Nikon D5000 VS Canon EOS Rebel T1i

[ANDS!]

I've had the D40, D60, D80, D200 as well as a D90... there's a huge difference in high ISO performance from CCD to CMOS, if you deny that then I'm sorry, you're one of the few, not me...

Reread my statement. And then go through your photographs, and count the number of high ISO shots you've taken, and among those the number of high ISO shots you didn't delete, and among those the number of high ISO shots you actually took from camera to LR to PS and among those the number you actually kept to be displayed.

Technical performance versus practical performance. There is a difference most pixel-peepers and "gear heads" will sadly never be able to appreciate.

 

[itznfb]

I've had the D40, D60, D80, D200 as well as a D90... there's a huge difference in high ISO performance from CCD to CMOS, if you deny that then I'm sorry, you're one of the few, not me...

Reread my statement. And then go through your photographs, and count the number of high ISO shots you've taken, and among those the number of high ISO shots you didn't delete, and among those the number of high ISO shots you actually took from camera to LR to PS and among those the number you actually kept to be displayed.

Technical performance versus practical performance. There is a difference most pixel-peepers and "gear heads" will sadly never be able to appreciate.

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Both my hobby photography and my commercial work require high ISO quite often. With D90/D300s many of my final shots are ISO1600-3200. Many shots from my D200 were just thrown out due to noise starting above ISO400. I mean the sharpness and noise control on the D90/5000 at ISO3200 is better than the D200 at ISO800. I just don't know what you're comparing here... doesn't sound like we're on the same page.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I don't need to... I've actually used both, apparently you haven't if you can't tell the difference between them - even on print.

Before the D90 I didn't keep much over 800 ISO, it looked like crap without some noise reduction done. Now I'll print photos at 1600 or even 3200 ISO without a second thought, straight out of the camera. The D200 for whatever reason was one of the worst, 800 ISO was really pushing it on that camera.

This is just my experience of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[ANDS!]

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.

That's ok. It's probably not meant for you then.

Both my hobby photography and my commercial work require high ISO quite often.

You just used anecdotal evidence to argue generalities. That's not really how that works. Now if the OP is going to be doing alot of low light shooting then certainly this is something to pay attention to. Something tells me they aren't even there yet.

I don't need to... I've actually used both, apparently you haven't if you can't tell the difference between them - even on print.

Because that's what was said right? I mean I get it - you want to argue. And that's fine, that's what internet forums are for. But at least make sure you're aware of what is actually being argued. Like I said, reread the statements made. I'm not concerned about technical gotchas; what works in real world continued use for the average shooter - that's what I focus on. Feel free however to supplement any recommendations with link backs to DXO.com and the like.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Shooting as a beginner is even more likely to encounter high ISO. If you use Auto ISO you are likely to be shooting at 800 ISO or higher, especially with a kit lens.

You keep saying to re-read what you wrote...

the Nikon D3000; will perform the same as the D5000 - just without video and the swivel screen

The major difference here is the sensor... CMOS vs CCD, CMOS will out perform CCD any day of the week.

Regardless, the topic is D5000 vs T1i, both are CMOS sensors anyway.

 

[ANDS!]

I actually recommended the OP go with the D90 as they suggested they might do. It's understandable you passed that up. As I've said before, the desire to post is rarely partnered with a willingness to read.

Cest la vie.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Backtrack much? That's not what you were arguing about... but whatever.

 

[itznfb]

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.

That's ok. It's probably not meant for you then.

Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000... which is terrible advice because it's 100% incorrect. So I just don't see where you're going with this argument.

 

[ANDS!]

Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000

Youre assigning meaning to a statement instead of asking for clarification. Nevermind that I already clarified what I said. No the "ISO performance" on the two bodies isn't going to be the same. Math will demonstrate why thats not possible. The real world, practical performance and use of the two however will be. If you disagree - that is TOTALLY fine. But again before you do so, be sure - as you said - we are arguing on the same page.

Backtrack much?

Never actually.

That's not what you were arguing about... but whatever.

Before you stepped in and offered your welcome rebute to my post, I wasn't arguing my statement because it doesn't need to be. I am now arguing this point because it seems you are incapable of "getting it" (or perhaps you're just having a laugh and want to have a go): for practical purposes those two cameras are going to perform the same, take the same shots, wow the same in-laws and inspire the same consumner satisfaction. If you want to drag out charts of how the D5000 performs better in X-Scenario over the D3000 thats totally fine, and I will suggest that the OP put that little bit of knowledge in their backpockets for when (if ever) they get to that shooting situation. However that has never been what I said, or what anyone not looking for a pissing match would ever infer. The two cameras technical performance will be different because they are (oh my stars and garters) different cameras. Common sense real world users however will be beleaguered to find a difference.

 

[DennyCrane]

Both cameras are good. As a T1i owner, I can say I'm very happy with it.
I will add this- forget 1080p video. It's only 20fps. That might not seem a big difference between cinematic 24fps, but it's noticeable. I shoot 720p @ 24fps and that's fine. Smaller file sizes, too.

 

[itznfb]

Well,, you recommended the OP look into a D3000 because you said it had the same performance as a D5000

Youre assigning meaning to a statement instead of asking for clarification. Nevermind that I already clarified what I said. No the "ISO performance" on the two bodies isn't going to be the same. Math will demonstrate why thats not possible. The real world, practical performance and use of the two however will be. If you disagree - that is TOTALLY fine. But again before you do so, be sure - as you said - we are arguing on the same page.

Backtrack much?

Never actually.

That's not what you were arguing about... but whatever.

Before you stepped in and offered your welcome rebute to my post, I wasn't arguing my statement because it doesn't need to be. I am now arguing this point because it seems you are incapable of "getting it" (or perhaps you're just having a laugh and want to have a go): for practical purposes those two cameras are going to perform the same, take the same shots, wow the same in-laws and inspire the same consumner satisfaction. If you want to drag out charts of how the D5000 performs better in X-Scenario over the D3000 thats totally fine, and I will suggest that the OP put that little bit of knowledge in their backpockets for when (if ever) they get to that shooting situation. However that has never been what I said, or what anyone not looking for a pissing match would ever infer. The two cameras technical performance will be different because they are (oh my stars and garters) different cameras. Common sense real world users however will be beleaguered to find a difference.

My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you. This is not an opinionated matter. You are just flat out incorrect. The D5000 does not perform better than the D3000 in x scenario. It performs better than the D3000 in EVERY scenario.

 

[ANDS!]

My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you.

They should. Because I'm right.

This is not an opinionated matter. You are just flat out incorrect. The D5000 does not perform better than the D3000 in x scenario. It performs better than the D3000 in EVERY scenario.

I'm just curious what part of "practical purposes" esacpes you. Not to be a dick (well maybe a little since I think you're being dense on purpose), but I'm really stunned on how this argument is escaping you. You insist on arguing the "technical" superiority of one camera over another, and fail to understand no one is arguing that. You seem incapable of appreciating the fact that the QUALITY leap between the D3000 and the D5000 is not this wide chasm that will make folks slap their sides of their face and exclaim "My god - the difference is clear. . .Clear eyes!" And that's cool, willful dissonance and all that jazz.

Mazel tov.

 

[Derrel]

I decided after reading all these arguments to stop by an impartial source,and to compare the new D3000 against the output of cameras I am actually familiar with, so I went here: Nikon D3000 Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

You know what? I think the D3000 is inferior to both the D40 and the D60 in terms of high-ISO output. ALso, the D3000'S autofocus system had problems with their test target AND it had an average outdoors out of focus rate of 7 percent--a terrible performance for a Nikon d-slr camera, in my opinion. They state that the D90 and the D5000, which like the D3000, share the same AF module, do NOT suffer from this autofocusing problem.

I would not buy a D3000, just based on looking at the sample shots,and reading about the AF system's performance. Simple as that.

 

[itznfb]

My problem with you continuing this argument is that someone may stumble upon this and actually believe you.

They should. Because I'm right.

This is not an opinionated matter. You are just flat out incorrect. The D5000 does not perform better than the D3000 in x scenario. It performs better than the D3000 in EVERY scenario.

I'm just curious what part of "practical purposes" esacpes you. Not to be a dick (well maybe a little since I think you're being dense on purpose), but I'm really stunned on how this argument is escaping you. You insist on arguing the "technical" superiority of one camera over another, and fail to understand no one is arguing that. You seem incapable of appreciating the fact that the QUALITY leap between the D3000 and the D5000 is not this wide chasm that will make folks slap their sides of their face and exclaim "My god - the difference is clear. . .Clear eyes!" And that's cool, willful dissonance and all that jazz.

Mazel tov.

Um... actually it is. How long have you been using both the D5000 and D3000 or D200?

You're obviously the one being dense on purpose trying to pretend that ISO400 isn't practical. I mean seriously... ISO400.

You're right? I honestly don't think you'll be able to find one person that agrees with you.

 

[ANDS!]

This reply brought to you by DERREL and Image-Resources.com:

Um... actually it is. How long have you been using both the D5000 and D3000 or D200?

I'm eating a sandwhich right now. That statement has about as much relevance to the discussion as yours.

You're obviously the one being dense on purpose trying to pretend that ISO400 isn't practical. I mean seriously... ISO400.

Blow my brains out. Now. I mean really. You people can not read. Who said that? Did I say that? Help me out here fella cause, I'm not finding it anywhere in my replies. But **** I'll bite. Show me these ISO400 shots of the D5000 that so absolutely DOMINATE the ISO400 performance of the D3000 to render it near obsolete and a joke for consideration and place it's performance on an entirely different plane of existence than it's lower brother. Please.

Nevermind I'll do it for you:

D3000! Woohoo! And, D5000. . .holly crullers!

You're right - the D5000 clearly and impossibly blows the living creme filling out of the D3000 at 400. Bowled over I am at the quality difference. And I'm sure at a PRACTICAL resolution (read: not full size) the quality disparity would be even greater.