Nikon D5100

[Valtheri]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

[Ads]

[Tomasko]

It isn't a professional camera and yes, it is better than 3100.

[Destin]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

Professional? Not even close. If you had to ask that question, you aren't ready for work as a wedding photographer.

To shoot a wedding, you should have at least a nikon d7000, or preferably, a d700 ($2,500 without a lens). Then you need a second camera body as a backup, plus
A set of professional lenses (plan to spend at least $3,500 on lenses). Then you need flash units ($400 each, you should have at least 2 or 3)

Oh yeah, plus years of photography experience, and knowledge. Not to mention the cost of insurance.

Simply stated, you are not ready for wedding photography on a professional level.

The d5100 is a good camera to learn on, and will be fine for snapshots at a wedding AS A GUEST.

-posted from my iPhone

[theredguy]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

Simply stated, you are not ready for wedding photography on a professional level.

The d5100 is a good camera to learn on, and will be fine for snapshots at a wedding AS A GUEST.

-posted from my iPhone

Wow. I'm no expert but that's pretty harsh. A simple answer of, "it's great camera to learn on but I wouldn't consider it a professional camera or one to use for professional wedding photography," I believe would have sufficed.

I own a D5100, I have good glass that I use on it, it takes decent pictures. Would I use it as my primary for a wedding, no, but as a back up, sure. It's a great little camera that holds it's own. In today's wonderful world of technology, anything about 12megapixels is going to give you a great picture. As long as you have an eye for what your shooting and you can post process, you can do just about anything with a $1,500 camera.

If someone wants to attempt taking wedding photo's with a D5100 by advice, go for it, as long as you can manipulate your camera, lenses and post processing properly, you can make someone very happy. 30% of wedding photography is post processing anyways, as long as you have a good quality image to start with you can do just about anything with photoshop. Simply know your equipment and your abilities.

[Zyr55]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

Professional? Not even close. If you had to ask that question, you aren't ready for work as a wedding photographer.

To shoot a wedding, you should have at least a nikon d7000, or preferably, a d700 ($2,500 without a lens). Then you need a second camera body as a backup, plus
A set of professional lenses (plan to spend at least $3,500 on lenses). Then you need flash units ($400 each, you should have at least 2 or 3)

Oh yeah, plus years of photography experience, and knowledge. Not to mention the cost of insurance.

Simply stated, you are not ready for wedding photography on a professional level.

The d5100 is a good camera to learn on, and will be fine for snapshots at a wedding AS A GUEST.

-posted from my iPhone

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you suggested D7000 over the D5100. I thought they share the same sensor. Meaning, they can produce similar images, right?

[JSER]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

Simply stated, you are not ready for wedding photography on a professional level.

The d5100 is a good camera to learn on, and will be fine for snapshots at a wedding AS A GUEST.

-posted from my iPhone

Wow. I'm no expert but that's pretty harsh. A simple answer of, "it's great camera to learn on but I wouldn't consider it a professional camera or one to use for professional wedding photography," I believe would have sufficed.

I own a D5100, I have good glass that I use on it, it takes decent pictures. Would I use it as my primary for a wedding, no, but as a back up, sure. It's a great little camera that holds it's own. In today's wonderful world of technology, anything about 12megapixels is going to give you a great picture. As long as you have an eye for what your shooting and you can post process, you can do just about anything with a $1,500 camera.

If someone wants to attempt taking wedding photo's with a D5100 by advice, go for it, as long as you can manipulate your camera, lenses and post processing properly, you can make someone very happy. 30% of wedding photography is post processing anyways, as long as you have a good quality image to start with you can do just about anything with photoshop. Simply know your equipment and your abilities.

Why do people WRONGLY ASSUME that unless a camera costs thousande it is no good for anything other than snaps, people are nieve.

I have covered weddings on a D3100 though I use a 60D, years ago I covered weddinggs on a Nikon F Photomic FTN top of the range in it's day, I would do it today, I agree 100% with THIS person, my sons D3100 has the Nikkor 28-300 VR and the shots are perfect, ignore the people who spout money and must haves, it is down to the photographer and experience.

Give the average person a D7000 and Davis Baily a point and shoot and I know who will take the best photographs, mone is NOT everything except perhaps to the "my camera is better then yours brigade"

[JSER]

I want to buy Nikon D5100. Is this a proffesional camera for wedding photos and is this better that Nikon D3100? Please tell me every one for this chose.

Professional? Not even close. If you had to ask that question, you aren't ready for work as a wedding photographer.

To shoot a wedding, you should have at least a nikon d7000, or preferably, a d700 ($2,500 without a lens). Then you need a second camera body as a backup, plus
A set of professional lenses (plan to spend at least $3,500 on lenses). Then you need flash units ($400 each, you should have at least 2 or 3)

Oh yeah, plus years of photography experience, and knowledge. Not to mention the cost of insurance.

Simply stated, you are not ready for wedding photography on a professional level.

The d5100 is a good camera to learn on, and will be fine for snapshots at a wedding AS A GUEST.

-posted from my iPhone

C**P

[SCraig]

Would you hire a surgeon that buys his surgical equipment at Walmart with the excuse that the cost of a knife doesn't determine whether you are a professional surgeon or not. Would you hire a printing company that had one little inkjet printer sitting beside a 10 year old computer?

Maybe it's different for others but when I hire a professional ANYTHING I expect the have professional abilities, professional experience, a professional manner, and PROFESSIONAL equipment. I would never hire a professional photographer who told me they were shooting with anything less than a D700. If they can't afford good gear I don't want them doing my work.

[manaheim]

I call troll.

[Ninjaartist]

Try looking into a refeb d90 if you want a good camera without an arm and a leg. I believe it will get you further than an 3100 or 5100 and will get you closer to more professional.

[Ninjaartist]

without paying an arm and a leg. The refeb d90 may be within or close to your budget if money is an issue.

[ZapoTeX]

Agree that the photographer is the most important element, but just one thought:

I thought they share the same sensor. Meaning, they can produce similar images, right?

Same sensor does not mean similar images. Or well, it does but only if your targets are perfectly still and you have all the time you need to adjust the settings on your camera.

In the real World, there are a lot of other things that matter, such as AF speed and accuracy (and the D7000 is far better than the D5100), ease of handling (and again, the D7000 is a lot better, because of the secondary dial wheel and LCD), lighting (and the D7000 can control remote flashes, while the D5100 can), etc...

It's like saying that two cars will race equally fast just because they have equal top-speed. Not every track is a straight line. In real world races, you also need good brakes, good tyres, a stiff chassis, etc...

One thing to add: agree that the D90 is probably the camera with the best quality/price on the market right now, especially if you do not shoot sports/wildlife.

[Mach0]

Agree that the photographer is the most important element, but just one thought:

Same sensor does not mean similar images. Or well, it does but only if your targets are perfectly still and you have all the time you need to adjust the settings on your camera.

In the real World, there are a lot of other things that matter, such as AF speed and accuracy (and the D7000 is far better than the D5100), ease of handling (and again, the D7000 is a lot better, because of the secondary dial wheel and LCD), lighting (and the D7000 can control remote flashes, while the D5100 can), etc...

It's like saying that two cars will race equally fast just because they have equal top-speed. Not every track is a straight line. In real world races, you also need good brakes, good tyres, a stiff chassis, etc...

X2
The controls and layout make it much much easier to change settings without diving into the menu. The AF speed is nice, commander mode makes the use of cls compatible flashes easier, and the built in af motor gives some flexibility with lens selections. One of the biggest things I find useful, is the ISO adjustments. You won't be stuck jumping from 200-400-800-1600 etc. You can go anywhere in between. Much better. If you've never had these features then you don't know what your missing. Once you have them, you will know how much easier things become.

[One2]

wow digging up a 6 month old thread...

[SCraig]

wow digging up a 6 month old thread...

My only excuse is that I was still half asleep ;(