-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Used D90 vs used D5100 vs used D3300 - which is best among these as a first DSLR in 2016?
- Thread starter Kristada673
- Start date
- Messages
- 30,185
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
If you check the "measurements" tab there are a couple of places (Dynamic Range and Color Sensitivity) where the D90 does outperform the D5100. But in general...D5100 does a better job on average though the differences are small. That said, when you factor in the increase in resolution and ability to push in post....those minor differences get magnified and D5100 does "look" noticeably better in all areas. DxO numbers have a tendency to not show practical comparison, IMO, as they often normalized at 8Mp for comparison.
Last edited:
BirgerH
Veteran Member
I have - go to measurements and Dynamic range - and tell me, if there are not areas, where the D90 performs better, than the D5100?
Go to measurements and Color sensitivity - again - there are areas, where the D90 performs better, than the D5100.
Look again in measurements - and every tap on the site. Can you tell any "significant" differences in the areas, where the two cameras can be compared?
No - it's not pointless - the point is, that the D90 sensor was remarkable good - and still is, even to day.
And the point is, that when you give advices, don't judge others contrary advices as "subjective" and not valuable - when actually your advices are subjective (as well or more).
BirgerH.
Last edited:
This is a waste of time.
You are the first person I have ever encountered that doesn't believe that the 16mp sensor was a significant improvement of the 12mp sensor in the D90.
All I can conclude is that you don't know how to relate the DXO figures into real world situations, especially when it comes to the low ISO noise floor, dynamic range and processing RAW files and shooting high ISO.
Ok cool, I'm out, you win.
Brev00
Forum Pro
You do realize in all my posts I never recommended getting the D90 over the D5100. My aim was to correct your misinformation and exaggeration concerning the high iso performance you claimed. Job done.
I have a D5000 which has the same sensor as the D90 and my friends have the D5100. There is a marked improvement with the 16MP sensors. Nikon has continuously improved the sensors. At 24MP generation the jump is even more noticable. If I am buying a new camera today I will go for the 24MP, which is why I didnt go for the D7000 refurb deals even though they are really good, but the 24MP ones are really state-of-art in the APS-C world.
But when we are comparing the D5XXX line with the D90/D7XXX line, we have to factor in additional features like pentaprism OVF, CLS, focus motor etc, which are also very important. I would go for a D90 over D5100 just for the pentaprism OVF alone. I get a lot of eye fatigue while using my D5000, esp if I am using my 55-300mm AF-S. After looking through the pentamirror OVF for some time, usually waiting for birds for a good pose my eyes get really tired. Same with following my kid around with my eye on the OVF. I believe it would be less of an issue with a larger OVF like that in the D90/D7XXX, FF would be awesome, but too costly.
I also wanted to get the 50mm f1.8 AF-D, its super cheap, but no focus motor. There are those cheap ultra-wides which have no focus motor, I really wanted to get it, but ultimately went for the sigma 10-20 which has focus motor. For someone on a budget, these things are more important than the difference between a 12MP and a newer 16MP sensor.
Also the capability to use CLS flash system. These are the things that make the Nikon F a complete system. Settling with the D5XXX and D3XXX series cripples the system. I would take a slightly older sensor but with the full functionality and breadth of the Nikon F system over a newer sensor in a beginner body. Besides, the 12MP Nikon sensors were quite awesome during their time and even today, they arent that bad. I wouldnt go for anything older than that though. If it was a comparison between the 12MP D90 and 24MP D5500, that would tilt me towards the D5500 because of the cropping ability I would get with my 55-300 AF-S. But ideally I would still try to save up and buy a refurbished D7100/D7200 over any D5XXX or D3XXX series.
Birgen open posted by me example shots of D90 and D7000. Con you see the difference? I can bet you see it..... and statements that pictures are not exposed "right" are just misleading. There are number of situations where pictures are taken intentionally under exposed and are corrected during post processing. The fact that someone neglect those situations, because he/she is not using them is stupid. So when you calculate better ISO+better dynamic range + better RAW file the final result can be very well noticeable in terms of IQ. When you say that difference in negligible I do think of one joke:
A married couple after a hot night. Husband is looking at his naked reflection in a mirror and says: -" If my dignity was 2 centimeters longer I would be a king". His wife looked at him skeptical and says " If your dignity was 2 centimeters shorter you would be a queen"
So having read the joke statements that certain difference is not significant is subjective. The obvious differences in the taken picture I am posting again are clearly noticeable and are plain fact:
Camera is a tool that is used to produce ultimate IQ. Having said that I will always choose a camera that will produce better IQ after PP. Sure there is always things that could be more important as faster AF, which is essential for BIF photography, but this is not the case in the current comparison. So if you are a photographer that is after ultimate IQ and will post process taken picture you should take the camera with the better sensor. If you just looking for the pleasure of the process to take pictures, and you want the good looking camera than the obvious choice is D90.
Last edited:
bobkoure
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,652
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 614
Something of a contrarian point here: don't be afraid of high shutter count. A high shutter count is IMO evidence that the camera doesn't have the dreaded D7000 focus issue (why would someone keep a problem camera for thousands of shots?) The rated life is 150K, and they don't 'just fail' right at that count. I'd be a bit leery of a six year old body with only 1 or 2K on it (yeah, it could have been someone's backup, and it could also be a problem child)
Totally agree on primes, though...
Andy Hewitt
Senior Member
I have to agree that it's becoming more common to see notices in public building that flash photography is not permitted. Indeed, quite a few prohibit photography anyway - some allow it after paying a nominal fee. It can certainly vary.OK, so maybe it's some strange museum or art gallery that I've been in that flash isn't allow. Or maybe I don't want to be rude and blinding everyone around me. The fact still remains, high iso is very useful in many situations and shooting above iso1600 or iso3200 is not as rare as you made out.Perhaps you have odd museums, expos and churches in your country. I have certainly used flash in all those situations in the UK, where I live, France, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden where I have lived and worked.
But that is besides the point - which you saliently have missed.
What I am saying is that if one has restrictions on that kind of photography in ones country and if that type of shooting represents a large proportion of the kind of photography that one does then yes, sure, acquire the kind of camera that handles those difficult scenarios well and that will probably not be a D90.
However, if one is a more general kind of photographer - children, animals, scenery, social occasions then a D90 is a very fine box for hardly any money.
Here, for instance is one from the Louvre, Paris - bit grubby, I admit, I only had a point and shoot with me - but with flash. Pas de problème, comme on dit à La France.
Venus de Milo, Louvre museum, Paris. Panasonic Lumix
So, it is your statement that is not true.
QED
In any case, as a matter of consideration for other members of the public, I never, or at least extremely rarely, use flash inside public places myself.
I've recently been re-processing many of my images, after an abortive DAM swap. During that procedure, I have had the chance to look through all my photos that have been taken with various cameras over the years.
One conclusion I have is that in good lighting conditions, DSLRs can perform well enough whatever. If you have a limited budget, and you want a start in DSLR photography, then just get the best one you can afford that ticks as many boxes for you as it can - when choosing a camera, I make a note of my own criteria for features, and then see what cameras fit that list the best.
Some of my best photos are still taken with an old Olympus E1 - a 13 year old 5MP camera. The only real difference is noticed when you want to crop significantly. The overall 'look' of those images easily stands up against the D5100 I have now.
All too often I see conversations about camera quality that seem to revolve around pixel counts and high ISO performance as a measure of quality. IME, they can be important for sure, but not necessarily the most important specifications. Sometimes it's all about the subject (as long as you get a reasonable shot out of it of course), and don't forget the needs of an individual's photography will be different to another's.
Remember the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it - you don't get many shots without a camera at all!
Sometimes it can even be a bit of fun to go out with older equipment and test your own skills by working with the limitations of such equipment. It's a good way to learn as well.
--
Andy Hewitt
If "job done" is needlessly confusing first time DSLR buyers about which has the better image quality, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
I remember well the discussion/reviews when that 16mp Sony chip started appearing in various cameras, all remarked at what a big step forward it was. Indeed, it was something of a benchmark until very, very recently and is still not far off the pace of the best APS-C sensors currently available.
In any case, I just got an absolute bargain on a D7000 with 5900 shutter clicks, so it looks like I'll have some more dials and buttons to play with.
Kristada673
Active member
Sometimes, the low shutter count is due to some kind of problem the owner was facing with the camera. If it's a subjective issue which you are not facing, that's great. But just in case it's an objective issue, like a defect with the camera for instance, you might wanna do a test before buying it. If the shutter count is something like 30,000 or above, that's a camera I wouldn't be worried about for sure
To be honest? I'd rather just go out and shoot pictures.Sometimes, the low shutter count is due to some kind of problem the owner was facing with the camera. If it's a subjective issue which you are not facing, that's great. But just in case it's an objective issue, like a defect with the camera for instance, you might wanna do a test before buying it. If the shutter count is something like 30,000 or above, that's a camera I wouldn't be worried about for sure
You've got some great shots with your new camera and that's all that is important.
You made the right choice for your situation with the lens you have and I guess that's all that matters.
I had a fantastic run with my D5100, spent years with it as a first DSLR and developed my photographic skills from superzoom point and shooter to accomplished DSLR user.
I'd recommend any of the 5100 and up series for the simple fact that they are a great option for a first DSLR owner to develop their skills with great image quality.
Kristada673
Active member
Yes, my friend's D5200 I tried produces great pictures as well. (I guess any picture taken any DSLR could look great to me at this beginning stage, provided they were clicked with a good lensTo be honest? I'd rather just go out and shoot pictures.Sometimes, the low shutter count is due to some kind of problem the owner was facing with the camera. If it's a subjective issue which you are not facing, that's great. But just in case it's an objective issue, like a defect with the camera for instance, you might wanna do a test before buying it. If the shutter count is something like 30,000 or above, that's a camera I wouldn't be worried about for sure
You've got some great shots with your new camera and that's all that is important.
You made the right choice for your situation with the lens you have and I guess that's all that matters.
I had a fantastic run with my D5100, spent years with it as a first DSLR and developed my photographic skills from superzoom point and shooter to accomplished DSLR user.
I'd recommend any of the 5100 and up series for the simple fact that they are a great option for a first DSLR owner to develop their skills with great image quality.
) All of the cameras talked about in this thread are great. The same can be said about another brilliant camera released along with the D90 ( I guess), and that is the D300/300S. It was also 12 MP, but had a better image processor I have read. And the only reason I did not include it in the original post, even though it would cost $200-250 second hand, was that it is simply not available! It is that good perhaps; nobody wants to sell it! :-D What are your, and others (if anybody reads this far down), thoughts about it?I just thought I should peep in and change the subject a little to try and stop the "fight" in this part of the thread that's been going on for a while now.
:-DI shot this picture today with my D70. It's very true that lens matters the most! I found that my f/2.8 Tokina lens produces tack sharp images compared to the zoom I have. And I don't how much that lens would have cost originally, but I got it third hand for $55. The guy I got it from bought it second hand 4-5 years ago for $100. I am very happy with the picture I got. I couldn't have guessed if I shown this picture that it was clicked with a 6 MP camera. What do you say?
Last edited:
David Lal
Forum Pro
I don't know which country you live in but in the UK one can still buy a very decent D300/s for between GBP £300 and 400. Not many clicks and with a dealer 1 year warranty. See:
Loading…
www.graysofwestminster.co.uk
I have one (also bought secondhand from this dealer) and it is simply the best digital camera I have ever used. No, I would not sell my D300! The camera I had before that was a D70, like you.
You needed more depth of field (=smaller aperture [higher number]) because the base of the glass is very soft.
I think you should just enjoy what you have for a year or so then consider a potential upgrade.
David
Kristada673
Active member
I live in Hong Kong currently. And they do have new/refurbished D300/s in shops. I was only referring to the forum where we buy and sell second hand stuff informally. No one is selling D300/s here at this period of time. But there were a few on sale a couple of years ago, I found after scrolling though the forum deep down.
Thanks for that feedback. I appreciate it.
Yes, definitely I'll stick with my D70 for a year or so. I'll not buy another body now. I brought up the D300/s discussion to hopefully steer the topic away from the ensuing "fight" that got started here. :-D
?? eh? Surely any camera can take great pictures in the right hands, so from a photography point of view how is D5100 a better camera? Surely one can have much more freedom with the D90 then with D5100. There are so many great lens that you can use with the D90 then the D5100. 85mm f1.4D, 105mm f2, 135mm f2....... to name a few. I know there are still people who prefer the CCD senor then the current CMOS sensor. So from photography point of view, D5100 isn't a better camera and isn't better for beginners.
I had a D90 and now still using the D7000, the D7000 isn't "significantly" better in IQ. It is a bit better.
Brev00
Forum Pro
No, I have done nothing but provide facts. I think misinformation is more confusing to a first time buyer than the facts. I admire your enthusiasm for the D5100 and have given no advice against it. I suggest a first time buyer make up their own minds and, to assist, we share our enthusiasm along with verifiable numbers. To say that I have confused the first time buyer about which has the better image quality is to misread and misrepresent my posts. Show me where I said the D90 has better image quality than the D5100. I just said that the D5100's high iso improvement was not as vast as you indicated.
Congrats on the purchase. The only reason I did not get a D7000 was to wait for the two generation improvement of the D7100. I think you will be quite happy with it.
BirgerH
Veteran Member
Hi Nung.
So have I - and use both.
Yes - the sensor of the D7000/D5100 is better in most every way - but far from significantly. The only "area", where I would call it "significant" is at ISO 100, which the D90 does not have (native).
But sensor performance is not the only thing that matters to a camera.
It's not subjective in my mind, to prioritize functions like pentaprism viewfinder, AF-ing old lenses, easy access to functions via buttons and dials and more flash abilities over resolution and high ISO/low light abilities, if that is what counts to the individual.
Anyway - that's what I did, when I bought the D90 - and I have never regretted that for a minute. Do I need to say, that when I bought the D90, the D5100 was there (just) - and was cheaper but never a consideration to me.
BirgerH.
I shot (and shoot) the D90 and D7000 together for 4 years and I don't find the D7000 better in allmost every way as you stated. only at the loewest ISO I see the differnce. I now have the D7200 also, still in the learning fase but if I rate the 3 camera's at 100-320 iso i give the D90 an 8, the D7000 an 8,5 and the D7200 a 9. After ISO 320 I rate all 3 the same. Yes also in High ISO!
Just talking about photo quality, there are other differnces in AF, colors, metering etc. With sometimes the better balance to one and sometimes to the other, They are all 3 fine cameras. The D90 was and is a fine flawless camera and I'm glad I bought it as my first DSLR 7 years ago. What I learned from buying these 3 camera's is that camera evolution is going way slower than I thought.
D90, 7000, D7200, Nikon 80-400mm, Tokina 50-135mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Nikon 35mm 2.0, nikon 55 mm macro 2.0
Just talking about photo quality, there are other differnces in AF, colors, metering etc. With sometimes the better balance to one and sometimes to the other, They are all 3 fine cameras. The D90 was and is a fine flawless camera and I'm glad I bought it as my first DSLR 7 years ago. What I learned from buying these 3 camera's is that camera evolution is going way slower than I thought.
D90, 7000, D7200, Nikon 80-400mm, Tokina 50-135mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Nikon 35mm 2.0, nikon 55 mm macro 2.0
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum