D5000 or Sony A580 or something else??

P

photo_solo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
24
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, am looking at these two cameras... i'm new to the dslr world but would like something slightly above entry level (i think) so i don't have to upgrade again in a few months time.

What do people think of the D5000? A580? something else better? (budget of say £700)

thanks :)
 
You should be able to get the a580 for about £500 these days. If you go for that option, treat yourself to one of the "easy choice" (cheapo plastic) primes to go with it.
 
I have the 580, a friend has the 5000.

You will find that lenses for sony are much cheaper (I got 2nd hand 35mm and 50mm primes for the amount he paid for his 35mm one ;) ).

Also Sony has quite a few more external controls (so annoying when you need to go through a menu to change the ISO while shooting).

The sensor on the Sony is also much better (more MPs, better high Iso performance)
 
thanks for the replies guys :)

is the A580 on par with the Nikon D90?
 
I have a D5000 and love it :) For the extra money I wouldn't get the D5100, yeah it has better video, but who could hold a DSLR long enought to record hehe.
 
scottthehat said:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5100-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A580 look at this the nikon 5100 beats the 580.
Click to expand...

Based on the reasons given in the two lists of "advantages" I'd take the 580 any day. The IQ differences are well within DxO's (looks like that's where they took their numbers from) margin of error and some of the factors listed are just silly (woohoo the Nikon is thinner!).
 
arkadarka said:
Ive just got an a580 and love it
Click to expand...

that's great to hear :)

iced_jacob said:
Image quality is better (higher resolution, better high iso).

Build-quality wise the d90 is better though
Click to expand...

Does build quality edge things in favour of the D90? (i'm thinking they're all built to a very high standard anyway right?)

billybob99 said:
I upgraded from a A200 to A580 a while ago and would thoroughly recommend it theres some comparisons here http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D5000-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A580
Click to expand...

very helpful thanks :)

scottthehat said:
Also why the d5000 not the d5100.
Click to expand...

isn't the d5100 more expensive? also see below :)

Miss Moo!! said:
I have a D5000 and love it :) For the extra money I wouldn't get the D5100, yeah it has better video, but who could hold a DSLR long enought to record hehe.
Click to expand...

scottthehat said:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5100-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A580 look at this the nikon 5100 beats the 580.
Click to expand...

Johnd2000 said:
Based on the reasons given in the two lists of "advantages" I'd take the 580 any day. The IQ differences are well within DxO's (looks like that's where they took their numbers from) margin of error and some of the factors listed are just silly (woohoo the Nikon is thinner!).
Click to expand...

seems there are more people preferring the A580?

edit: Would people get the Nikon D90 over the A580???
 
Last edited:
The sony also has an inbuilt AF motor so you can use any lens. The cheapo nikon doesn't so you are restricted. The A580 also has a larger buffer than the D7000. Build quality on the A580 is squeaky. I have a A350 and the A580 is loads better. The a350 has slower AF and is much more noisy. The a580/D5100 & D7000 all share the same sensor. If you want the better build quality and in body IS then the pentax K5 is worth looking at.

Nikon range partly looks larger as you have both VR and non VR versions of lenses. Unless you are spending thousands on an esoteric drainpipe the range from either would do the job.

In body IS is also useful as it means any old lens is automatically stabilised.

There is no substitute for picking them up in a shop and trying them out. You might find you hate all of them and buy a canon instead.

D90 is only 12 mp. It does have the in body AF though so might be better value compared to the D5100. Friend has a D90 and it takes perfectly decent photos.
 
snapsort, too funny. If you check the scores the only reason the Nikon won is that Nikon was scored 47.5 for popularity and Sony, 5. Take that out of the equation and I dare say results would be different. Both cameras are very good and it only comes down to which fits in your hand better and you'd feel most comfortable with.
 
srichards said:
The sony also has an inbuilt AF motor so you can use any lens. The cheapo nikon doesn't so you are restricted. The A580 also has a larger buffer than the D7000. Build quality on the A580 is squeaky. I have a A350 and the A580 is loads better. The a350 has slower AF and is much more noisy. The a580/D5100 & D7000 all share the same sensor. If you want the better build quality and in body IS then the pentax K5 is worth looking at.

Nikon range partly looks larger as you have both VR and non VR versions of lenses. Unless you are spending thousands on an esoteric drainpipe the range from either would do the job.

In body IS is also useful as it means any old lens is automatically stabilised.

There is no substitute for picking them up in a shop and trying them out. You might find you hate all of them and buy a canon instead.

D90 is only 12 mp. It does have the in body AF though so might be better value compared to the D5100. Friend has a D90 and it takes perfectly decent photos.
Click to expand...

that made me laugh :P thanks for that :) going to pop into jessops over the weekend and give each a feel :P Sounds as though if the A580 was better made (ie. didn't sqeak) then it's a no brainer to choose this over the suggested peers so far? sounds like an oversight on Sony's part?
 
It is around half the price of the D7000 with similar spec so it isn't surprising that some corners were cut. The body squeaks but as far as I can tell it doesn't affect performance in any way. Sony also seem to use a plastic that looks like someone sneezed on it.

I thought it was a no brainer. I did look seriously at the D7000 but with the piddly buffer and a price tag that was twice the sony it seemed like a poor choice. The 5100 didn't exist when I got the A580. In body IS is what swung it for me.
 
initally family portraits :P and random things around the house.. once i get into the swing of things then outdoor things like cars, trees, skies... the usual stuff i guess :)
 
the D5100 & A580 both use essentially the same sensor so actual image quality is very similar & both better than D5000.
The A580 has better Live-View, the D5100 AFs in video (sort of, it's not great).

Either has more than enough lenses, flashes etc. available for your needs.
Get to a shop & see which seems more natural to you (not the sales person) in use.
A580s are getting harder to find now but there are still good deals.
 
thanks for the tips :)

why are the A580s harder to find now? is it being replaced by a newer model or something?
 
it's end of life.
Sony is pushing it's SLT system for the future which uses an EVF instead of an OVF as it does have some advantages (& no free lunch so some drawbacks).
 
a580 uses EVF right?

Do you know when the a580 will get replaced? thanks.
 
no, A580 is OVF.
It's currently looking likely that there will be no direct replacement with an OVF, the just introduced A65 is kind of in the region of the price-point (or it will be once production returns to normal after the Thailand floods & after the usual initial few months have passed -imo it will probably drop to ~£600 street).
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-alpha-a65-slt-digital-slr-review-17845
 
oh i see! sorry for the numpty question there :)

I'm not desperate for a camera... worth waiting for the january sales for an A65? First glance seems it has most of the good features from the a77? (obviously i won't have any money left over for a decent lens but the one that comes with it is good enough for family portait stuff?)
 
if you can wait it's certainly worth doing so to see how prices go (for Nikon too).
The floods in Thailand have really knocked production so it may be February before supplies start to return to normal (& when supplies are tight prices go up, when there is plenty of availability they fall).

The A65 has most of the core of the A77 but it does miss some of the things that an advanced amateur etc. might look for - weatherproof alloy body with 2 control dials, focus micro-adjust, vertical grip availability (wouldn't be suprised if somebody like Meike comes up with 1 of those though) etc.. that's why the A77 is dearer though.
The kit 18-55 is fine to get you started & let you get enough experience to know what you want from your next 1.
 
Last edited:
hmmm... looking seriously at the A65 now.

saw some on ebay and there's one from HK for about 620. Warranty aside, do you think this is a good price?

Do you know what pre-flood prices were like? thanks!
 
bear in mind that you may get hit with VAT on imports & as you mention warranty issues.

There weren't really too much in the way of pre-flood prices for the A65 & A77 as their launch pretty much coincided with the floods.
My target price for an A65vk (body+ kit 18-55) would be under £650 for UK stock but it will imo take a few months for street price to fall back to that. Currently it's about £750.

It's also worth looking at he price difference between body only & with the kit 18-55 as you can usually pickup a kit 18-55 (often unused) in the classifieds section here for ~£50
 
i'm always a little dubious when buying from ebay... i'm not desperate so will do further research and shop around.

good tip about the body only and then sourcing the lens to save some money, thanks so much! :)
 
I have the A65. Skip the 18-55 kit lens if you go the A65/77 route. Out of all my lens that one performs the worst on the A65 ... the sensor needs better glass. A used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sony 16-105 are good start lens. I use the 16-105 and it is very good on my A500 but it's come to life on the A65.
 
Thanks Peter. Just read a review about the a65 on dpreview. Mainly good but claim it produces a lot of noise on all ISO levels with laggy menu navigation.

As an owner, can you tell me your thoughts about these issues please? Also do you think this camera is up there with say the canon 5d mk ii ? Thanks :)
 
It is a bit more noisy than my A500 but that's when ISO gets higher. From 100-800/1600 I get a bit more detail than my A500, however it is noisier from 1600 and up, maybe even 800 I've not really done a comparison and have no intention to pixel peep. On the good side, down sample the A65 to match 16meg sensors and they are very close to being the same. As for the 5d you are comparing apples to oranges, it's not far considering how much more expensive the Canon is. If you are a very high IsO shooter than it won't be the best choice, if you print and don't go over ISO 1600/maybe 3200 (ok I got up to 6400 and can at 13x19 with post processing but milage varies on one's criteria) max and you have a lot of leeway with cropping. Look for flicker groups and such that are shooting with the A65 and A77 (since sensor is the same, shots will be also outside of glass used) and make up your own mind. I've not noticed a laggy menu as such... it does take a bit to shut down though. Myself, I love the camera, warts and all, but it will not be everyone's cup of tea.
 
Last edited:
that's very useful, thanks very much Myrdhinn :)

the lens you mention.. that one's really expensive right? (any cheaper alternatives?)
 
there is a new firmware posted today that early reviews suggest has much improved the speed of response.
Some suggestion that there may also be minor IQ improvements.

However, re. noise bear in mind that it's a 24 MP sensor & when comparing it @100% on screen against e.g. a 16MP sensor you have to remember that you are zoomed in further & therefore any noise is also apparently magnified too. If you look at Luminous Landscapes review of the NEX-7 (same sensor as A65/A77 albeit without the light loss from the SLT mirror) his conclusion is that if you resize pics down to 16Mp then the IQ from both is pretty much identical even at high ISO . & of course in good light the 24Mp has higher resolution & better detail which you can't get from the 16Mp sensor.

for a better lens you might also consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (~£300) but that will be noisier (screw drive) on video unless you use a separate mic.
 
Last edited:
sorry about this but have decided against getting the A65 (for now).

Have been presented with an offer for a Canon 450D for £200. Is this a good price? It's just the body so would need to source a decent lens. I'm initially looking to do family photos and maybe some macro (close up?) stuff.. and that's it. Don't mind paying up to £300 for a lens that can do it all? obviously the cheaper the better :P

Good camera for the money? (i'm considering Canon only because of the good things i hear about the 5d mk2... my target if a) i really get into photography and b) when i save enough for it :P)

Thoughts most welcome, thanks!!! :)
 
photo_solo said:
sorry about this but have decided against getting the A65 (for now).

Have been presented with an offer for a Canon 450D for £200. Is this a good price? It's just the body so would need to source a decent lens. I'm initially looking to do family photos and maybe some macro (close up?) stuff.. and that's it. Don't mind paying up to £300 for a lens that can do it all? obviously the cheaper the better :P

Good camera for the money? (i'm considering Canon only because of the good things i hear about the 5d mk2... my target if a) i really get into photography and b) when i save enough for it :P)

Thoughts most welcome, thanks!!! :)
Click to expand...

What makes you want a 5d mk 2.
 
been reading things (reviewers and owners alike) about how good it is etc etc. Given the price it had better be!

So hence the change of heart from sony to canon. if i get my half decent starter kit together (450d and a nice lens) then i can sell the 450d at somet point in the future and still be able to use the nice lens on the 5dmk2). Don't want to over burden myself with the cost of swapping out entire kits.

what do you think?
 
You haven't really started taking pictures and you are already thinking about a lens you could use on a 5d2? £300 is not enough for a lens to do 5d2 justice...triple that and maybe ;)

for now...set a budget. go to a store and handle all the options. pick the one that feels best in your hands. buy it. enjoy using it.

after a few months you will know what focal lengths, shooting conditions etc you usually end up in and you can plan your future spending much better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top