Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

If I move on to a dSLR camera, what am I getting myself into?

Jul 1, 2011 5:11AM PDT
Question: If I move on to a dSLR camera, what am I getting myself into?

My wife's friend recently went on a trip to Yellowstone National Park
in Wyoming and she shared her online photo album with us of her trip.
I was just blown away by the beautiful photos she took! Her
landscape photos, closeups of foliage and flowers, geysers, and rock
structures were just incredible--so full of life with such details and
vivid colors that it made me feel like I was physically there. Now I'm
no shutterbug and only have a point-and-shoot camera that is pretty
decent in taking photos, but seeing these photos of hers got me
seriously thinking of moving on to a bit more sophisticated dSLR
camera, which will allow me to take photos like hers. I know it takes
quite a bit of patience, practice, and a learning curve to take great
photos, but to start, I do need the tools first, right? What do you
recommend I start with? I'm green to dSLR, but I want to know what I
am getting myself into in terms of cost--from the camera to
miscellaneous equipment to get me going. Should I invest in something
basic or middle of the road or go all out? What would you recommend
for a newbie like me. Any tips or advice for someone like me who wants
to get into dSLRs will help out greatly on my decision. Thank you.

--Submitted by: Steven O.

Here are some member answers to get you started, but
please read all the advice and suggestions that our
members have contributed to this question.

It depends on you. --Submitted by: kekolohe
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5158598.html

It's all about the light --Submitted by: MightyDrakeC
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5158611.html

A new camera won't make you Ansel Adams. --Submitted by: dxjanis
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5158652.html

DSLR what am I getting in to? --Submitted by: markainsworth
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5159032.html

Tools aren't everything --Submitted by: liguorid
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5159522.html

Digital SLRs - It's about the lenses --Submitted by: drdoolittle2800
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7593_102-5158589.html

Thanks to all who contributed!

If you have any additional buying advice, recommendations, or suggestions for Steven, please click on the reply link below and answer away. If you are referring to any specific camera model or camera equipment, it would be great to provide a link to the product specification or a link to a picture of the equipment would be helpful. Thanks!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
DSLR Recommendations
Jul 22, 2011 10:27PM PDT

Your question is very difficult to answer, given how little you gave about what your aspirations are, other than to take great landscapes, and starting from a point-and-shoot (film?).

If you aspire to become an Ansel Adams, then the digital darkroom (DD) is just as important, or more important than the camera, and that can mean a substantial investment in software and a computer with enough power to do the job. And whether you're talking about the camera or the DD, the learning curve in digital is steeper than with film. On the camera side, you need to know everything about exposure, composition, metering-mode and lens choice as with film, plus a lot more about the digital processes available to you that don't exist on camera with film.

On the darkroom side, digital processing is mechanically easier, since you don't have to worry about chemicals and temperatures and immersion times, but the twin hurdles of software and digital technology (graphic arts) have many more options, complications, and procedures to learn, and it will take more of your time.

If your intent is to hand your memory card to a processing lab to get prints and use the camera output for your web posting (another digital discipline), then you need only worry about the camera, and the computer you use to access C-Net now will probably suffice for posting and e-mailing your images, the graphics software that came with it being sufficient for basic adjustments in image crop, brightness, contrast, and color saturation, but even there, without monitor calibration knowledge, you're only guessing if the image will look the same on anyone else's screen as it does on yours.

Digital sounds great when you think of the saved lab costs and instant gratification, but if you want to control your final images, you're going to have to buy into a lot more than the decision of what camera to get, because that's just the beginning on the equipment side, and the time spent to make the decision on that will be a drop in the bucket to the time the multifaceted disciplines of digital photography and graphic art demand. Maybe that has something to do with the number of people taking advantage of the great buys in high-end film cameras now.

But the rewards of digital are just as great as they are for good work done on film, when you can see your images on the screen looking as good as they do coming off your printer, and those prints look as good or better than any you ever saw from a lab. It takes commitment and a lot of work, and money, for the full suite with a quality camera, and that's what you have to decide about before you can make the relatively simple choice on what brand and model you put to your eye.

- Collapse -
Simple reasons for a DSLR
Jul 23, 2011 12:13AM PDT

I used a good quality Minolta bought in the 80s. May not have been pro, or even an accomplished amateur, but had a load of fun snapping away. Film/developing got expensive, tho.....

Fast-forward to the 2000s: got my first digital camera - a Sony Cybershot that took 1.3 megapixel pix. Worked beautifully, got a lot of great photos.

Soon, camera envy appeared when a friend had a Konica Minolta DiMage X1 - 6 megapixels, I think. Great! Small enough for a pocket or soft eyeglass case. Carried it everywhere with me. (The Sony used interchangeable lenses, and was larger.)

Problem appeared: It was darn near impossible to aim by seeing the picture on the back screen in bright sunlight! I looked at all the people with DSLRs, using the regular eyepiece for aiming, while I spent the day guessing and clicking.

But, I wanted to wait until I could get a DSLR that would be able to use all my old lenses and filters. Finally, I found a Sony Alpha 350 (yeah, at the moment, it escapes me why I thought I could use the old hardware; unless Sony had taken over KM). Bought the body with a kit of one 18 - 70 lens, and one wide-angle. Typically, these 2 were the only lenses I had found useful for many years, so the kit suited me. The other tipping point for me was switching between the eyepiece viewer, and a tiltable screen on the back. That screen would tilt 30-45 degrees up or down for viewing, making it perfect for taking pictures holding camera over my head (in crowded places), at down at my knees without having to kneel to see.

All my decisions were based on prior experience and knowing what problems I needed to avoid on the next camera. This is why so much advice tells you that the hardware is less important than the photographer! Of course, there is always the excitement of that leap into space and buying the top of the line equipment to learn on. Just be sure you are truly willing to put in the time reading, learning, practicing, and asking questions. Otherwise, it might be better to pick a slightly more advanced camera that is cheaper; learning all you can, then deciding 3-5 years down the line if you are ready to advance again.......

Good luck. Above all, HAVE FUN !! (If it ain't fun, it ain't worth a thing!)

- Collapse -
Lenses
Jul 23, 2011 12:52AM PDT

The last non-point and shoot camera I owned was a Minolta XGM SLR I bought in 1981 (gave it away the complete package last year to my daughter's former boyfriend who was trying to decide if he wanted to make photography a hobby) and for what I wanted to do it was great. I purchased numerous books on photography including theory of operation and a few volumes on composition (what are you interested in? Landscapes, Portraits, Nature, Spontaneity, Special affects, all?) Spontaneity with a dSLR requires more thought (planning) as to what you are trying to accomplish for the highest quality. But you can put on the general use lens, set it to Program mode and use it like a Point and Shoot. I use my wife's point and shoot now (older Canon Powershot) and it does fine for general picture taking, but I have lost the flexibility for adding affects. When I purchased my XGM I bought the body and then went with high-end lenses; a 55mm for general work, 24 mm for wide-angle (anything less and you bring fish-eye affects into play which is find if that is the affect you want), 50 mm macro-lens, and a 70 - 150mm Telephoto-Zoom. Every lens I fitted with a UV filter (mainly to protect the lens the filter is inexpensive and better to scratch it than your high-quality lens), in addition I had cross-hatch lens (gives the starlight affect to lights), polarizing filter (anything non-metal rotates light, this allows you to compensate for better color representation - get a photography book), incandescent filter and an fluorescent filter. I haven't stayed up on the technology so some of these lens may now be combined (e.g., 55mm / 55mm macro lens). A high quality dedicated flash (adjustable for bounce, wide through zoom photography and a diffuser for softening the light). Add to this the bag, large tripod, tabletop tripod and an autowinder (not applicable for a dSLR) and I was able to cover everything I wanted to do.

With the SLR and dSLR you can decide upon shutter priority, aperature priority, timed release on the shutter, manual shutter release, color/non-color...and probably these days what separates the point and shoot is the lenses/filter capability and not so much these features. I don't like the terms some take pictures others take photographs to me that's a bit snobbish. Professionals understand the techniques, etc. and still have to experiment taking lots of pictures in an attempt to accomplish what they are setting out to do and I believe use photography enhancing software to touch up minor imperfections, not depend upon it to create the photo.

As to resolution, don't worry about it. Most, if not all, have such high resolution capability you won't notice it and will probably set it to 25% of its capability for your needs and save on storage.

Bottom-line: Get an intro book on photograhy that includes theory and see if you want to go this route (it will be significantly more expensive and if you upgrade later the lenses probably will not adapt), else, buy a high quality point-and-shoot and enjoy.

- Collapse -
comfort zone
Jul 23, 2011 3:17AM PDT

No doubt the dSLR is going to give you more features and
control. It will not necessarily give better pictures though. Even
with the continued increase in resolution, after a point isn't it
basically meaningless? The eye can only see so much. In a sense with
the dSLR vs SLR one requires the framer to act and the other requires
the framer to submit to the computer. Though I do use a digital
camera now I never see the same warmth I found when photos required me
to touch film from the loading through the dark room in burning of
dodging while manipulating apertures, timers and the smell of the solutions.
Digital Photos now just seem easy but COLD . dSLR vs whatever?
Use what you feel good about and back up the shots. Click on.

- Collapse -
Lens
Jul 23, 2011 4:03AM PDT

Yes, the lens is the heart of a camera. However, Pentax and Ricoh allow you to use their film camera SLR lenses for their digital cameras. This can be a considerable saving over having to buy new lenses. Provided the lenses are autofocus F or Fa series for Pentax you are good to go.
I am doing just that. I have three autofocus lenses from my older SF1 film camera and they work just fine in my Pentax K 7.

- Collapse -
Concern: taking the picture, or viewing the picture?
Jul 23, 2011 5:17AM PDT
Taking the pictures: a DSLR is bulky and heavy compared to a point & shoot camera. The payback is greater sharpness/detail with the DSLR.

Viewing the pictures: if looking at 4 x 6 hard-copy prints is your goal, a $125 P&S camera is all you need, as far as sharpness/resolution goes. If you are going to primarily view your pictures on a monitor - computer or TV screen - you will appreciate the better quality of a DSLR.

When I started scanning my negatives and prints into my computer ten years ago I made the mistake of using the common 800 x 600 pixel size as my standard, which matched the computer screens of the time. Now that monitors are commonly up to 1280 x 1024 pixels, I am needing to re-scan everything to higher resolutions. Bigger hard disks (500 Gb or larger) have helped, in allowing me to save pictures in resolutions much higher than 1280 x 1024 without running out of disk space; just in case monitors with even higher resolution come along in the future. My 6 Megapixel DSLR produces pictures sharp enough to satisfy me up to 3000 x 2000 pixels; my 10 Megapixel P&S does not give me as sharp pictures as my old DSLR, so it seems lens quality is not as good in those cameras. BUT - for viewing a full-size picture on a 1280 x 1024 (or widescreen 1366 x 76Cool monitor I can't tell the difference between the two cameras.
- Collapse -
Find and join a Camera Club !
Jul 23, 2011 5:43AM PDT

Save yourself a lot of frustration and $$$ ! I have been a member of our local camera club for over 50 years . We enjoy getting new members off to a good start . You will learn from excellent photographers and get excellent advice about cameras and lenses that fit your needs , and how to use them to take pictures that you and others will appreciate . There is a lot to learn , but with the right help it is easy and fun . Most importantly you will learn that good pictures usually don't require price heavy cameras and lenses ; but they do require good technique , subjects , and exposure - all things that $ won't buy .

- Collapse -
dSLR Camera
Jul 23, 2011 12:07PM PDT

There is certainly a wealth of information in the responses. Collectively, they should provoke an enormous curiosity to research and learn more. The highlight that should ring true is that outstanding photographs can be taken with a quality point and shoot and that moving to a dSLR may not improve your photos one bit. However, there may be other reasons for doing so.

If you plan on taking pictures at a graduation, awards ceremony, kids soccer game, a race or any sporting event; take the plunge and get the dSLR. I regret not having one when I missed some once in a lifetime shots waiting for the point and shoot to upload the image to memory. The dSLR is ready the instant you move the switch to ON, and responds as fast as needed. The auto-zoom on most point and shoot cameras is fair-poor; they often overshoot the intended spot requiring quick flicks on the control to find the right setting - irritating. Grab the zoom ring on a dSLR, give it a turn, and stop precisely where desired. If these operational attributes have relevance with you, seriously consider the upgrade. Remember, the dSLR has an AUTO setting, effectively turning it into an outstanding point and shoot.

Read all the posts, take a few notes, and definitely spend time at some of the great websites.
Ken Rockwell
dpreview
Steves Digicams
imaging resource

Good luck and above all, have fun.

- Collapse -
DSLR what am I getting into?
Jul 23, 2011 8:37PM PDT

I just wish I had asked this question of CNET's wonderful contributers!
I bought a DSLR Pentax Kx for Chrismas for myself and have yet to figure how to use it! It is supposed to be a beginner's dslr; however I'm not near the point of being a beginner. It's a beautiful camera, with 2 lenses and it's sitting in my closet.
I ended up buying a Canon G12 which I love to death and is a perfect size for me and easy to use (or I can try manual if I wish to).
That's my 2 cents worth - hope it helps someone else.

- Collapse -
Research what you need -
Jul 23, 2011 11:29PM PDT

Firstly if you don't want to take up photography as a serious hobby then your need is for quality rather than technical gadgetry! A good compact camera can produce high quality images and while DSLR's are versatile they do not guarantee good results. I have a DSLR but am thinking of buying a decent compact as well. When I am out for the purpose of photography then the DSLR is what I need - I take time before shots to decide which lens I am going to use, get out the tripod, take some test shots....and so on. However when I am on holiday I am there to enjoy the holiday experience and not to spend a lot of time on my hobby. In that situation I too want a point and click style camera. However to get the results I know that I will need to spend at least £200 (about $300) to get something that will give me the results.

You are not always close enough to the picture you want to take so a decent OPTICAL zoom is a must (about 10x) but I wouldnt worry so much about pixels - you might think there is a lot of difference between a 10mega pixel and a14 megapixel but if you aren't printing 20x30 posters invest the extra cash in quality of lens rather than the number of pixels - I find the user reviews on Amazon quite helpful when looking at particular models as brand and price are not always reliable measures of picture quality (and that is the bottom line)

Far better to spend your cash on a high end compact that a low end DSLR!

- Collapse -
DSLRs would be innapropriately advanced for you
Jul 24, 2011 7:28AM PDT

If you're looking just to take some photos for memories, don't move towards dslrs. Reason being, is it's got far more than you need, since too many people think this, but the camera doesn't make the photo. Get something like a Canon G10. Sure the actual quality of the images will be better, but it's a much higher caliber - even the entry level ones - then is appropriate for you. The interchangeable lenses is the main focus of dslrs but you're going to run into far more issues down the road buying a dslr than you have the knowledge for. If you want to actually get into photography as a hobby and pursue more as more than "just nice to take pictures" then go for it, buy an entry level dslr (Nikon D5100, Canon Rebel Xsi .etc) otherwise it'll just become too overwhelming down the line, and/or the camera will be far more than you need and you're paying between $500-800 (average entry level price) for something that you're only going to be able to use 5% of what it has to offer.

Like I said, a higher quality point and shoot is more appropriate then, like the Canon G10 or whatever Nikon has to offer (I'm a Canon photog, don't know as much about Nikon obviously).

- Collapse -
Depends on what you want to do
Jul 24, 2011 1:33PM PDT

If you're just going to leave the camera stuck on an automatic mode, you may as well get a point & shoot model. Now if you're willing to do more than that, then sure DSLRs are great!

The tradeoffs? DSLRs are bulky and not compact, so you'll need a camera bag. (Obviously it wont fit in a pocket like many P&S cameras do. I'd advise keeping the old P&S for times where you wont lug the big camera around.) And the gear is more expensive. (Remember most of the cost is up-front though. Batteries last a long time, and you're not burning through film like in the old days. Equipment lasts a long time if you take care of it.) In turn, you get flexibility with a lot more lenses as the body is separate, more megapixels, (usually) longer battery life, much greater range of shutter speeds and exposure settings, and often autofocus is much more responsive and accurate.

For starters you'll probably want at least two zooms in your kit. One wide and one tele. I'd recommend an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm (or 300mm if you can get it.) The first one will be for indoor and wide scenery shots, and spots where you can get up close. The other one will be for zooming where you're likely to interfere by getting too close (such as in sports) or scaring off your subject. (particularly with wildlife) Also be aware that lenses which appear to be spec'd the same often have different pricing. This is because some support different F-stop ranges or image stabilization. But often it's still hard to go wrong with lenses offered in a kit provided by the camera manufacturer. (Particularly for a beginner.) If you can afford more, a 50mm primary for stuff like portraiture may be nice too. It will give sharper focus for such shots. An extra battery in your kit would also be a wise thing to have. (Nothing is a pain in the butt like getting everything set up, only to have the battery run out on you.) And of course a tripod sturdy enough to hold up your camera and lens combination. (Low light / long exposure scenarios really should be done with a tripod. And never get a tripod too flimsy - not worth breaking a $300+ lens because a $20 tripod fell over.)

As for photography in general, learn what shutter speed and aperture settings do for your shots. It's pretty neat how one can force depth of field or blurring/freezing action. There are also some other things to watch out for like metering for exposure, exposure settings, white balance, and ISO equiv values. Reading up on photography on how to use light and such will help. (The coffee table sized "Photography" student book by London, Stone, and Upton is nice.) Digital is also great because any bad shot costs no more than pushing the trash button. The downside of digital is that if you do something very peculiar to ruin your "film", there goes your CCD or CMOS sensor! In other words, be very careful about taking shots towards the sun or anything involving lasers without adequate protective filters attached. Sometimes these things aren't covered by warranty, and can get expensive fast.

DSLRs are also likely to have some support or other for digital video. It's a nice thing. But keep in mind that this is usually secondary to the DSLR's capability as a still camera. Even though they can get a nice picture in HD, for video, often the ergonomics and ability to focus and deal with varying exposure is still much better with a dedicated video camera.

From various opinions and comments, it's hard to go wrong with Canon or Nikon which seem to be the top two brands. And there is some rivalry there, which keeps quality good as they both vie for top position. In my opinion Canons are made for more straight-up photography and are a bit better in regards to the secondary video function, and Nikons may have more "bonus" features built in like interval mode that seem fun for experimenting without need for buying and carrying extra equipment. (I went Nikon myself.) Also there are other brands that may be less common, but perhaps offering lower prices for the feature set... Minolta, Pentax, Sony, etc... Of course, you've got to do your research before making a purchase so you know what you're getting.

Now if a DSLR still sounds more complicated than fun, and you feel like you're getting in over your head... Well the newer P&S cameras are very good too. Megapixels they offer aren't that far behind what the last gen DSLRs had. However if you're imagination is stirred about all those neat or creative shots you could be getting with various settings on a DSLR, then I'd say go for it!

- Collapse -
DSLRs are worth it if you're serious
Jul 24, 2011 3:15PM PDT

I've been an avd photographer for 40+ years, owning Nikon film SLRs and 2 Nikon Digital SLRs, as well as several point and shoot digitals. As others postings have said, great photography is so much more than the equipment, and you'll never take consistently good pictures without understanding the impact of lighting composition, etc. You can take excellent photos with point and shoots.

That being said, there are several things SLRs offer that can have a big impact on increasing the number of technically good shots you take that point and shoots simply can't match. Yes, lenses are important, but if you want to become an informed and advanced 'point and shoot' photographer, then you'll find that a zoom lens with a moderately wide range, like 18-200 mm will handle the vast majorty of shots. Still, it takes an SLR or similarly bulky non-SLR camera to have a zoom range that wide, and you'll appreciate the wide angle most I would predict.

Another key featre SLRs offer is vastly superior low light capability. You can bump up the ISO to ridiculously high numbers, like 3200 with many newer cameras, still get high quality images most of the time. This lets you take good, non-blurry shots in low light situations. Still another important feature of all SLRs is the almost non-existent shutter lag between pressing the shutter release button and the picture firing. Along with this, even low end SLRs have burst modes letting you take 3-5 pictures a second.

The big downside to SLRs are obvious -- the cost and their size. I think for your first SLR, if money is tight, you can go budget and will be happy with an entry level SLR. I do think you should start with a lens that zooms from 18 to at least 105 mm -- longer would be better. Stay away from an 18-55 zoom -- you'll find 55 just too limiting. I also thiink any of the 3rd party lens manufacturers, like Sigma and Tamron, produce fine lenses for everyday use, but as has been said before, be sure to get an IS or VR (image stabilized) lens.

If you later find you're really getting into photography in a few years, you may decide you want to upgrade cameras and lenses and perhaps wish you'd splurged more at first, but perhaps not. If you do have the budget to spluge more now, I think a Nikon d7000 is an incredible camera. Let your budget guide your risk taking here.

- Dave.

- Collapse -
No Easy Answer
Jul 25, 2011 5:48AM PDT

DSLR Cameras range from beginner or budget all the way up to professional. So it helps to know what your budget is, and how much involvement do you want in the process.

For example, you could buy a budget dslr and use all of the settings on automatic, and print them as is. On the other hand, you could read up on photographic tips, make your own camera adjustments for exposure and focusing and then make adjustments on your computer using software such as Photoshop Elements. The second method is more time consuming and requires more commitment from you in terms of knowing your camera manual, learning what adjustments to make and then learning the editing software.

- Collapse -
Talk to your wife's friend
Jul 25, 2011 10:44AM PDT

As she's the one that took the images you like so much, ask her what lens she used for each. That will give you an idea of the kind of lens or lenses you'll want for those shots. A closeup of a flower needs a lens that can focus very closely and there are different ways to accomplish that, the easiest (and most expensive) being get a macro lens. Landscapes are often taken with a wide angle, animals are shot with telephoto.

Decide on which mf'rs format you like best, again ask what she likes and why, because you'll be locked in to it once you collect some lenses. In DX format, 16x24mm, I like Nikon because it has an exact 1.5:1 crop ratio; using a "full-frame" lens also called FX means that the resulting image will be cropped as if it were taken with a lens 1.5 times your lens's focal length. IOW, a 50mm lens will give a field of view equal to a 75mm lens on a 35mm (24x36mm) film camera. Nothing against Canons, they are excellent, but I think they have a 1.66:1 ratio, not as easy to quickly calculate the crop effect.

Buy the best mid-level body you can afford and make sure it can be used in full manual mode, this is very important! Also make sure it can focus manually too. I wouldn't buy any DSLR that can shoot video, the sensor will overheat in video mode, most don't include sound either and you want a camera to shoot photos not video. For video buy a video cam.

You can get a kit, body and lens for what appears to be a bargain over buying one body and one lens separately.
Most of the kit lenses are inferior because they have to make em cheap to offer the deal. I would stay away from a kit lens unless you know it's a good one, there are some kits out there that have good lenses.

Make sure that the lens has the ability to focus manually AND has aperture marks, f4, f5.6, 11, 16 etc on the barrel. Without those you'll never learn how to use hyperfocal focus. Buy fast lenses, there's no substiute for speed. A good first lens is a 50mm or 35mm f1.4 or a 28-70mm f2.8. A versatile second lens is an 80-200 f2.8. Third-party lenses can be very good, I like Tokina and Sigma.

You don't need to worry about a flash unit until you learn your camera, as the built-in popup flash will suffice when you need some extra light on the subject.

Get a good photography book at the library, study technique, light and composition and shoot what you learn. In no time you'll be taking some impressive images!

Stephen

- Collapse -
Worth the leap if you LOVE to take pictures!
Jul 27, 2011 12:12AM PDT

Dear Steven, I made the leap a year and a half ago with a Nikon D5000 but I also use my old Cannon point and shoot A520 and a Kodak that is even simpler but has 12x optical zoom. Being a parent, it is all about being able to get the shot, so the ability to zoom and capture action is important. The Nikon expands that ability beyond the point and shoot cameras, when I am willing to carry the hunk around! As for the beautiful, artsy photos....that does take practice and knowledge....and I'm still working on that! I can take bunches of photos before I get a WOW one.....but those wow photos are worth it to me. I purchased my camera from a shop that offers free classes and gave me DVD's to help get started. I have watched the DVDs...no classes yet! (but I want to!) Many of the big box stores offer packages that seem to be a good deal.(and I have seen my DVDs in the bookstore) I prefered the camera shop because I could also purchase a warranty that included yearly cleaning, counter help and printing help in store, and the classes.I also could pay a little more and get lenses with image stabilization (VR for NIkon). At the time of my purchase the D5000 was one step below the D90 but had the same processor. The D5000 also has a back screen that will flip down and to one side. For most people this would not make a huge difference, but I am five feet tall. I can shoot in live view over my head and still see if what I want is in the frame. Not great for "pretty" pictures but it is the only way I can capture my child in a big crowd sometimes.I already had a good tripod, so other that the initial purchase of the camera body, two lenses, big camera case and lens filters, in the past year and a half I have purchased an additional rechargable battery and the big flash that sits on the "shoe" on top of the camera. The little pop up flash just wasn't always getting it for me! Then there are times I just know I don't want to carry that heavy camera around, so I take a little point and shoot, but having a warranty that covers accidental damage has given me the freedom to take the camera places I may have been too cautious to take it otherwise. Good luck with your decision making! Lacey