £1030)

Canon 40D or 50D (2nd hand) + 50mm f1.8 II and Canon 70-200L f4. (approx £900 with 40D and £1030 with 50D).

Any thoughts appreciated.
 
I've just pressed the button on the D7000 and got a Nikon 70-300 on the way as well...

Why are you thinking of the Tamron over the Nikon out of interest?

If you did buy the D7000 you could always get a used 35 f/1.8 for about £130 a short while after.

In fact, get onto Talk Photography and you can get a D7000 at £650, the 70-300 at ~£280-300 and the 35 f/1.8 for around £130

(I assume you are getting the D7000 from the rainforest (cheapest place AFAIK).
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
I've just pressed the button on the D7000 and got a Nikon 70-300 on the way as well...

Why are you thinking of the Tamron over the Nikon out of interest?

If you did buy the D7000 you could always get a used 35 f/1.8 for about £130 a short while after.

In fact, get onto Talk Photography and you can get a D7000 at £650, the 70-300 at ~£280-300 and the 35 f/1.8 for around £130

(I assume you are getting the D7000 from the rainforest (cheapest place AFAIK).
Click to expand...

The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is recognised as at least being the equal of the Nikon. It's also around £120 cheaper!

I actually almost bought a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 f2.8 yesterday until I thought (wrongly) thought that it wouldn't be compatible with the D5100. Buying that would have reduced my body options.

I think I'd rather buy a new D7000 (with 2 year warranty) rather than a 2nd hand one for £70 less. Currently keeping my eye on a Canon 50D elsewhere.
 
I thought that may be the reason. :)

I had that same question (although was trying for £600 instead) but decided the two year warranty was a good bet.
 
Amp34 said:
I thought that may be the reason. :)

I had that same question (although was trying for £600 instead) but decided the two year warranty was a good bet.
Click to expand...

The two year warranty for what? The Nikon 70-300?

Can anyone confirm the warranty on new Canon and Nikon lenses/bodies? Am I right in that you get 1 year with Canon and 2 year with Nikon after registering?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom