[Zero]

Before I begin, let me first make it clear that I know what kinda territory I'm stepping into here - or at least I think I do.    Here's the deal:

I've had the Lumix 3 for just over a year. For those of you not familiar with the model, it is a point and shoot camera that boasts of a pretty decent Leica lens. So far, I've really enjoyed it. To these untrained eyes, it strikes me as being a damned fine camera as far as point and shoots go. Now I am not much of a photographer. It's not really a hobby of mine and I never plan on going that deep into the world of lenses, tripods, and all that stuff. I value the Lumix 3 because it takes good shots and has exceptional image stabilization. Moreover, it is just compact enough to make for a decent travel buddy, especially if you have larger pockets. That said, I've been entertaining the thought of stepping into the world of DSLR's.

The bottom line is that I wanted to get a camera that had slightly better zoom, a larger sensor, and a larger telephoto lens. After much debating, I brought home a Nikon D5000 from Best Buy. Stock lens and all. So far guys, I gotta say, I'm not too impressed with it. Now, it could be the stock lens, and it could very well be (and likely is) the user. Although I'm slightly beyond the level of using 'auto' settings in most situations, I'm still pretty much a n00b at this stuff. As far as the 5000 goes, I gotta say that the image depth (despite screwing with aperture) isn't what I was expecting. The colors are nice, but the auto focus on the lens is slow as dirt, and so far I haven't been able to get anything from the camera that my Panasonic cant already do. 

I know what I'm asking is personal in nature, but to you experienced folk -  should I hold onto this thing, or should I return it to the store? I'm leaning towards the latter, but any words would help.  I'd like to say the D5000 has great potential and that I (along with the stock lens) is the main caveat - but I'd like to get other opinions... especially if someone out there has owned both of these cameras!

Thanks!

[low.pfile]

preface: I have been light amatuer photographer since high school--25 yrs ago....

"image depth".... do you mean 3D type rendition of a subject or isolating a subject from the background?

If the latter, that is lens dependent relative to the sensor size. You should easily able to isolate the subject with your D5000 camera. you just need a lens with a maximum aperture value of 2.8 or smaller. Most kit lenses start at f/3.5ish, so it is less noticable. A prime lens with the ability to do this would be the nikon 50mm f/1.8 around $100US. Zoom lenses with large apertures are super pricey.

What is the "stock lens" zoom range and aperture range that came with your D5000?

I have an LX3 and didn't fully understand the relationship of the depth of field (amount that is in focus) to the sensor size. Now I get it completely. And the LX3 doesn't give me what my f2.0 SLR  lens does. I had a D80 which has a sensor very similar to the D5000. So I'd say it's the lens that matters if you are tying to play with "image depth". if you can bring your camera to a camera shop and take a few shots with a lens with 2.8 aperture or smaller or rent one online compare photos with apertures f/2.0 to f/16  use the "A" setting without flash ISO 800.

While the zoom is convienent and a good value, it has a few limitations. a large aperture being the main one (my D80 kit lens was a 18-70mm f3.5-4.5) And yes nikon lenses are pricey.

So don't return the camera. Consider a different lens.

Happy shooting.
ed
 

[low.pfile]

A follow up....

I was speaking in generalities above and forgot to mention another factor:

I found a few pics on my computer that highlight that the background to subject really is just as much a factor in the image depth.

when you photograph something very close to the lens, even medium apertures can create an out of focus background.

not great photographs but demonstrate the distance factor....

with my D80:
a lens testshot 24mm lens: f/4.5 @ 1/30  a bit of blur of the ground. the distance from plant to ground is only about 12 inches



another is with a this flower shot below. look at the bottom left side corners and this is @ f/6.3 (70mm zoom)! But as I recall, the flower was fairly close.... a few inches away from the lens (non-macro)
'



When the lenses with f/2.8 or larger really come into play is for isolating subjects (e.g. a person's head) from the background, when they are about at 5ft away

for example, look at the group pool of the 50mm f1.8 pool on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/groups/25385192@N00/pool/

there you will see lots of isolated subjects/blurry backgrounds/shallow depth of field in images that are not close ups.

[viggen]

Last year, I moved from a Panny FX01 to a D90 with the dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 lens.  The pictures I took were fantastic, far and away better than the FX01.  No comparison.

50mm was too narrow of a lens though, so I first bought the 17-35mm then the 17-55mm.  Both are much more expensive than the 50mm but both underperformed with the 17-55mm performing better than the 17-35mm. 

I'd say, with the 50mm, relatively it's about 300% better than the FX01.  With the 17-35mm, it's 50% better.  And, with the 17-55mm, it s about 200% better.

So, it might be the lens.

I am looking to sell my both lens and get a 35mm 1.8.  Maybe I just have better luck either with fixed focal lengths or with high aperature lenses.

[klipschfan]

Compare the two Cameras-1st link is actual test shots/2nd is specs

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAMDB/compare_cameras.php

[jqp]

Last year, I moved from a Panny FX01 to a D90 with the dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 lens.  The pictures I took were fantastic, far and away better than the FX01.  No comparison.

50mm was too narrow of a lens though, so I first bought the 17-35mm then the 17-55mm.  Both are much more expensive than the 50mm but both underperformed with the 17-55mm performing better than the 17-35mm. 

I'd say, with the 50mm, relatively it's about 300% better than the FX01.  With the 17-35mm, it's 50% better.  And, with the 17-55mm, it s about 200% better.

So, it might be the lens.

I am looking to sell my both lens and get a 35mm 1.8.  Maybe I just have better luck either with fixed focal lengths or with high aperature lenses.

I have that 35mm 1.8 - as Ken Rockwell says, don't pay over $200 for it.

I have found that Ken Rockwell can give you some really good lens advice since he has used so many for so long, and he is very quick to say 'this lens is not worth it' or this lens is great for the money/camera. I don't agree with everything he says, but you sure can get a lot of info if you use him as a reference.

[Zero]

Wow! I somehow managed to completely forget about this thread! So first and foremost, I'd like to give a very belated thanks to all of those who took the time to throw in their 2 cents. A hefty thanks goes out to Ed in particular for giving me such a thorough response!

Ultimately, the camera went back to the store. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but I made the move for two reasons.

A) I was under the impression that the stock lens "would do" until I could step into something a bit better. I was wrong. Moreover, I am not prepared to lay down the cash to get the type of lens that I'd really be happy with, IE: an 18-250.

B) Portability. The D5000 is a very portable camera as far as DSLR's go, but I was already cringing at the thought of hauling the thing with me when I take vacations. Sure, it's cool to get a nice shot or two here and there, but if its at the expense of lugging something around for hours on in... count me out. If this thing was substantially better than the little LX-3 in every way, I could justify the extra baggage. However, in stock form and in my hands, I found it to be only marginally better than the LX-3 in some of the situations that I'll be using the camera in.

In the end, I have to concede to jumping the gun a little. Ah well, I did enjoy my brief time with the D5000. One day, I will stick my head back into the rabbit hole, but until then, my little point and shoot will have to do for now.


Thanks again!