decisions, decisions...

I am looking into investing into a new DSLR. I am currently using a Minolta X700. I haven't bought a DSLR yet because I haven't felt like I was ready for it. I didn't want to spend a lot of money if I didn't understand photography well enough.
I am now looking for a DSLR. The cost of film and developing is starting to pile up. Plus, since I have been reading other peoples questions/answers and taking every ones advice here on PR I have been getting better quickly. I feel like I have a good understanding and I am ready to go forward.

I have been looking to invest on a D5000 or D90. I want to get into mostly sports photography of all kind, weddings and portraits. I see my self as a future sports photographer and will be working very hard in that direction. I have seen sample pictures from both cameras and the D90 is a more true to the color. I have been leaning more toward the D90 but have the D5000 in mind because it's more cost effective. I don't care too much for the video and can do without it.

my question is....

Does anyone recommend a camera that is the equivalent to the D90 without the video or with the same quality that a Nikon has? I am trying to keep my cost as low as possible but don't mind spending a good amount on the camera. Like I have said, I am looking to INVEST in a camera. I am hoping it will make me money in the future.

I have done a lot of research but I feel like i'm coming up short. I read some good advise that Photo-John was giving to another member about purchasing a new camera and thought I ask.

Thanks every one.

I'm no pro, and you are sure to get more advice than what I can give, but the reality is that better lenses will make much more of a difference than body choice. Sure, different bodies will have different features and specifications, and newer and better bodies will have better and faster processors, which can lower noise and improve color, but a nice lens on the most basic DSLR will take a better picture than a crap lens on the top-of-the-line DSLR. I will say that for sports photography you may want to compare frames per second in burst mode, as this could be important to you. Faster is better for capturing that exact moment.

I say go with a basic body and put the money towards lenses. You’ll be happier in the long run and get better results, and lenses hold their value MUCH better than bodies.

Go for the D90. The user interface is the better - it's the same as the upper end of the Nikon range, with control dials front and rear so you can switch shutter speed or aperture simply. The D5000 is a consumer model - if you want to do anything complex then you plunge into the menus rather than having a button for it.

I use the D200/D300 (Pro) most of the time and the D60 (consumer).for anything risky. When I use the D60 I always take the manual with me - it will actually do most of the things the D300 does but sometimes I have to hunt around in the manual to figure out how to set it up.

You get what you pay for. Don't try to save a few $$ and buy a camera that is not intended for your usage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

You get what you pay for. Don't try to save a few $$ and buy a camera that is not intended for your usage

---

Thank you, I appreciate that. I used a Canon D40 for a while and I really liked how it had the two dials at my finger tips. Gosh, I REALLY love that about it. I was going to go back for the D40 but I didn't really like the pictures quality at the higher ISO. I was already part of a tread here that helped me understand what a Lens can do for that but I don't think I will be as happy with the Canon.

My major concern is being able to get a similar camera do the D90 without the video. I don't care much about the video. I know all the new cameras are going to have video from now on tech advancing and all... but I was wondering, is there something that has the quality of the D90 without the video?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havana_joe

I say go with a basic body and put the money towards lenses. You’ll be happier in the long run and get better results, and lenses hold their value MUCH better than bodies.

---

I agree and know I should be investing more of my money in a lens. For now, I want to make the right purchase on a body. I want to get a basic body but if I do go that route I fear I wont be able to upgrade to a better body for a long time. Especially since I will be buying a good lens to go with it.

D90 does about 5 fps. There is faster but those are a lot more expensive.

what good body cameras would you recommend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGK*CRONE

D90 does about 5 fps. There is faster but those are a lot more expensive.

what good body cameras would you recommend?

---

I'm a very basic camera guy, I'm still rockin' a D40. I hate to say it, but the D90 is very, very popular. And that seems to be a common answer you will get! Of course, there are other brands (Canon, Pentax, Sony) to explore as well. I guess I'm not much help! =)

How about looking at Sony?
They have a good range of cameras and lenses. and since they bought Konica/Minolta you may even find some of your old lenses work - manual focus/aperture though.

No one "invests" in digital bodies. They're just throw aways; people don't expect their 5-year old computer to be worth even half as much as its original price and so it is the same with digital bodies. The digital body you buy two years from now will be twice as good but half the cost of what you have now.

Olympus E-420's are selling for $320 with the kit lens--same price as a high point and shoot. That'll get you a small SLR that will give you quality pictures. I recently bought one and loved its small size and responsiveness. Fun camera. If you can't shoot good pictures with the Nikon D40 or the Oly 420 then the much more expensive dSLR's aren't going to help much.

Finally, you might want to ponder the broad swathe that the internet has cut into paying media jobs.

I know the LENS thing is the biggy but also consider that you may outgrow the D5000 quickly and wish you had the D90 or equivalent in another makers line-up.
I know the lens is more important but it is also a good idea to get a camera body that will let you grow in skill and ability. Of course, you can shoot manual with the d5000 and there's no better way to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ivan916

No one "invests" in digital bodies. They're just throw aways; people don't expect their 5-year old computer to be worth even half as much as its original price and so it is the same with digital bodies. The digital body you buy two years from now will be twice as good but half the cost of what you have now.

Olympus E-420's are selling for $320 with the kit lens--same price as a high point and shoot. That'll get you a small SLR that will give you quality pictures. I recently bought one and loved its small size and responsiveness. Fun camera. If you can't shoot good pictures with the Nikon D40 or the Oly 420 then the much more expensive dSLR's aren't going to help much.

Finally, you might want to ponder the broad swathe that the internet has cut into paying media jobs.

---

it's not that I wasn't taking good picture. It' that I was that I was just testing the camera like I said, I only had it for a short period of time.

I don't know about you but for me spending that much on anything better be an investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havana_joe

I'm a very basic camera guy, I'm still rockin' a D40. I hate to say it, but the D90 is very, very popular. And that seems to be a common answer you will get! Of course, there are other brands (Canon, Pentax, Sony) to explore as well. I guess I'm not much help! =)

---

Not knocking the D40 at all. That was the camera I was going for but I started looking around and thinking about it too much.

Quote:

---

Does anyone recommend a camera that is the equivalent to the D90 without the video or with the same quality that a Nikon has?

---

The A700 is the one I use, same 12MPix sensor, excellent image quality. It isn't quite up to par with the D90 at 3200 ISO, I'm sure some will point out. But 3200 is a pretty useless ISO anyway on either. The A700 will have more for its tactile interface, a sturdier build, and a less expensive price. IF you can find one new that is.

Canon's alternative to your selection would be either the 40D or 50D, both are also excellent options.

In any event don't let Nikon earn your bid without checking out your options, Pentax and Olympus have other options, there is also micro 4/3rd options, make sure that Nikon is for you before you get it.

I've got a couple of questions for you.

1) What's your budget?
2) What kind of sports?

I would recommend the D5000. And as far as Nikon vs Canon, I'm a Canon owner but I can get good photos with either. If you were already a Canon owner, I'd tell you to stick with it. But if you don't own either, then I think Nikon is the way to go right now. On the other hand, if you've got a little bit more money, the Canon EOS 7D is the best sports camera around now, unless you step up to the Nikon D3S or Canon EOS-1D Mark IV.

So, if you're on a budget and it's your first DSLR investment, then I'll give you the standard recommendation - cheaper body and a better lens. The lens will be with you for years. The camera body - probably two years max. If you spend more now and you're just learning, you're sort of wasting your money on the body. Your technique will likely be more of a limitation than the camera body. Plus, having lens limitations gets in the way more than camera limitations.

I'd like to know more about what kind of sports you've been shooting and plan to shoot. That way I can make a good lens recommendation. And as far as camera quality goes, I was really impressed with the D5000. It might not be as fast as the D90 or have the same low light performance. But it's still a kick-ass little camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Canon's alternative to your selection would be either the 40D or 50D, both are also excellent options.

---

I looked into both the A700 and did more research on the 50D I am digging both but I don't think I will be going in that direction.

I think i'm going for the Nikon D5000 (used) and investing the rest of my budget on a lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

I've got a couple of questions for you.

1) What's your budget?
2) What kind of sports?

So, if you're on a budget and it's your first DSLR investment, then I'll give you the standard recommendation - cheaper body and a better lens. The lens will be with you for years. The camera body - probably two years max. If you spend more now and you're just learning, you're sort of wasting your money on the body. Your technique will likely be more of a limitation than the camera body. Plus, having lens limitations gets in the way more than camera limitations.

And as far as camera quality goes, I was really impressed with the D5000. It might not be as fast as the D90 or have the same low light performance. But it's still a kick-ass little camera.

---

I don't have a canon already. I like the quality and respect the Nikon have. I am thinking of going in that direction.

I have about $1000 (at most $1500) in mind. I was just talking it out with my girlfriend and i am thinking of just getting a used D5000 or D90 (lightly used or heavy used) Something cheap so I can invest more money into a lens. Later if I when it's time to upgrade it wont hurt so much to just buy a new. Plus, I can save up money at the same time. not spending as much on film would allow me to save more also. Now, I just need to find a used camera.

I am trying to shoot more stadium/night/outdoor/indoor soccer, full contact sports like boxing and MMA, still life and portraits. Also, with a digital camera I can take a job at some of my buddies bar taking pictures during their weekend events.

Thank you everyone for your help. I appreciate every one taking the time to respond.

Definitely try for the D90, much better interface AND it has an internal AF motor, so you are free to use AF on all AF designed lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGK*CRONE

it's not that I wasn't taking good picture. It' that I was that I was just testing the camera like I said, I only had it for a short period of time.

I don't know about you but for me spending that much on anything better be an investment.

---

An investment is laying out money in the hopes of future profits. Digital cameras just aren't an investment because the technology gets better thereby rendering the old cameras obsolete and nearly worthless.

Most people instinctively realize this which is why they recommend buying lenses or practicing your fieldcraft. Lenses don't go obsolete and fieldcraft is applicable to any camera for any situation. If you really want to invest in cameras just hire yourself out as an assistant to a pro and watch how he takes pictures. Or even take a college course.

On the other hand buying a camera because you really really like it is perfectly acceptable. I know a fine camera will certainly make me go out and shoot more often because it is a pleasure to use.

I also know you didn't read "the state of the Union" link I posted; you might want to know whether photojournalism is even feasible as a way to make a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGK*CRONE

I am trying to shoot more stadium/night/outdoor/indoor soccer, full contact sports like boxing and MMA, still life and portraits.

---

Ok, if you're planning to shoot a lot of low light stuff - and MMA is very low light, then I think it might be worth trying to get the D90. I wanted to know because if you were shooting more outdoor, daylight stuff, then low light shooting wouldn't matter as much. But for fast, indoor action, the D90's high ISO image quality will really make a difference.

There's a really good MMA shooter who posts on the Sports Photography Forum. Maybe you should ask him some questions and take a look at his photos for some insight. He just posted a link to new photos, yesterday: http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=62976

[QUOTE=Photo-John]Ok, if you're planning to shoot a lot of low light stuff - and MMA is very low light, then I think it might be worth trying to get the D90. I wanted to know because if you were shooting more outdoor, daylight stuff, then low light shooting wouldn't matter as much. But for fast, indoor action, the D90's high ISO image quality will really make a difference. [QUOTE]

Yeah, I also want to shoot motorcycle racing at the Orange County fair grounds Speedway. My friend use to do it and I always wanted to take pictures there but never had a camera.

I am aiming for the D90 but we will see what I come up with. :)

thanks for all the info.