Nikon D5000 DSLR with 18-55 AF S DX VR lens kit £465 @ AJ Electronics - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Title says it all: Nikon D5000 DSLR with 18-55 AF S DX VR lens kit for £465 delivered in 1-2 working days.

If you missed the Cashback offer I believe this is the best price for what I consider a fantastic camera (yes I have one).
Deal Tags:
More From AJ Electronics:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Blasphemous Avatar
6y, 6m agoFound 6 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(45) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Just to add, if AJ Electronics sell out, then the next cheapest I can find is http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=6943&setcurrency=gbp at just 95 pence more.

Here's some photos of the camera with the kit lens...

http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Camera/Nikon%20D5000%20DSLR/Nikon-D5000-DSLR.jpghttp://www.fentk.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nikon-d5000.jpg
#2
very good camera but if you have a little bit more money go for the d90.
#3
2k56
very good camera but if you have a little bit more money go for the d90.


the d90 is £300 more than this.
#4
2k56
very good camera but if you have a little bit more money go for the d90.


Put a bit more to it and get a Hasselblad H3D-39 http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slrs/hasselblad/PRD_418480_3127crx.aspx

:roll:
#5
Not as good as the d90 but probably not £300 less good.
#6
Voted Hot, Blas Im loving mine very much, been doing some shooting over the weekend. Some really nice pictures.
#7
tee_tee
Voted Hot, Blas Im loving mine very much, been doing some shooting over the weekend. Some really nice pictures.
Yep same here tee_tee. Just wish I had a 18-200mm lens! Where's Christmas when you need it? :-D:santa:
#8
I paid £650 for this about 10 months ago. Gutted!
#9
I paid a lot more for this camera and whilst it is good and takes a very clear picture I would advise people to go for a d90 it they can afford it. The d5000 does not have an auto-focus motor on the body meaning any lens you buy must be motorised for auto-focus to function. This means there are very few cheap lens' available.
#10
Voted hot paid £469.99 for mine from curry's a while back so this is a little better, it's a great DSLR and the for the money you are saving on this over the D90 you could also purchase a class 6 sdhc card, 2nd battery, decent bag, SB-400 speedlight (as the built in flash's are not brill), some filters (hoya UV & Polarising ones) and then you have a half decent kit which is what I did for about the same price as the D90 & lens kit on its own. Plus the d90 is noticeably heavier, again with most things read the reviews but its all down to personal preferance & how much money you have.

Here's a quote from Ken Rockwell I would recommend reading his site and review on this.

"The D5000 is the smallest, lightest Nikon that has technical image quality indistinguishable from Nikon's best D3 and D700 in good light."
#11
Blasphemous
Just to add, if AJ Electronics sell out, then the next cheapest I can find is http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=6943&setcurrency=gbp at just 95 pence more.

Here's some photos of the camera with the kit lens...

http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Camera/Nikon%20D5000%20DSLR/Nikon-D5000-DSLR.jpghttp://www.fentk.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nikon-d5000.jpg


Hi

how to add photos in here

cheers
#12
I brought the same camera from Amazon a short while back - was an excellent price with the cashback offer.

Anyway, this offer seems a good deal, and if it's any use to anybody; I'd say the camera is really good for beginners. I'm a complete newcomer to using DSLRs, but I've already learnt a thing about ISO, aperture and shutter speed! Helps that I picked up the "Nikon D5000 for dummies" book mind you. :)

Cutting to the chase, if you're looking for an affordable route into DSLR territory, the D5000 is unlikely to dissapoint.
#13
Blasphemous;8677097
Yep same here tee_tee. Just wish I had a 18-200mm lens!

I'm not yet in DSLRworld yet - can you please explains the benefits of this lens and maybe post a link?
#14
I personally wouldn't recommend the 18-200mm lens, its pretty big so negates the size of the D5000, and the picture quality isn't as good as the 18-55mm kit lens or the cheap 55-200mm VR. So unless you absolutely need that huge range in one lens, you'll get better photos with a cheaper twin lens kit.
#15
i'm thinking of getting the panasonic lumix GF1, how does this compare?
#16
Excellent deal for an excellent camera

Thought the flip screen was a bit of a gimic but have found myself using it quite a lot, is a great feature.
#17
The 18-200mm lens was pretty revolutionary when it came out, but the only selling point for me is that 11X zoom. Optically it's quite a compromise with just about every lens problem manifesting itself in one way or another.

For £500 you could instead buy a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the 70-300mm VR and still have change. The kit lens supplied will be perfectly good for daily use, and the other two for more specialist moments. (Sports, or when the light is very low).
#18
For those wanting a hyperzoom say the 18-200mm, i'd suspect the Tamron 18-250mm will be a better option far sharper then you would expect from such a zoom and i hear the new sigma 18-250mm is even better

they're great options for those wanting to travel light shooting generally, those obessed with sharpness and/or photographing more demanding situations will need more specific lenses.
#19
golo83
i'm thinking of getting the panasonic lumix GF1, how does this compare?


To be honest (and with no sarcasm or attitude intended) if you have to ask how a compact compares to a DSLR you probably don't need one :thumbsup:

No and I mean NO, compact will EVER match a good DSLR, its about versatility with being able to change lenses to get that "perfect" picture. A compact like the Panny you mentioned is designed for every occasion, hence it will be good (if not very good at that price band!!) at most things but brilliant at none.

Hope I have not come over as a camera snob, but its important that you get it right first time or you could be seriously out of pocket :thumbsup:
#20
zurich
the d90 is £300 more than this.


No it's not.

It's £749 for the D90 with 18-105VR lens - which is a better lens as well as a better body.
But that's before the £60 cashback from Nikon: http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/offers_chooser-post0410.html

For a fairer comparison, take the D90 body at £607.60 from amazon.co.uk: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001EO6W8A/letscook/ref=nosim and then take £60 cashback off that gives you £557.60 for the body only. You can then add £80 for the 18-55 VR at ABC, giving a total of £627.60

So that's £162.60 difference for the D90 after cashback - quite a bit less than £300 difference!

EDIT - Still a hot price for the D5000 though!
#21
frakison
To be honest (and with no sarcasm or attitude intended) if you have to ask how a compact compares to a DSLR you probably don't need one :thumbsup:


Rubbish. Just because somebody doesn't know why a DSLR is better doesn't mean they won't benefit from owning one.

frakison
No and I mean NO, compact will EVER match a good DSLR, its about versatility with being able to change lenses to get that "perfect" picture. A compact like the Panny you mentioned is designed for every occasion, hence it will be good (if not very good at that price band!!) at most things but brilliant at none.


That's not quite true. A compact with an APS-C sensor can match a DSLR for image quality. And it depends on your definition of a compact and a DSLR. The new Sony NEX mirrorless camera offers lens changeability and a full APS-C sensor. It is NOT a DSLR because it it is not a Single Lens Reflex design - it has no mirror or pentaprism. It is essentially a compact with interchangeable lenses. So there is a compact which matches a DSLR ...

EDIT - Just checked the GF1 on DPRewiew: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/
It's a Micro 4/3 so it's a 4/3 sensor - not quite as good as the Nikon but much better than most compacts. It's not an SLR as such but does have a reasonable range of interchangeable lenses.

Gets a great review from Steve's Digicams: http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gf1/panasonic-lumix-gf1-review.html - from the conclusion:
"Bottom Line - The Panasonic Lumix GF1 is another outstanding addition to the Lumix G line of Micro 4/3 system cameras. Although it is a step down from the GH1 in features, it is a little cheaper and still full of useful features, making it very attractive. Not to mention it's quite a bit smaller. The camera's image quality and performance are excellent, allowing it to perform with dSLR cameras that fall into its price range. One big advantage that the GF1 has over these dSLR's is its size, since it doesn't have a mirror to operate, the camera is much smaller and easier to carry. "

So there you have it - it's a compact which comes very close to a DSLR in quality - what was it you were saying frakison?
#22
frakison
To be honest (and with no sarcasm or attitude intended) if you have to ask how a compact compares to a DSLR you probably don't need one :thumbsup:

The GF1 is hardly your regular compact camera, it is essentially a liveview only DSLR with a large sensor & swappable lenses.

indeed a lot of photo geeks are considering the GF1 because it offers the chance to mount virtually any vintage lens onto via adapters
#23
Had a D5000 for a while now, paired it with an 18-105mm VR. This is a great combination - I used it last weekend for group photos at my Nan's 90th birthday party and was amazed at how good the indoor shots looked, I never noticed until afterwards that the auto ISO had selected 1600 for a few of them, they look so grain free, sharp and vibrant. No lens distortion either, it's corrected automatically within the camera.

At the end of the day you're getting the best of Nikon technology (D90 sensor, auto chromatic aberration correction, auto lens distortion correction) without paying the premium.
:thumbsup:
#24
Spod
Rubbish. Just because somebody doesn't know why a DSLR is better doesn't mean they won't benefit from owning one.

That's not quite true. A compact with an APS-C sensor can match a DSLR for image quality. And it depends on your definition of a compact and a DSLR. The new Sony NEX mirrorless camera offers lens changeability and a full APS-C sensor. It is NOT a DSLR because it it is not a Single Lens Reflex design - it has no mirror or pentaprism. It is essentially a compact with interchangeable lenses. So there is a compact which matches a DSLR ...

EDIT - Just checked the GF1 on DPRewiew: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/
It's a Micro 4/3 so it's a 4/3 sensor - not quite as good as the Nikon but much better than most compacts. It's not an SLR as such but does have a reasonable range of interchangeable lenses.

Gets a great review from Steve's Digicams: http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gf1/panasonic-lumix-gf1-review.html - from the conclusion:
"Bottom Line - The Panasonic Lumix GF1 is another outstanding addition to the Lumix G line of Micro 4/3 system cameras. Although it is a step down from the GH1 in features, it is a little cheaper and still full of useful features, making it very attractive. Not to mention it's quite a bit smaller. The camera's image quality and performance are excellent, allowing it to perform with dSLR cameras that fall into its price range. One big advantage that the GF1 has over these dSLR's is its size, since it doesn't have a mirror to operate, the camera is much smaller and easier to carry. "

So there you have it - it's a compact which comes very close to a DSLR in quality - what was it you were saying frakison?


Yeah, sorry you're right, a £500 compact can easily match a DSLR with a £5k lens attached, thats why all the pro's use them :roll: God I feel so stupid now, Im going to sell my DSLR and buy a brownie cos I read one review that said they were better than any camera ever made :roll:
#25
godsakes
The GF1 is hardly your regular compact camera, it is essentially a liveview only DSLR with a large sensor & swappable lenses.

indeed a lot of photo geeks are considering the GF1 because it offers the chance to mount virtually any vintage lens onto via adapters


Horses for courses.... I was trying to advise the guy but clearly it was not welcome. seems too many people can't respond without being personal on here nowadays :whistling:
#26
frakison
Yeah, sorry you're right, a £500 compact can easily match a DSLR with a £5k lens attached, thats why all the pro's use them :roll: God I feel so stupid now, Im going to sell my DSLR and buy a brownie cos I read one review that said they were better than any camera ever made :roll:


Oh come on. Stop being obtuse. We are comparing £500 cameras here. Your statement was that a compact could never match the quality of a DSLR. We weren't discussing £5K lenses or mega-expensive bodies. We were talking about consumer DSLRs - the ones that most of us non-pros can actually afford.

The GF1 that golo83 asked about takes interchangeable lenses and has a sensor will come close to matching the image quality of the Nikon D5000's sensor (that was the DSLR camera we were discussing if you care to remember).

The GF1 will take some relatively expensive lenses as well. No, there are no £5K lenses available, but you don't need to spend £5K on a lens to get great quality - those very expensive ones are so expensive because they give very wide apertures, which the pros need but very few amateurs do - and I bet you don't own one!
#27
frakison
Horses for courses.... I was trying to advise the guy but clearly it was not welcome. seems too many people can't respond without being personal on here nowadays :whistling:


advice is always welcome, but equally so are corrections - had the poster been refering specifically to 'traditonal' compacts with fixed lenses & 1/16th sized sensors i'd broadly agree with your point, but the poster specifically referred to the GF1 it's fair to point out the introduction of micro 4/3rds & the samsung/sony versions with aps-c sensors has changed the game. Nothing personal about it
#28
Spod
No, there are no £5K lenses available
actually a GF1 user can just get a canon or nikon adapter and user whatever overpriced lens they could find (abeit in manual), because of the shorter focal distance to the sensor you can make any 35mm format lens adapter for the system, although you could end up with a fairly unbalanced combo (picturing a gaint 500mm lens on a tiny GF1 body).
#29
Those are good points godsakes.

Frakison, would you please go back to golo83's question and look at your reply. His question was entirely reasonable , but your answer made him look like he was uninformed for asking because he was daring to compare a compact with an SLR - but I would guess that you hadn't realised that the GF1 was an interchangeable lens camera with an APS-C sensor at that stage.

Instead of having the good grace to admit that you had, at the least, overstated your case given the nature of the camera in question, you have instead chosen to dig yourself deeper into the hole by using ridiculous comparisons and complaints about people becoming personal.

Your intentions were obviously honourable as you came in to help. I really hope that you aren't one of those awful people who can't admit when they've made a mistake - even if it's only a case of overstating their point.

On my part, if I've been overzealous or rude to anybody then I apologise, unreservedly.
Spod.
#30
Spod
Those are good points godsakes.

Frakison, would you please go back to golo83's question and look at your reply. His question was entirely reasonable , but your answer made him look like he was uninformed for asking because he was daring to compare a compact with an SLR - but I would guess that you hadn't realised that the GF1 was an interchangeable lens camera with an APS-C sensor at that stage.

Instead of having the good grace to admit that you had, at the least, overstated your case given the nature of the camera in question, you have instead chosen to dig yourself deeper into the hole by using ridiculous comparisons and complaints about people becoming personal.

Your intentions were obviously honourable as you came in to help. I really hope that you aren't one of those awful people who can't admit when they've made a mistake - even if it's only a case of overstating their point.

On my part, if I've been overzealous or rude to anybody then I apologise, unreservedly.
Spod.


No probs, probably the heat outside :oops: My point was simply that you don't need to go into the expense of DSLR just to keep up with "the crowd" and that a fancy pants camera wont make your pictures any better. I was trying to say (perhaps unsuccessfully) that DSLR's require a level of investment (time and money wise) that you must be prepared to make whereas compacts will let you get on with taking pictures. IMHO if the OP was that keen on starting serious photography he/she would have looked into both formats already and would be aware of the DSLR benefits..... reading back this doesn't help my case much but hey, as you said, my original intentions WERE honourable :thumbsup:
#31
frakison
a fancy pants camera wont make your pictures any better


That's not *quite* true though. In most cases, the bigger the sensor the better the final image quality will be. An APS-C sensor will always produce a better image than a 1/16th sized sensor - and a full frame jobby will usually be even better. And of course the reduction in chromatic abberations such as fringing and the reduction of blocky artefacts in high ISO images can also improve the final photograph substantially.

Naturally it can't help your choice of subject or framing, but arguably a better camera can give you a far better final image. :thumbsup:
#32
Sorry to butt in here but a simple question.

I am after a camera much better than a compact. I am not saying I want professional photo or anything like that but better than a compact. I looked at DSLR and thought they were so big that I would not really use it and therfore have so far not bought one. I, also like the GF1 poster was thinking of gettting GF1 because

1. It was much smaller than a full blown DSLR (& therefore use it much more)
2. Give me better picture than a compact (perhaps not as good as an SLR)

The questions now:

1. So, how good a picture can a micro 4/3 camera take compared to a compact? Just on an auto setting without any worries about anything else.

2. Now, again at auto setting (i.e. best possible photo one can take on an auto setting) on both cameras, how much of a difference would there be for a identical photo take with GF1 and D3000/D5000?

3. Now, what about the differences between say D3000 and D5000 using the kit lenses on an auto setting (i.e. let the camera take the best picture - say both cameras are set to identical defaults? Would there be any difference in quality of pictures from both cameras? See, I understand you can do lots of things with the settings to give you a great picture and therefore could be differences of quality of images between D3000 & D5000 but I am talking about just the standard settings.

4. Finally, GF1 - how large a photo can I produce using it & it would look great.

Most of the photos that I would take would go into photo book so size -wise the largest we talking about is A4 in most cases. In only, very rare circumstances I may want to enlarge the photo to about A2 size. In my case the photos would normally be indoors of people and parties etc.

Thanks.

Robie.
#33
What you say is very true TECHNICALLY, however my point was that its the photographer that makes the difference more than the equipment. I recently provided extra picture support for a friends wedding and although my pics were a lot better than I expected, Im honest enough to admit that the pro's pictures were better. Sure he had better (or at least more expensive) equipment but that wasn't it, it was his postitioning and lighting etc, equipment can never outweigh experience in my book.
1 Like #34
Robiesanta
Sorry to butt in here but a simple question.

[COLOR="Red"]Who do you think you are posting relevant questions in the middle of our discussion!! :p[/COLOR]

I am after a camera much better than a compact. I am not saying I want professional photo or anything like that but better than a compact. I looked at DSLR and thought they were so big that I would not really use it and therfore have so far not bought one. I, also like the GF1 poster was thinking of gettting GF1 because

1. It was much smaller than a full blown DSLR (& therefore use it much more)

[COLOR="red"]Totally agree, I have a smaller compact for times when I cant be bothered to lug my kit around, however, I think it would bother you less than you're thinking.[/COLOR]

2. Give me better picture than a compact (perhaps not as good as an SLR)

[COLOR="red"]By all accounts its a great camera, you would not be disapointed if you're coming from a run of the mill compact.[/COLOR]

The questions now:

1. So, how good a picture can a micro 4/3 camera take compared to a compact? Just on an auto setting without any worries about anything else.

[COLOR="red"]Reviews suggest its simliar to DSLR, by definition it would blow a £100 compact out of the water :thumbsup:[/COLOR]
2. Now, again at auto setting (i.e. best possible photo one can take on an auto setting) on both cameras, how much of a difference would there be for a identical photo take with GF1 and D3000/D5000?

[COLOR="red"]I'd say it depends on how much of a photo buff YOU are. for instance, my mate bought a £1200 stereo system and he can tell the difference to his old Technics system.... I can't!! Same with photo's, unless you're a pixel peeper I'd say you would not notice much of a difference PROVIDING you're talking comparing apples with apples (by that I mean similar lenses, e.g. if I used a 50mm fixed prime lens there is NO WAY the GF1 would match it no matter what anyone says, however, if I used my kit 18-55mm reviews suggest it may be better.[/COLOR]

3. Now, what about the differences between say D3000 and D5000 using the kit lenses on an auto setting (i.e. let the camera take the best picture - say both cameras are set to identical defaults? Would there be any difference in quality of pictures from both cameras? See, I understand you can do lots of things with the settings to give you a great picture and therefore could be differences of quality of images between D3000 & D5000 but I am talking about just the standard settings.

[COLOR="Red"]I'd guess that the D5000 ships with a better kit lens but thats a guess.... if so, it SHOULD offer better pictures due to the lens as I would bet that the electronics would be pretty much shared between models (again a guess, but theres usually an incentive to upgrade :thumbsup:).[/COLOR]

4. Finally, GF1 - how large a photo can I produce using it & it would look great.

Most of the photos that I would take would go into photo book so size -wise the largest we talking about is A4 in most cases. In only, very rare circumstances I may want to enlarge the photo to about A2 size.

[COLOR="red"]First off, this is 12.1 megapixels, now on a £60 Aldi special this is meaningless as the lens is usually crap, this does not suffer with a crap lens and therefor I'd say A3 would still look great as long as the picture is in focus (I recently had some posters done from my 10mp DSLR and they looked great!![/COLOR]

Thanks.

Robie.


Hope that helps :thumbsup:
#35
Robiesanta

4. Finally, GF1 - how large a photo can I produce using it & it would look great.

Most of the photos that I would take would go into photo book so size -wise the largest we talking about is A4 in most cases. In only, very rare circumstances I may want to enlarge the photo to about A2 size. In my case the photos would normally be indoors of people and parties etc.

Thanks.

Robie.


The GF1 can take up to 4000x3000 pixel photos. At 300 pixels/inch that would be about 13.3x10 inches of stunning quality - which is a bit bigger than A4. Dropping to 200 pixels per inch you would still get great quality photos at up to 20x15", which is bigger than A3.

To get full-frame A2 images you would need to drop to about 170 pixels per inch - which would still be reasonable quality - but if you need to do that on a regular basis it would be worth asking to try out the camera in a shop and print 1/4 of the image onto A4 at 170DPI to see if you are happy with that resolution..
#36
Robiesanta
Sorry to butt in here but a simple question.

I am after a camera much better than a compact. I am not saying I want professional photo or anything like that but better than a compact. I looked at DSLR and thought they were so big that I would not really use it and therfore have so far not bought one. I, also like the GF1 poster was thinking of gettting GF1 because

1. It was much smaller than a full blown DSLR (& therefore use it much more)
2. Give me better picture than a compact (perhaps not as good as an SLR)

The questions now:

1. So, how good a picture can a micro 4/3 camera take compared to a compact? Just on an auto setting without any worries about anything else.

2. Now, again at auto setting (i.e. best possible photo one can take on an auto setting) on both cameras, how much of a difference would there be for a identical photo take with GF1 and D3000/D5000?

3. Now, what about the differences between say D3000 and D5000 using the kit lenses on an auto setting (i.e. let the camera take the best picture - say both cameras are set to identical defaults? Would there be any difference in quality of pictures from both cameras? See, I understand you can do lots of things with the settings to give you a great picture and therefore could be differences of quality of images between D3000 & D5000 but I am talking about just the standard settings.

4. Finally, GF1 - how large a photo can I produce using it & it would look great.

Most of the photos that I would take would go into photo book so size -wise the largest we talking about is A4 in most cases. In only, very rare circumstances I may want to enlarge the photo to about A2 size. In my case the photos would normally be indoors of people and parties etc.

Thanks.

Robie.


Hi Robie

The image quality from the GF1 should be all you need, the rest is really about learning to take a good shot. The beauty of using higher spec cameras is the manual features, don't use it in auto mode, start with aperature mode play with aperature settings to play with the depth of field in your shots, if you're taking a shot of your partner set the aperature large (that's a smaller number) and it'll throw the background out of focus while keeping your partner sharp

The issues with the GF1 is while the body is compact the same cannot be completely said for the lenses - unless you're planning to use the 20mm pancake lens, if so then great you've got yourself a great compact package with a fast & sharp lens. However shooting with a prime (a lens where you can't zoom in or out) isn't everyone's cup of tea.

So the moment you start to use the zooms you've negated the compactness. It's would still be lighter then a DSLR option but not slide in your pocket compactness.

the other issue with the GF1 is it uses contrast detect for focusing, which is more accurate but slower compared to phase detect systems in DSLRs so the GF1 isn't as good for fast/moving subjects
#37
Thank you all - Spod, Fraikson & Godsakes for your inputs to my dilema. :?

I am not a great photographer and mostly use my compact (F72EXR - same as F70EXR). It gives me OK pictures. I do use a borrowed SLR from time to time.

I mostly take photos at parties and indoor events (for friends & do not earn any money) & produce photo-books for them. I hope to take portraits at some point of one particular person :-D & will enlarge that photo/sets of photos to about A2 size.

Quite thruthfully, however cheap (say D3000) or most expensive (D90) DSLR I may buy (& people recommend), I don't think I will ever use it to its full potential. If anything, I will end with 'Auto' setting on a DSLR to take picture in 95% of the cases :oops:.

I am willing to listen if anybody can convince me that I must go for a full-blown SLR. :thumbsup:
#38
perhaps look at 2nd hand options a basic entry level DSLR is no more than a higher end compact - £250 would get you a sony A200 + kit lens to start with and later on maybe get a 50mm prime to play with - i'm sure there's plenty of options as well from canikon (but i'm not an expert on their prices/models)
#39
Robiesanta
Thank you all - Spod, Fraikson & Godsakes for your inputs to my dilema.

I am not a great photographer and mostly use my compact (F72EXR - same as F70EXR). It gives me OK pictures. I do use a borrowed SLR from time to time.

I mostly take photos at parties and indoor events (for friends & do not earn any money) & produce photo-books for them. I hope to take portraits at some point of one particular person :-D & will enlarge that photo/sets of photos to about A2 size.

Quite thruthfully, however cheap (say D3000) or most expensive (D90) DSLR I may buy (& people recommend), I don't think I will ever use it to its full potential. If anything, I will end with 'Auto' setting on a DSLR to take picture in 95% of the cases :oops:.

I am willing to listen if anybody can convince me that I must go for a full-blown SLR.


I'd say that you have answered your own query :thumbsup:. My DSLR has been on the dreaded AUTO since I bought it as I have not had the time to invest in it that I'd like to have. The difference between me and you is:

1. I had previously been using a Nikon 4300 (which was good when it can out but only 4mp so it had aged!!). You're using a decent compact now, so the difference may not be as noticeable?!?

2. Some dosy chuff rear ended my car because they weren't taking due care (I'd stopped at a zebra crossing so its lucky I was there!!), needless to say, it paid for the DSLR + extra's so in effect was "free" :p

Im now trying to wean myself off of AUTO and a bloke at work is a bit of a photo buff so he's giving me plenty of guidance, its not that hard when you understand what each thing does but would I trust myself to do a wedding non-auto...... no-way!!!

Good luck, feel free to ask any other questions but to be honest with you, its always going to fall on your shoulders to make a decision....... I don't envy you as I ummed and ahhhed for ages before getting mine "would I use a DSLR?" "Would I be better off with a bridge", "ooooh, this panasonic FZ7 looks good, maybe thats an option?", OH was sick of hearing about it and just told me to get the ******* DSLR!!!! :p)
1 Like #40
frankison, I'm not sure if you have the D5000 but if you do, have a look here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000/users-guide/index.htm Hope it helps.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!