• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nikon D5100 is official ($799 Body/$899 Kit) - same sensor as D7000

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dude ISO 6400 sucks still on my 5D Mark 2.. pretty much anything with poor lighting wont do too well anyway you see it... D3 and D700 are still the best low light shooters, with their superior pixel density sensor
 
ahhhh, i'm having such a hard time deciding which to get, D5100 or T3i

I'm leaning towards the D5100 but not 100% sure yet.
 
Those shots at 25600 are actually reasonable... printed at 4x6 for your Mom and Dad they'd never know the diff.

The ISO 6400 shots could probably print 8x10 without Mom blinking an eye.
 
aphex said:
ahhhh, i'm having such a hard time deciding which to get, D5100 or T3i

I'm leaning towards the D5100 but not 100% sure yet.
Click to expand...

You probably can't go wrong either way! But, I guess find out what your friends have first, so you can go around and try/trade lenses 😀
 
D5100 sample images with 18-55 kit lens...

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d5100/sample.htm

img_03_l.jpg
 
Very nice picture JohnnyRebel. The kit lenses are good quality for most people.. certainly for any novice.
 
+ i don't know why people say kit lens sucks... They are actually pretty good, in the right hands!

2821296545_f23210fb8f_z.jpg


xti shot with the kit 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens...
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
the filters/effects, HDR, etc. built into the camera, are they worth using?
or am i better off using photoshop?
Click to expand...

To be honest, i've actually been fairly impressed with the built in effects. I didn't think i would end up using them at all, but i've been messing with them a bit and actually like them. Not only that, but they work in video mode as well which is cool.
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
the filters/effects, HDR, etc. built into the camera, are they worth using?
or am i better off using photoshop?
Click to expand...

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't spend much time in post-production. I really like it when I'm happy with what comes out of the camera. On the computer I'm mostly selecting shots or recropping. Maybe adjusting tone or WB a little. The Nikon D700 makes really great shots in camera. I've read that the D7000 is a huge leap forward from the D700. Likewise, the D3100 and 5100 are supposed to put out good shots.

I would put my time into getting good shots at the start. Too many of us blast away thinking that if we shoot enough we will get some good shots, and can make them great with photoshop. It's a lot better to start with really good shots.

JR
 
unfortunately, I feel in the digital world that "good shots" from the start are still trumped by "good shots" from film. Astia, Kodachrome, Velvia, Ecktachrome, will trounce any "good shots from the start" from a digital sensor. Hence, a lot of digital cameras will have "presets" or sometimes they would call "film simulators".

But serious photographers will neglect these presets and go for raw images, as I'm sure you're aware. Out of the camera digital shots will ALWAYS require post work, no matter what you shoot. When people ask me "did you photoshop this image?" I always respond, with digital, you'd have to. That's why it's more difficult to use than film!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top