First DSLR

[stroker]

Thanks for all the replies. Im not really worried about the camera being outdated any more. Now i need to do some research on what DSLR will give the least ammount of noise with high contrast in low light.
I still dont understand why the D90 isnt the way to go for low light and the D5000 looks great. what is the difference in the sensor?
While im on the camera body subj. What model does sony make to compete with the D5000? I would really love to have the lense the same. The camera is a Minolta MAXXUM 400si Lenses- AF35-70 AF35-105 Im still looking for the last lense..

 

[rpm]

we never said the D90 wouldnt work, the D60 is the one that wont. the biggest jump between the D60-gen of cameras and the current line is the noise handling/iso performance....substantial strides were made with the change to the sensor tech. i avoid shooting at 800iso and stick to 400iso max usually but with the current line people trod along fine at 1600iso with little to no noise - hell even higher). thats what kind of difference you're seeing...

and Sony isnt known for handling low light situations well yet...

 

[stroker]

Ok so sony is pretty much out then. The D90 will work, but there are better options for the money right?
I have a question about Nikon cameras in general. Are they really that much better than the competition or are you buying the name?

 

[Vinny]

Buying a Nikon is not just buying a name it's a quality camera as are some of the other brands. I have a Nikon D90 and I have used it in low light situations on ISO 3200 or 6400 as I couldn't use a flash. Yes, there's noise but I also got the photo. There's software out there that will smooth out the noise if need be so it works for me. I bought Nikon because I knew Nikon from my film SLR and thought it was great. Canon people will say that Canon is great and so on.

My suggestion is if your going totally new to get to a real camera store, not Bestbuys, and physically see the cameras you may be interested in. Read reviews on-line about the camera and the lenses. I have both the 18-105 kit lens and 70-300 VR lens and they're great lenses for my needs; someone else may come along and think their crap.

Personally for my needs the D90 and the lenses I own fit me. I couldn't justify a $5000 body and can't justify a $2000 lens; if I was making money off of photography I would own "THE BEST" - whatever that is.

 

[skieur]

Consider the new Sony DSLRs with in-camera panoramas and HDRs, as well as full HD video with fast automatic focus.

skieur

 

[rpm]

Vinny you sound a tad bit spiteful there lol....what makes pro-gear so thought after and expensive is cause they are generally that much better mechanically and optically (in many respects), for day to day stuff usually there wont be a diff between a standard mid range zoom and a pro zoom (corner to corner sharpness aside). but the former will instill certain restrictions that the latter can overcome - usually due to their faster aperture.

a D90 is far from being a cheap body btw, its def an enthusiasts body, anything above would either be a semi-pro or pro body.

back to the OP's qn tho...

theres always better bodies available. if you really can get it, a D300 or a D700 can be an investment that would last you a very long time, even through the next gen line up when that comes out of the wood works. but thats not to say the D90 wont, it def will, it really just depends on what you want to invest on now...

go to a camera shop as suggested, feel the bodies, each company has its own design philosophy. i favor the Nikon, you might want the Canon, that should be the only thing you care about now, how it feels, each company has a lens that is comparable to the other.

 

[Vinny]

Not sure what you mean but if it's my comment of "the best - whatever that is", I guess it didn't come out the way I intended it to be. My purchase was based on my price level and not the professional price level. If I was looking for a professional level camera maybe I would have chosen a different brand and if I was making money off of photography I would certainly spend whatever money to get the best equipment. At that point spending $5000 for a camera body and $2000 for a lens is warranted.

Hopefully not being spiteful but being realistic.

Vinny you sound a tad bit spiteful there lol....what makes pro-gear so thought after and expensive is cause they are generally that much better mechanically and optically (in many respects), for day to day stuff usually there wont be a diff between a standard mid range zoom and a pro zoom (corner to corner sharpness aside). but the former will instill certain restrictions that the latter can overcome - usually due to their faster aperture.

a D90 is far from being a cheap body btw, its def an enthusiasts body, anything above would either be a semi-pro or pro body.

back to the OP's qn tho...

theres always better bodies available. if you really can get it, a D300 or a D700 can be an investment that would last you a very long time, even through the next gen line up when that comes out of the wood works. but thats not to say the D90 wont, it def will, it really just depends on what you want to invest on now...

go to a camera shop as suggested, feel the bodies, each company has its own design philosophy. i favor the Nikon, you might want the Canon, that should be the only thing you care about now, how it feels, each company has a lens that is comparable to the other.