500D v D5000

F

Flyfisher

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Edit My Images
No
Im dallying with upgrading to my 1st DSLR and, for reasons of budget, have come down to these two.

My plan would be to get the body only and a cheapish zoom lens to get me started. I prefer shooting wildlife, motorsport and the odd aircraft so I have no immediate need of the shorter kit lens. Both seem to do well at higher ISO and seem very close in performance but which would you say creates the better image ?

As far as lenses go for the Canon I was planning the 55-250 IS (The 70-300 IS is out of my budget atm) or the Sigma APO 70-300. For the Nikon the same Sigma but I havent seen a 55-250 equivalent, any suggestions ?
 
Simple answer go and hold the different bodies and buy the one that YOU feel most comfortable holding. Be aware of the differing button/wheel layout.
 
I'm guessing Nikon's eqiv is the 55-200 VR AFS ED G - its around £150, and its good glass. The one without VR, but same optical qualities is around £110, very good deal. Personally I'd go for the D5K, as I find them much easier to use. but go have a look and see what you fancy.
 
I believe that Canon have more longer lenses available, if upgrading is something you will need to do in the future.
I have the 70-300 IS (around £250 s/h, £400 new), and it is a good lens, would recommend it, if you can stretch. Recently upgraded to the 100-400 L though (~£1k s/h) which is better, perhaps something to aim for?
 
Thanks for the advice. Ive tried the Canon and was amazed at how small it was. I did like its fast focus but wasnt that keen on its viewfinder which seemed a bit small. I havent tried the Nikkon yet but will do soon.
 
the Canon 55-250mm is a cracking lens. it got rave reviews in Amateur Photographer a few weeks back :]
 
recrudesce said:
the Canon 55-250mm is a cracking lens. it got rave reviews in Amateur Photographer a few weeks back :]
Click to expand...

Believing magazine reviews?... How quaint!

I'm sure there's a few Nigerians that would like a word with you.... :lol:

Having said that, the longer term *user* reviews at fredmiranda.com suggest that the Nikon 55-200 and the Canon 55-250 are much of a muchness.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
 
Nikon also have some excellent lenses - check out the Nikon 70-300 G ED VR AFS. Fairly high priced though.
 
for ages i was deciding what to get as my first dslr, i went round to a few shops and held a few cameras and had it down to either the 500d or the d5000, taking into account that the d5000 doesnt have a built in motor means you will have to spend more on lenses to get them to auto focus, so i was leaning more to the 500d. went to the shops yesterday and ended up buying a d90, so happy i did, maybe a bit more than the other two but it will be fully justified, just got to learn to use the thing now :lol:
 
That fredmiranda site is great , lots of reviews all in one place :clap:

The choices are bewildering, no wonder my eyes are sore and my heads spinning. With £50 cashback from the Canon I could probably get the 500D with the kit lens and then look on Ebay for the 70-300 IS lens, though Ive read that the 55-250 is sharper at 250mm than the 70-300mm is at 300mm.

Decisions, decisions :bang:
 
Robert Davies said:
Believing magazine reviews?... How quaint!

I'm sure there's a few Nigerians that would like a word with you.... :lol:

Having said that, the longer term *user* reviews at fredmiranda.com suggest that the Nikon 55-200 and the Canon 55-250 are much of a muchness.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
Click to expand...

i beg your pardon !?

i guess believing information in a magazine is the same as believing information on a random website...
 
Do you need video function or is it a feature you're keen on having ? If not, have you thought about the 450D, which is a good body - plenty on here raving about it, enabling you to poss spend a bit more on glass :thumbs:

Either way, you really should try to get hold of them together and see if one feels better than the other for you, good luck with your search :thumbs:
 
May sound like a daft question but if budget is an issue why not go for a Sony cam and get a Beercan lens? I have just acquired a Beercan for 70 notes and on my A200 it takes far nicer pics than my Nikon D60 + 55-200 VR and has the major benefit of constant F4 aperture AND the Sony cams have VR built in.
 
dod said:
How patronising!
Click to expand...

Maybe, but how many reviews have you read where they actually slate a camera or lens, which is know to be good, given the number of people on a forum who use it without a single supposed issue?

One thing that I have noticed from magazine reviews, is that they are not always careful to make sure that the review/comparison is fair or conducted in a scientific manner (even worse the BBC Click stuff). And should there be a problem (like a duff lens), there very rarely appears to be any retraction or modification of the scores.

However, I have seen, more often, online magazines which will adjust their scores when proven to be inaccurate.
 
i take it you've not seen the article then - test charts, 100% crops, that kinda thing.

dod said:
How patronising!
Click to expand...

you thought that too huh ? glad it wasn't just me.
 
I have a 55-250 Is and it is indeed a very nice lens considering what little money it costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top