Advice - Nikon D3100 or Nikon D5000

[andrewsin]

Hi Everyone,

Im wanting to get into the photography world and after playing around with a few dslr's i think i like the nikon brand as they seem to just be easiest for me to use!

Ive been researching into 2 models, the Nikon D3100 and the Nikon D5000, i can get hold of these two at nearly the same price as each other.

As for the specs they are not much different, the Nikon 3100 has 1080p video rec, increase 2mp, one thing the nikon D5000 has it shoots 4fps whilst the Nikon 3100 shoots 3fps.

Can anyone give any advice for which one to choose.

Thanks

 

[Jcampbelll]

If you think you are going to used video a lot get the 3100. If you are going to need faster fps get the 5000. Also keep in mind the D5000 is cheaper. If money is the deciding factor.

 

[andrewsin]

Thanks for the advice! Im leaning more towards the Nikon D5000. As for the Canon D550, yes that is a good camera but out of my budget!

 

[FattyMcJ]

If you think you are going to used video a lot get the 3100. If you are going to need faster fps get the 5000. Also keep in mind the D5000 is cheaper. If money is the deciding factor.

^That...and I'll add

Possibly a refurbished D90 body and pick your lens, say a $100 "nifty fifty"?

Or a used D80 and (depending on price) more than one lens (50 and a 35)?

Going used/refurbished really opens up the options, if you're on a budget.

 

[cporten]

I too am looking at the D5000 v D3100. there is a very good review at: Nikon D5000 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
The D5000 is a little cheaper right now but with a 720p movie mode, a smaller screen(2.7" v 3") I wonder. The flip screen doesn't do anything for me. I do not know enough about the Active D lighting to know whether the 6 settings are important. I like the 4fps because I shoot the kids at college sports, but there is battery drain and limitations, so maybe the D3100's 3fps will be fine. Image size is 14.2mp with the d3100 v 12mp on the d5000, is that important? d3100 also has 14.2 m pixels v d5000 12.3mp. Have been looking at the d3100 kit with the two lens at Amazon for $970.

 

[KmH]

As for the Canon D550, yes that is a good camera but out of my budget!

Careful....

Canon doesn't make a D550, they make a EOS 550D though. :lmao:

It is known here in the USA as the EOS Rebel T2i. In Japan it is the EOS Kiss X4.

Canon loves elaborate camera names.

 

[cporten]

Do I want the DX or VR lens?

 

[FattyMcJ]

Do I want the DX or VR lens?

Two different things.

DX = crop sensor only lens.
FX = Full frame sensor lens, can be used on crop sensor bodies (aka DX bodies)

VR = Vibration Reduction (helps reduce camera shake that you cause while taking the photo)

 

[Breezy Smeezy]

I have not looked into the D3100 but I own a D5000 and I'm very happy with it.
If it's worth anything.

 

[bigtwinky]

If you have never used a dSLR and are new to photograhy, dont worry too much about the body. Both the ones you listed are entry level bodies that can definately shoot great images and allow you to learn and grow.

What makes a bigger difference is the quality of the lenses. Focusing faster, shooting sharper,... thats where its at.

But between your two cameras, no real noticable difference for you. Just get the one in your budget

 

[Tagrun]

If you have never used a dSLR and are new to photograhy, dont worry too much about the body. Both the ones you listed are entry level bodies that can definately shoot great images and allow you to learn and grow.

What makes a bigger difference is the quality of the lenses. Focusing faster, shooting sharper,... thats where its at.

But between your two cameras, no real noticable difference for you. Just get the one in your budget

Though do these two cameras allow room to grow to not have to purchase a body within 6 months?

 

[KmH]

Though do these two cameras allow room to grow to not have to purchase a body within 6 months?

Yes, they allow enough growth room for several years worth work.

The average photographer uses only a fraction of their camera's capabilties. It is a very rare person that can truely outgrow an entry-level dSLR in a couple of years time.

Someone would be doing good learning how to use all the camera features in 6 months, let alone learning how to maximally use either camera for actually making photographs in 6 months.

 

[bigtwinky]

If you have never used a dSLR and are new to photograhy, dont worry too much about the body. Both the ones you listed are entry level bodies that can definately shoot great images and allow you to learn and grow.

What makes a bigger difference is the quality of the lenses. Focusing faster, shooting sharper,... thats where its at.

But between your two cameras, no real noticable difference for you. Just get the one in your budget

Though do these two cameras allow room to grow to not have to purchase a body within 6 months?

If you are a gear head, someone who needs the latest and greatest, then nothing will stop you from wanting something 6 months down the road when new tech comes out.

People get WAY too hung up on thinking they need the latest and greatest. There are instances where you would want to upgrade and where new tech will make a difference. But the majority of people here are casual shooters who wont see a huge difference in what they are doing.

The Canon 40D was a great camera. It still is. A few years ago, you had some people shooting weddings with it and outputting amazing results. Really stellar work.

So who now, 2-3 years later, would this camera NOT be good enough to do the same thing? Why must someone have a 50D or 7D?? Granted the 7D has new focusing and so on, but again, no reason why someone with a 40D cannot output stellar results as it was a few years ago.

Last I checked, the quality of the light coming from the sun or produced from flashes has not really changed in a while.

I know some people will chime in and think that I am saying a 7D is the same as a 40D. It is not. The 7D is newer. Has better tech inside that will help improve a photographer's workflow. One of the reason to upgrade IMO is better performance at high ISO. But again, is that something that an amateur really needs? Probably not. Its nice to have, but not essential.

 

[redline3]

after having my d5000 for a yr n' half, It just suddenly died, it won't turn on...... I called up nikon and they say they can fix but am gonna have to send it to them?? wut a hassle I spent so much money for this piece of junk.....normally I wouldn't mind it, but am in a middle of my vacation with nothing to show my friends n' family.........SUCK's big time!!! so if you wanna feel how am feeling rite now go ahead and buy the D5000.........bummer to the MAX!!!!

 

[shaunly]

Both will produce great image. Both requires AF-S lenses. Both are about the same price. But the D3100 is such a huge upgrade for an entry level body that it replaces the D3000 and the D5000. So I'd say go with the D3100. It has many great feature and a nice new DX sensor.