I currently have a D200 and a D70 setup with the 17-55 2.8, 10-20 Sigma, 70-300VR and AFS 60mm Macro as my main lenses. I really like the idea of articulating viewfinders and am looking for better ISO performance. I do have an Sb-900 and Sb 600, so I might have to invest in another flash or SU unit to trigger the CLS if I moved to the D5000s. Is the articulating viewfinder usable? I've heard the AF is quite slow- in liveview? Anyone used the D5000 for travel type work and found it any good? Is it about a stop better in high ISO than the D200?

Thanks.

the optical viewfinder of D5000 is like a tunnel compare to D200.
articulating LCD is probably less useful in practice, i do not find it very helpful in real world shooting. also, if you use LCD for framing, you need to use the extra-slow contrast detection AF.

Is it about a stop better in high ISO than the D200? Yes, high ISO is better on D5000, base ISO on D200 is actually unbeatable if one shoot RAW.

if weight and size is your piority, yes, D5000 is good for travel, but if you use flash.... D90 isn't that much bigger or heavier and you don't need bring/use other accessories to trigger CLS flash.

I've had a D70, and my main body is a D3. I bought a D5000 as a backup/travel camera. I don't particularly find the articulating view finder of any use.

The camera hasn't disappointed me in terms of focus speed or anything else for that matter. Seems to be a nice little camera.

My only complaint has been using the pop-up flash with my 14-24 lens, the lens is too big and alters the flash pattern.

I personally love the articulating screen, and while its not ideally implemented, its been ever so useful for low level and tripod shooting.

Its not perfect, but it sure beats either laying down in the dirt or messing with an angle finder to compose low level shots.

Its not going to replace my D3 for my normal work, but for travel and landscapes, its a great alternative in a lightweight and compact package with great IQ.

What do you actually shoot? Nothing in your profile and no website linked. Hard to help that way, not enough information.

You have some extremely capable glass there, paired with an old body and an older body. They both still work and make very nice images, of course. But when considering a body upgrade, you need to consider a lot more than just the articulating viewfinder. And you haven't mentioned anything that would help me analyze whether or not the D5000 is a useful upgrade to you, either by replacing the D200 or the D70.

I played with the D5000 the other day, and compaired to my D200, it felt like a childs toy. Too cheap for me after the D200

The D5000 is a great travel camera because it's very compact and light. Image quality is the same as D300. To my eye it has about a stop & half ISO improvement over D200. The flip out screen is nice if you do macro type shots or ground level. It does open up a whole new way to take photos if you're creative. I would greatly prefer it over a heavier/bulkier camera for family outings and travel. Can't you use an SB-800 or 900 as CLS commander? I think that lenses Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (new one with motor in lens) plus Nikon 70-300mm VR would be all you'd need for 90% of shots. Maybe add a Nikon 35mm f1.8G for low light. (I normally greatly prefer the Sigma 30mm f1.4, but for the sake of compactness the 35mm G lens would do.)

As with all photo gear, compromises have to made. In the plus column there's good image quality, compactness, fold out screen, video. In the minus column is CLS not fully supported, needs AFS lenses, and viewfinder is consumer grade.


Kent in SD

He already has a 17-55, so why are you mentioning the Tamron??

OP: I think you need to go into a store and play with the D5000 to see if it will suit you. The IQ at higher ISOs may be better, but if you have trouble holding it, then you will have trouble shooting with it. Also, the SB900 can be CLS master, so if you are used to shooting with two off-camera flashes, then you will need another SB600 or a SB800 (cheaper options than another SB900).

jonshonda wrote:
I played with the D5000 the other day, and compaired to my D200, it felt like a childs toy. Too cheap for me after the D200


Thats the point though, is very light and quite cheap, $599 new these days.

I've got a D700 as an alternative to the D3 and while an awesome camera, its still a brick and I hate carrying it around on vacation/travel as its quite heavy for casual use.

Plus since its not a "childs toy" you've got to be a lot more careful about keeping your eye on it, not leaving it in the hotel room etc. Not that I'm saying its smart to leave anything of value in a hotel room, but an entry level compact DSLR I bought for $600 I'd worry for less about than a $2600 D700.

Go for a D90

millsart wrote:
jonshonda wrote:
I played with the D5000 the other day, and compaired to my D200, it felt like a childs toy. Too cheap for me after the D200


Thats the point though, is very light and quite cheap, $599 new these days.

The OP is thinking of replacing the D200 w/ the D5000. I would replace the D70 w/ the D5000 instead, and keep the D200.

jonshonda wrote:


The OP is thinking of replacing the D200 w/ the D5000. I would replace the D70 w/ the D5000 instead, and keep the D200.



Certainly a valid way to go, but the OP specifically said he was looking for something for travel type work, so I assumed the lightest weight, and best image quality in the most portable package would be the priority.

D70 might be worth holding onto just for its cool faster flash sync ability, though then thats a bit of a different requirement than travel lol

Why no D300 option?

I agree with phatnev.
Get a deal on a used D300. A proper Nikon camera. You cannot regret it.

phatnev wrote:
Why no D300 option?


Cost over twice as much as a D5000 even if you buy the D300 used, doesn't have any better IQ as they basically share the same sensor, and the D300 isn't very light for travel either. Plus doesn't have the articulating viewfinder the OP listed.

So no real reason to consider it based upon what the OP's need are

Avi B wrote:
He already has a 17-55, so why are you mentioning the Tamron??




I have the 17-55mm f2.8 also, but if I were putting together a light/compact travel kit I would sell it and replace with new Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC (VC=VR.) It's a tremendous combination of compactness and performance. I think balance & handling would be improved. And, you add VR. The SB-800 is much more compact'lighter than SB-900 and that's the reason I've kept mine. (Less convenient menu though.) Think -system-, not pieces.


Kent in SD

millsart wrote:
phatnev wrote:
Why no D300 option?


Cost over twice as much as a D5000 even if you buy the D300 used, doesn't have any better IQ as they basically share the same sensor, and the D300 isn't very light for travel either. Plus doesn't have the articulating viewfinder the OP listed.

So no real reason to consider it based upon what the OP's need are


No better IQ, but its actually better for travel since its a sturdy body that will hold up over time and being put in a bag over and over. That's not even factoring in that it's got an AF motor which is an unbelievably huge help with regard to lens options.

He's got a D200 which is a proper camera, when he goes to a D5000, which no doubt is capable of taking great photos, he will probably be sorely disappointed by its stature and durability, as well as the use of SD cards. The D40/60/5000 series feel like toys in comparison to a Dx00 series camera, even the D70 is a step above.

Leica M are small; so are the lenses. I'd rather have one of those + lenses than a "proper" Nikon.


Kent in SD

Two23 wrote:
Leica M are small; so are the lenses. I'd rather have one of those + lenses than a "proper" Nikon.


Kent in SD

Me too, in fact I do. I have a M2 with a 35 2.5 and a 50mm 1.5, cost a mere $1500 and will last a life time(and probably 2 or 3 more). Unfortunately the M9 doesn't provide high ISO performance to match its $7,000 budget or I'd have one of those too. A student's budget sucks, but I'd be damned if they had a FF DRF that could shoot at 2500+ like a D700/D3s.

phatnev wrote:

No better IQ, but its actually better for travel since its a sturdy body that will hold up over time and being put in a bag over and over.


I guess it depends if your concept of travel is going down the Amazon in a canoe for a 3 month National Geographic assignment, or going to modern civilization and staying in hotels, taking the subway or taxi etc. I've had my D5k on a number of trips and certainly haven't had issues with taking it in and out of the bag causing it to wear out lol.

Again I guess to each his own but for me, the very fact its not a sturdy body, or a "toy" is the whole reason I reach for it in the first place. If I want something substantial and well made, a D700 or D3 (really not a huge weight difference between) is what I take, but thats exactly what I try to avoid when traveling light.

I actually just bought a G1 system to try to have an even lighter travel kit now, loving that so far. The camera body, 14-45 and 45-200 lens all total weight the same as just the D700 body by itself. I'll probably pick up a couple of M mount primes and adapter as well as the 7-14mm and I'll be able to have an equiv 14-400mm range in a kit that weights only 4lbs and can be carried in 2 jacket pockets. I've got a little folding tripod that folds down to about 12" as well that supports it just fine and I can fit that in my carry on as well. Thats so nice these days where they charge you to check a bag as I'd usually always check a duffle with my big CF tripod and accessories along with some clothes because there was no way to carry it on. Now I can carry a full kit in my carry on roller along with clothes and whatever else I need and even if I'm going for a short day or 2 day trip still take have the ability to make some nice images on my downtime. But I guess this is all reall something for another thread lol