Отзывы о Цифровой Фотоаппарат Nikon D5

Правда у меня объектив 18-105. Выбирал долго и упорно, анализировал как интернет пространство, так и мнения тех кто уже давно в теме. Это моя первая зеркальная фотокамера, поэтому пребываю в состоянии восторга и настороженности. На данный момент агрегат намного умнее меня, поэтому и осторожничаю)) Метод "тыка" я не приемлю, поэтому изучаю его возможности поэтапно. Начинаю видеть свои банальные промахи - игра света, тени, неверные настройки, "мыло" из-за кривых рук. Появилось желание серьёзно изучить возможности и методы современной фотографии.

На тыщщу цену снизили? Смотря с каким временем, я его здесь же где-то 2 года назад за 28 брал...Хороший фотик, с нормальным объективом для начинающего - само то будет. Уже два года пользуюсь в равках снимаю, правда, объективы получше приобрел, никаких жалоб )). Хотя есть мысли уже что-нибудь покруче приобрести

Классный фотик хороший подарок для себя сделала!!! Не пожалела! Разбираюсь методом тыка)))) читать некогда ! Все получается!

Заказ № 04357892-0033 06 марта 13. Подарила себе любимой на 8 марта. Нам понравился. Четко фотографирует.

Для начинающего фотографа отличная зеркалка, но если собираетесь еще и видео снимать, то есть проблема при настройках ручного режима, такие как диафрагма, ISO и выдержку. В остальном нареканий нет пользуюсь уже больше года доволен, но думаю купить что-нибудь посерьезней, т.к. освоил технику и понял что не хватает возможностей.

Фотографии шикарные и сам замечательный,спасибо))

Только приобрел, отличная игрушка, многому нужно научится, так как только начал, больше увлекается фотками!

So, I first had the sony a55 for two years, and wasn't thrilled with it in the least bit. I don't know how many people reviewing these sony cameras print their pictures, but I do and the pictures always had a lot of noise in dark areas, weren't sharp, the colors were never vibrant, and I normally had to edit the crap outta them to make them look like they weren't taken with my iphone. They looked slightly better on a screen, but once printed- I would have about one good picture out of 100. And that was the a55. I thought I had just got a lemon or something, since it has so many raving reviews.So! I had a bestbuy warranty and broke the a55 after two and a half years, and because I had a sony zoom lens I could do nothing with, i decided to be upgraded to the a65. Even with a poor experience with the a55, I was so thrilled to get the a65, thinking It would be a better dslt, and I have to say it was worst as far as picture quality goes. Edges not sharp whatsoever [which is the main thing I look for in a photo], colors are faded, when I print the pictures it looks like an iPhone took them. I know how to use a camera, I tried different times of day and different settings. Also, I'm printing the pictures at an actual photo lab. I could get better pictures with a canon sx260.I was very very unhappy with the picture quality, and I showed about 6 other people the pictures and literally all of they agreed. Same terrible noise and grain in dark areas like the a55,, blurry, faded colors. The dark areas don't even have to be that dark to get noise. The pictures look beautiful on the bright LCD screen, but it's a big difference than what your actually getting.However! Some things I did like about it was how easy it is to use, it explains everything as you go through the settings [great for beginners]; how friggin fast it is (which is the first thing I noticed when I took my first picture), and the body IMO feels very sturdy. Also, the viewfinder to lcd screen with just your eye is a nice feature. Or was that the a55? i dont remember. Besides those things, i was extremely dissapointed, and I returned it and stood at bestbuy for half an hour debating between the nikon d5100, d5200, and d7000. I want the d7000, but it was out of my price range, so I got the d5100 to just try out a nikon; and mannn, what a difference. Huge huge huge difference. It's cheaper then the a65, and so much better as far as picture quality goes. I was flipping through some pictures last night, and they are so so vibrant and crisp without editing them. On my computer, I was flipping backwards through my pictures and all the sudden the pictures got ugly and I was like, "what happened with that one in all these beautiful ones?" And I realized it got into pictures from the a65.Im really feeling the nikon, but I will be returning it as well, this time I'm gonna get the d7000 and take the price hit, because the body of the nikon feels very cheap. I've had it a week and the battery cover won't open. Also, you have to turn a nob on the top of the camera to switch from viewfinder to LCD every time the camera turns on, and I don't use the viewfinder and that's inconvenient for me and made me miss a picture yesterday. The camera is 4fps i believe, and it is a tid bit slow if your thinking about using it for sports. Maybe you can buy a lens. Idk.And one last thing negative about the nikon is I personally don't like the Double shutter noise it makes every picture you take. Besides those, though, the picture quality is so far impressive. ive only printed a few, but they werent too shabby either. I buy a camera for the pictures, really, and if you do too, you will notice a difference in a sony vs. a nikon. I didn't think it would be a big difference when I originally bought the a55, but I regret that choice three years ago. I've wasted hundreds of pictures IMO not using a nikon.These are all my personal experiences and opinions. I don't do anything professional with photography, I just like taking pretty pictures :) and am kind of particular I guess. I'm planning on posting this on the other cameras reviews, too, in hope of helping someone else. I have done hours, days, MONTHS of reviewing a whole lot of cameras; and ended up more confused then helped. Even now, I'm typing into google "d5200 vs d7000" :) good luck camera buyers- your probably torn between two cameras right now, and I hope this review helped.

There are a lot of great reviews of this product out there. A lot of highly technical reviews and some very basic. For me the decision to purchase this camera came down to a couple of things I thought I would highlight here. I am not a professional in any sense of the word. I love to take photos and wanted a camera that would allow me to take great pictures and also allow me to think outside the "auto" box and shoot in manual, changing my settings, etc.Basically, I have been torn between Nikon and Canon for some time. This camera, in general, got better reviews than its Canon competitor (the T3i Rebel). Ultimately, books, countless websites and forums have debated this topic so I won't get into that. I could bore you with technical details, but sometimes simpler is better. If you are not a pro and just want to take some fun quality pictures, this Review is for you. Not only was this camera rated highly in every single review I read, but after researching for MONTHS, I ultimately bought this Nikon. After owning it about 8 months now, here is what I know:1) It feels / Looks goodThe camera feels as though it is built solidly and I love the way it feels in my hand. It doesn't feel cheaply made and has a good weight to it.2) I love the scene modes / effects modesThis camera has several several scene modes like the simpler point and shoot cameras including pet, night, beach, party/indoor, sunset, dusk/dawn, candlelight, autumn, food, night portrait, and blossom. Whew that's a lot of modes! Now there's nothing more intimidating than handing this camera to a friend and asking them to take a picture of you and someone else. They are going to look at you as though you've just asked them to climb the empire state building...with one hand! But these scene modes allow you to quickly identify your scene and then shoot--or helps someone not camera inclined take a better shot. In fact, I use these modes a lot and they allow my husband (who previously ran when he heard the word camera) to take amazing photos as well. As if that were not enough, this camera also includes some effects modes including fisheye, color outline, selective color, Miniature, color sketch, and some picture control modes that let you edit photos right from the camera (risky but useful).3) The pictures are fabulous!Okay I promised not to get technical on you, but overall, the pictures the camera takes are very good. I upgraded to this from an older Canon Xti and I can tell you that the sharpness for your common photo sizes like 8 x 10, 4 x 6, and 5 x 7 will be sharp and clear... As long as you focused correctly. I found the shutter to respond quickly when taking sports shots, and the frame rate is about 4 fps which is pretty good.I should mention that the camera does not have an in body focus motor which means you will need to use lenses which supply a focus motor if you like auto focus. This will not be an issue if you are using the 18-55 mm lense that you can purchase with or comes as a part of your camera package. This may affect you if you are using old lenses. But keep in mind the old lenses will work, but you will have to focus the shot yourself.Also, the noise of your photos will increase the higher your ISO. But overall, there is a good compromise at higher ISOs between sharpness and noise---which basically means you can still take a good photo in low light wih this camera!Keep in mind that you can shoot in RAW mode (for those of us who really like to tweak our photos and get technical) but is perfectly fine shooting in JPG mode which you can edit as you wish or easily upload as is to the web.4) Movies are so-soMovies are only okay. For me not a huge deal as I bought this to take photos... But movies are easy to make although I have heard that people have complained about sound clarity issues. The output is in .mov format which is nice. But honestly, I have come to enjoy making small movies and have not had sound issues.If I had any complaint about this camera is that the menus are difficult and non intuitive to navigate. One you familiarize yourself with it, however, it becomes a non issue... But for me it was a steep learning curve coming from Canon's easy to navigate menus.Overall, this is a great camera. Where it really shines is in its overall performance and picture quality. I especially love those scenes which are not included on similar other cameras including the Canon which is ultimately why I decided on this camera. I also realized that the key to good photos lies not really in the camera so much as the person behind the camera and the lenses used to capture the shot. Get yourself a lens or two (or buy it with the 18-55mm lens which is a great overall entry lens) and get this camera. Then go out there and have some fun! This camera allows you the versatility to do a little bit of everything and the quality to capture those special moments in your life.

This is easily the finest camera that I've owned and I've owned some good cameras hailing back to the Minolta SRT-201. I seldom use the viewfinder and instead tend to use the high contrast and very sharp monitor built into the camera. Focus is quick and accurate with the kit lens. Pictures are bright and color is very accurate.Vibration Reduction is better than I expected. With the camera on my tripod and VR off, I can tap the tripod and see the image resonate with the vibration in the tripod. With VR on, there is no discernable shake even with the 70-300mm lens on full zoom. Quite amazing actually. I can hear the VR mechanism working but it's not loud, just quietly working it's magic.With AF and VR on, it takes a second to take an image since everything has to stabilize before the picture is taken. Turning them off and doing manual focus allows a much faster process per picture.I also purchased a Tamron 70-300mm lens and all features work perfectly with this camera, both AF and VR (which Tamron calls VC) work pretty much the same on it and the kit lens.It's worth every penny. I'd buy it again in a heartbeat. This camera makes ME smile.1 Month Update: (June 27)We have a couple of thousand shots out of this amazing camera now.About 1500 images out in nature with the 300mm zoom all the way out capturing birds in flight, nesting and doing what birds do. Sure we throw a lot of them out. Every photographer does. The image is good, it's just not of anything worth keeping. This is not a camera problem. This is a photographer problem. Using the camera more is the answer.In the last two weeks, we've experimented with an older fully manual 55mm Micro-Nikkor-P lens with the 27.5mm extension tube. It takes a little experimentation to get the exposure but the images are exquisite. I never expected to be able to put a 40 year old Nikon lens on this camera but I did and with the camera set to manual you can use this ultra modern camera very similarly to how we took pictures 40 years ago. The manufacturing quality of those old lenses is amazing. There are tens of thousands of them on the used market and available relatively inexpensively. I have just over $100 in the used macro lens and extension tube and that gives us 2:1, 1:1 to .5:1 macro ability with a focal distance measured in inches out to infinity. The Micro-Nikkor lenses have legendary Nikon quality and performance and it's not at all lost on this camera.If you've always wanted to get those close up macro shots of bugs or flowers breaking into bloom, don't shy away from those old Nikkor lenses in manual mode. They take wonderful pictures with the D5100.As a bonus, my wife wasn't really solid with learning the relationship between shutter speed, f stop and ISO until a week with the manual lens on. Now she's all over it. Because you HAVE TO LEARN to make it work at all. Depth of field now makes sense to her and now she knows how to achieve it. Or not.3 Month Update: (August 3)Just shot a wedding in Duluth and the north shore of Lake Superior. (not as the paid photographer) Two days, rehearsal, rehearsal dinner campfire/cabin, wedding and reception. Took 430 shots. Left the camera on automatic 99% of the time. About 20 shots were really great photos. About 15 of them were motion blurred, badly focused or missed target. The rest of them were acceptable shots. Nearly all of the motion blurred were from the Tamron 70-300 in full zoom. Half of those, the subject moved in the frame.Overall I'd rate it a success. Two of the photos were real winners. Pictures that told a story and caught emotion.I can't fault the camera or lenses for anything. They just worked. Very happy with the setup.I had an external flash on, the Nikon SB-400 AF Speedlight. I also had the diffuser for it from Stofen, the OM-400. This flash was really not up to the task for a big room like a church. Thankfully the room was well lit. For smaller rooms around 30 x 20 or less, the flash and diffuser was excellent. The room really needs a white ceiling for the diffuser to work properly since it directs a lot of light up at a 45 degree angle. I took nearly all of the church interior pictures hand held with no flash and let the VR lenses do their magic. I got a lot of good shots from the balcony with the 70-300 lens and the camera balanced on the railing.Outdoor pictures near dusk in low outdoor lighting came out way better than any camera I've had in the past. Until it got dark enough to simply not support picture taking, the dusk pictures pretty much look like the daytime pictures. The D5100 really is amazing in low light conditions.Battery life was very good. I went through two batteries in the camera. I'm sure the external flash helped battery life. I can't speak to battery life in the flash since I recharged them once that night and can't tell how far they were run down. The flash always recharged VERY quickly.Wrap Up:Cameras take images. Photographers take pictures. The Nikon D5100 is way more capable t

First of all, this camera takes very good pictures, which is the main reason I bought it. Given the price, 5 STARS for image quality, features and convenience of use.Second, I got the body (no kit lenses, which seem to have pretty mediocre ratings from users), along with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX (5+ STARS) and the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX (4+ STARS for athletic events). I later added a AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED (5+ STARS) and the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR (4 STARS, but a great snapshot lens).So far so good. Why only 3 STARS? Here's what I don't like.Autofocus hunts a lot sometimes, especially in marginal light. It doesn't seem to matter what lens is on the camera, so I assume it's the body. It's not a problem most of the time, but occasionally you can lose a shot because the camera is trying to figure out what to look at.The video feature, while not at all my priority, is pretty primitive as far as settings go. The major problem, however, is autofocus again, which can suddenly in the middle of a video start radically seeking focus, moving way in and out before settling back down. Occasionally, the camera will lose focus altogether. Manual focus works best, but is not always practical. Setting the camera's focus on the center point also works a little better, but the camera keeps wanting to shift to some other point in the frame and you have to keep resetting it (I haven't been able to figure out how to defeat this tendency).My last point of dissatisfaction emerged this weekend and may be the most serious. After a week's uneventful shooting, I downloaded the images, cleared the card, changes lenses and charged the battery. When I turned the camera back on, it gave the dreaded "Error press shutter release button again" message, which apparently is no rare experience for this or a number of other Nikon cameras. Of course, pressing the shutter release button again accomplishes nothing. After losing a weekend's use of the camera, I was all ready to ship it back to Nikon when I stumbled on a forum post, [...] (scroll down until you come to "Rico" and be sure to look at his subsequent posts). CAUTION: there are many reasons for this error, not all of which can be solved by the solution offered in this post, and there are some other DIY solutions out there that seem absolutely nutty to me. To cut to the chase, my problem was my mirror had jammed in the down position against what is supposed to be a stop. Some gentle prying (not for the faint of heart) freed the mirror and the camera has been working since. This design or engineering flaw has really left a bad impression.So 5 STARS for image quality and basic functionality, less one star for autofocus difficulties (especially video) and less one big star for design and reliability.I'm probably being generous.

This camera has been an outstanding upgrade from my Nikon D60, which was my first dSLR after having used point-and-shoot cameras. The D60 was a great camera entry-level dSLR when I bought it in 2008, but the more I used it, the more I became aware of its limitations. The biggest issue I had with the D60 was its low-light performance. Even with an add-on flash and reasonably good ambient lighting, there were too many indoor shots that simply didn't look very good. Cranking up the ISO helped with exposure, but it introduced too much digital noise. When a camera's inherent technological limitations are keeping you from getting the shots you want, it's time to look at alternatives.I looked at both the D5100 and the Canon EOS Rebel T3i 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera and DIGIC 4 Imaging with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens, because they are closely matched in terms of price, features, and performance. Both cameras get very good reviews. You can Google "Nikon D5100 and Canon T3i" and see for yourself: most review sites give them almost identical overall scores, citing certain strengths and advantages for each camera. I was considering the Canon because I only had my Nikon 18-55mm kit lens and my Nikon SB-400 flash, so I didn't have a huge investment in the Nikon line-up. While the list price of the two cameras is similar, it was much easier to find really good discount prices on the T3i, and there are also more options for buying the T3i body with several different kit lens options (as of this writing, Nikon is only offering the D5100 with the same 18-55mm kit lens that I had from my D60).However, there was one thing about the T3i that I didn't like. The main control on the back of the T3i (Nikon calls it the multi-selector; I'm not sure what Canon calls it) is placed lower on the camera than on the D5100, which means that you have to move your thumb down to access it. Ergonomically, this didn't work as well for me as Nikon's more central placement of this control. The advantage of Canon's placement is that it leaves space for a bigger thumb grip at the upper right corner of the camera. However, since the multi-selector is the primary way you access the camera's menus to adjust settings, I preferred Nikon's placement. This is such a subjective decision that it's important for a buyer to go to a retail store, handle both cameras, and see for him or herself.The other thing that made me choose the Nikon is my goal to eventually upgrade to the Nikon 18-200mm lens. As far as I can tell, there is no equivalent lens in the Canon line-up.I also looked at the Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only), but at $1,199 for just the body, I couldn't justify the expense. Besides the fact that it's almost twice as much as the D5100, I still prefer the smaller size and lighter weight of the D5100, which has a form factor that is almost identical to the D60. If you routinely use longer lenses or prefer a larger camera, the D7000 is very impressive and would be an excellent choice.I've been very happy with the D5100. It offers higher ISOs than the D60 and you can use them without adding noise to your images. It performs much better in low-light shooting situations, which was my main reason for upgrading in the first place. Even with flash, my indoor photos are more evenly exposed, without the washed-out foregrounds and dark backgrounds that I was getting with the D60. The menu system is similar to the D60, but I find it more intuitive and easier to navigate. I also like the controls and buttons better on the D5100.One major upgrade that the D5100 offers over the D60 is high-definition video recording. The D60 had no video recording at all. I have only used this feature on the D5100 for a few quick tests, but for anyone interested in video, this is a major addition.The D5100 also has an articulated LCD display, which is larger than the D60's. The Live View feature allows you to shoot photos using the LCD instead of the viewfinder. This feature might be handy if you wanted to shoot with the camera above or below your own position (for example, taking photos over the heads of a crowd). Instead of aiming and hoping you get your shot, you can use the articulated LCD to view what you are shooting. The same is true if you want to shoot with the camera aiming directly down. Instead of leaning over the camera to look through the viewfinder, and perhaps casting your shadow on the image, you can use the LCD to compose your shot.In Live View, the LCD also allows you to view the effects of various white balance settings on a shot you're about to take. I haven't found that the white balance as shown on the LCD before shooting is exactly the same as what I get after I shoot, but it is helpful to give you an idea of what to expect.Several things to keep in mind if you buy this camera:1. Update the firmware, as there are reported issues with the camera having trouble with certain SanDisk

Let me start of by saying that I love cameras and photography, I consider it as a way of expressing myself when you can't describe a situation with words, an image can speak a thousand!!(A short rambling about the cameras I owned - Skip to the next paragraph for the review)So, I got a hotshot flashless camera (Rs.200 in 1993) as a kid which took a film roll and would allow me to click 24 shots (broad sunlight required for anything to appear on the photo - even indoor pictures appear very dark). Then I decided I had to get a camera with flash. So, I saved my pocket money and got a camera worth Rs.500 in 1998 (this camera let me click 36 photos - standard film roll) which I enjoyed for a while and then came the zoom cameras and I instantly wanted one. So, I took my savings of Rs.6500 and got the Yashica zoom camera in 2002, believe me it had an infrared remote! On getting busy with college, I ended up on a break with photography. Then, In 2010 came to the US for my masters and decided I had to get the super zoom cameras with certain manual settings. So, got the Kodak Z981 ($200 - 2010 BlackFriday) and enjoy the camera till date. The only complain I have about it is that it is extremely bad in low light conditions. So, I only could dream of clicking those awesome pictures you find on the internet. I again got busy with studies and work that I could not think of pursuing my hobby. Now, I finally got some time and I decided to try some dslr's out and started with the Sony alpha A57 (Instant Love) but found out that the low light performance was kinda bad through reviews. Then, started showing interest in Canon T3. Somehow, Nikon was my last choice. But, I just wanted to give it a try before I bought any camera and tried out the D3100 at a local store. This is when I really started liking Nikon (Best in class for lowlight situations) and I think there was an interest for low light photography buried deep inside of me when I was a kid ( just the fact that my first camera was not able to click in low light). So, this is when I started reading reviews and blogs and what not!! I rekindled my inner desire for photography.I decided I wanted something more professional than the D3100 and the professional full frame cameras intimidated me and that is when I decided I had to get the D5100 which is perfect for me and for my needs on the long run!! Believe me, I enjoy every thing about this camera. This is the best camera I ever had and its now helping me capture very precious shots that I could only dream of, Its making them come true!! If you are really into manual modes and want the perfect gear without being intimidated by the so called professional cameras, I say go for the D5100!! Suits the Budget, Serves the Need!!

If your number one priority is image quality, especially in low-light situations, and your budget is at $800 or lower, get this camera. It has the same Sony sensor found in the Nikon D7000, and I suspect it's similar to the highly regarded ones in the Sony Alpha 580 and Nex 5N. As the reviewers at dpreview.com stated: "At low ISO settings, the D5100 is on a par with the best of the competition, but at the higher ISO settings, it produces some of the best image quality that we've ever seen from an APS-C camera." Tests from DXOMark and reviews from several other sites confirm this assessment.I had a Canon t2i for about a week, but returned it in favor of this camera, and I'm very pleased with that decision. That's not to say that the Canon t2i and t3i (which share the same sensor and have very similar image output) are necessarily sub par. In many respects, they are superior, but it depends on what's most important to you and what you plan on doing with the camera.Here's a comparison between the D5100 and t2i/t3i, cameras that are competing for the same customers.D5100 ADVANTAGES- IMAGE QUALITY, especially at higher ISO's. The camera has a larger sensor than the t3i and fewer pixels per square centimeter. And when it has noise, it's more of the grainy type (which I prefer) than the blotchy, JPG artifact kind (which is what I got from the t2i). Being able to use photos taken at 3200 and even 6400 ISO means faster shutter speeds at lower lights, which is essential for someone like me who has kids and wants to be able to take photos indoors without using the flash. As I mentioned above, the D5100 likely has the best sensor of any APS-C camera currently available.- NICER KIT LENS. The picture quality isn't necessarily better (although the t3i's larger sensor will show more of the imperfections of a lower quality lens than the D5100's and the kit lens is definitely a low quality lens compared to the other offerings in either the Canon or Nikon line), but the build at least feels better. The movement on the zoom and focus rings were much less smooth on the t2i, especially when going from 24 to 18mm. This might not matter for functionality and durability, but it bothered me quite a bit, and that matters since I'm not planning on getting a nicer kit lens for quite some time.- BETTER BUILD/FITS NICER IN HANDS. This is very subjective, but the t2i's body felt cheap in my hands and was harder to hold. The t3i's body has been altered just a bit to improve the ease of holding it, but the plastic is the same as the t2i. In addition, the spot on my t2i where you're supposed to put your right thumb would give a bit when I pressed on it and make a small sound. I've read accounts of the t2i surviving drops and other mishaps that would have killed off lesser cameras. I also like the feel of the rubber on the Nikon better. Now, maybe how the plastic feels and whether it gives in a spot or two don't really matter as far as durability is concerned, but if you're using the camera regularly, you want to like how it feels in your hands. I should add that many reviewers prefer the feel of the Canon over the Nikon, so on this point, you'll just have to try the cameras out yourself.- SHUTTER DURABILITY. The D5100's shutter is tested at 100,000 cycles. That doesn't mean that every D5100 will last that long, but at least they provide evidence that it should. Canon doesn't do the same test (or at least post the results) for the t3i. They claim it's because it's not a guarantee of shutter durability, but I've found websites that allow users to enter in when their shutter stops working or if it's continuing to work, and Nikons were usually superior than Canons on these tests, especially among the lower end models.- CUSTOMIZATION/POST-EDITING. I feel like I was able to customize many more of the settings in the D5100 than the t2i, especially settings that affected how the camera processed the JPEGs (such as the color, sharpness, contrast, etc. of the image). There are also a lot of options for editing photos in the camera after taking them, such as correcting for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion. If you mostly use shareware photography software (like Picasa and Gimp), then having these in camera editing options might be important.- LONGER BATTERY LIFE. I didn't have both cameras long enough to really say which had better batter life, but on paper, the D5100's battery is supposed to last 50% longer.CANON T2i/3i ADVANTAGES- FASTER AUTO FOCUS. The auto focus was slighter faster in the t2i, especially in low light conditions. I find that the D5100 has to have one of it's auto focus points on some sort of contrasting spot in low light conditions. The D5100 does have an AF lamp, but it's so bright that it's not reasonable to use in settings with human subjects in the photo.- QUICK ACCESS TO SETTINGS. Although the D5100 is very customizable, it can take several clicks to change the most basic settings, such as

Hi everyone,I am new in the DSLR world and Nikon D5100 is my first camera of that kind.Like many, I guess - I did a lot of research before I buy this camera. I was looking for something that will meet my needs, something for my level of “professionalism” and something that will be easy to learn.And I am glad that I did the right choice. This camera is that and so much more.One of the first things that will help you to understand your camera is the menu. Is simple and self-explanatory. As well as the manual.I am type of person who doesn’t want to shoot at “auto” mode (that was the reason I switched from point-and-shoot cameras), so I am playing a lot with the Professional modes (M,A,S, P). Do understand all this modes better; I was using the book “Nikon D5100 – From Snapshots To Great Shots”, by Rob Sylvan.Although the manual that comes with the camera, as I said, is doing a great job – this is also a “must have book” for this camera.It’s free to download in PDF version.It’s not easy to adjust the proper settings at various situations, tough…but with good practice, your Nikon will deliver excellent photos. I purchased this camera together with 18-55 kit lens. And I expected to be heavier that they actually are, but no…the camera body fits perfectly in your arms.The photo quality is excellent (I put my setting to shoot large files) and the HD Video as well. I was really surprised by the microphone – I guess I am used to my microphone from point-and-shoot cameras, so I was happy to find that this one actually records perfect audio.The truth is, I cannot compare this camera with any other from this kind. Like I said, it’s my first.But for the money wise, quality of photos and the kit lenses – it’s just perfect.Also, the flip screen was one of the reasons I decide for this camera ( I found out that not many cameras have this) – which is very helpful when shooting from ground level (which I do)As you will read in many books and magazines (which I highly recommend when buying this kind of camera) – the camera itself will not make you better photographer. Playing with it, practicing and spending time behind it, however – it will.I hope my review helped to someone who is in dilemma what to buy.When I will became an expert in few months & years, I will write again :)Cheers!

I had this camera for about a year and got to know it very well. I had upgraded from a D60.The camera's main selling point - compared to the d3100 - was its 16 megapixel sensor which the d7000 also has. Unfortunately, the lack of all the other cool bells and whistles that the d7000 has (see below) leaves the d5100 in an identity crisis. Other minor gimmicky things are bracketing, in camera HDR, better lcd with swivel.To be perfectly honest, all these things I have found to be not incredibly useful for real world applications.Bracketing:Okay, you're in a studio, crunched for time, the editor of a magazine is on your back for the pictures for their next month's cover. You don't have time to get exact lighting levels, so you just set to bracket and viola. Sure, that's a great use for it. unfortunately, no buyer of a d5100 will be doing this. If you are doing this you will have a much more expensive camera. For the average person, the bracketing only fills up your memory card 3x faster. It is absolutely useless for anything other than posed shots, which is probably a very small segment of who would actually be buying this camera.HDR:I used this about twice in the year I owned it, and to be honest I forgot which pictures i did with it. You can't do it on a moving subject. Same situation as bracketing; only posed shots or architecture. Very seldom a use case for someone buying a sub-1000 dollar camera.Swivel LCD:Ultra gimicky. How often does anyone really need this? The ONLY time i used this was self-portrait. that's it.My other miscellaneous gripes:1. The LCD seems to get dust inside it very easily. After a year (just sold it here) there were noticeable spots of dust under the LCD on the lower right side.2. Inferior autofocus sensor seems to have trouble getting anything but kit lenses in focus consistently. This is the main reason I sold it. AF just wasn't reliable. I heard the same with the D7000. You would think after 50 years of making cameras, Nikon would be able to know how to autofocus...3. My LCD had a dead pixel. How did this get past quality control?4. No noticeable difference between Fine and Normal quality jpegs. Fine are like twice the size though.NOTE: There is NO internal AF motor, so you are barred from using any of the non G lenses. This may not be an issue for most people, but I had a couple older D style lenses, and i couldn't use them. Also, no commander mode for external flashes. I realize these two things would make it more expensive, so that's why they didn't add them.Conclusion:If you are thinking of getting this camera, my advice is to seriously consider the d3100 (now d3200) instead, as that does 90% of what this one does and is a couple hundred $$ cheaper. If you are looking to take pictures of family/friends and want to step into the world of DSLR as a beginner, go with the d3100. Honestly, the extra few megapixels is not significant.If you are getting more serious about photography and want to start using primes or external flashes, you will need to get the d7000/d7100.If you know something about photography, you will outgrow this camera very quickly and my advice is just cut to the chase and buy the higher model. you won't be disappointed.

I am a long time Nikon shooter, going back to my film days. When digital finally got to the point that SLR's were affordable (if you can consider ~$2000 and up affordable) I stuck with Nikon due to the glass I already owned. I started with the D100 and a used D1h. I then got a new D2h (which I still love in all its 4MP glory)and a D200, and now own a D300. I have also owned a Canon D30, a Canon 20D and a Canon t2i, so I have a pretty fair amount of experience with DSLR's. While I like my D300 and would marry my D2h, I have never been truly happy with the hi-iso performance of either. I shoot a lot of grappling tournaments in really bad light, meaning lots of noisy photos. A friend of mine owns a D7000 and I was a little jealous of the hi-ISO files. It just didn't feel like it was worth the money to upgrade though.Then D5100 refurbs dropped below $400. I already knew I loved the files from the D7000, and they share the same sensor, so why not give one a shot?I am MORE than happy with my decision - I LOVE this camera!Reason #1 - the beautiful files at all iso's. I'm not going to get all techie. I could care less about measurements, etc. The files from this camera are, to me, exquisite. With my D2h going above iso 800 is suicide. With my D300 I will use 1600 in most light and can use 3200 in a pinch with cleanup in Lightroom. With the D5100 I would have NO problem leaving this thing set at 3200 all the time. I'm happy with 6400 most of the time in color, and 6400 files in B&W take me back to my film days. The majority of the time I don't do any noise clean-up in Lightroom.Reason #2 - the size & weight. This thing is small and light. My D2h is a tank. Literally. And it feels like carrying one. The D300 gets a little hefty too. The D5100 does not really feel much heavier than my Olympus EPL-1. As a matter of fact, my EPL-1 has not left the house since I got the D5100. My last 2 hikes I have slapped my 35mm 1.8 on the D5100 and been happy as a pig in poop. My other cameras look much more professional and tend to make some people nervous. The D5100 looks like, well, what it is, a cheap intro camera. I don't get "the look" from security guards, etc.Reason #3 - the video. Not as many manual controls as my old t2i, but the video is still stunning when done right.What Else Do I Like - I like that it uses SD cards, just like all of my compact cameras. I like the articulating screen. I like that my 8 year old daughter can handle it without moaning about the size.What do I miss - sometimes I miss the top lcd for a quick check of settings. Sometimes I miss the dual command dials, but since I shoot mostly in aperture priority, it's rare. I have the Fn button programmed to select ISO, which works fairly well, but I do sometimes miss a dedicated button. I almost never mess with WB, so I don't particularly miss that button, but I do miss having a way to select the frame-rate/timer. Having to go into the menus can sometimes slow things down a little. I felt a little nervous today shooting in a snowstorm since the camera is not weather sealed.So, while there may be a few things I miss, mostly having to do with controls, and I do have a little concern over the lack of weather seals, for the price, I am NOT going to complain. I have had the camera for 3 weeks now and have not touched my D2h or my D300. I am enjoying it that much. I feel like it is truly an outstanding value, and I highly recommend it!

First off let me say that if you criticize a camera on these boards you will be personally attacked by an army of jerks, so its not that easy. Just take that into account when you read glowing positive reviews. Noone's paying me to speak truth about a camera.I tested a 5100 and was not that thrilled by the camera. In fact, I returned it making sure not to get stuck with it.The shutter is quiet and fast, and the menu is well designed, but the buttons are arranged in a unique fashion that someone else mentioned is different from most other Nikon dSLRS, so using it and another would not be a seamless experience. The live-view screen is almost more trouble than its worth, but it's mandatory on an HD vidcam. Dealing with it, however, can be a hassle for stills, since you're inclined to turn it face in, and then you have to turn it back every time you monitor etc.The LCD is very large and pretty, but it's also quite vulnerable if you're involved in any sort of action or even travel. You have to watch the screen like a hawk. If you're shooting concerts or street where you raise your hands above the crowd, great, but is that worth the trouble the rest of the time? Maybe so, it does provide for different shooting styles, and getting low is great, too. For video, the screen is mandatory, but back later on the video...Finally, is there a reason the camera can't come with a screen protector? You have to buy one as an accessory, and Nikon's brand name ones are no longer made. So now I have to waste time tracking down a kludge solution which may damage the screen. You pay $700 for a camera and they can't include such a critical item that's hard to find that costs 2 bucks to make? Thanks Nikon.Beyond the great value for price, I find the default saturation setting to be really flat, so while VIVID is too much on other cameras, I find it mandatory on this one, which is odd. The shots do look great at that point. The focussing doesn't seem to be what it claims. It's good for moving objects, but average at range-finding up close, at least on my 18-135 DX lens. It doesn't hang, but it doesn't seem particularly accurate either. There's a limit to how many shots I can shoot testing, and my lenses are decent, but not top of the line, but the sharpness is not really there consistently. I've been attacked on this point. Let me just say that this camera focusses noticeably worse than the D40x. I dont care if people say its the same design. Its a much worse, less robust performer in the focussing dept, despite having more points.The 16MP doesn't seem like much if any improvement over my D40X. Let the scoffing begin, but the JPEG processing on this one resultsin about the same quality in my ultra close-up comparisons. There is more data, (fewer shots per card), but the final is about 20% better. Besides, 10-16 would be 1.6 times better. I would say 1.3 times better, and still not sure. Fine lines are blurring more at the point of pixelization.With a few days spent on the video, I have to say it's pretty weak. The AF struggles, suffers even. You feel bad for your lenses being overworked. I know this is as advertised, but the video AF is definitely below camcorder quality, although not any worse than my Canon Vixia in low light, which is really terrible. At least dSLR lenses can be manually focussed easily depending on the lens. Nevertheless, this is no point and forget vidcam, and my Vixia beats it hands down in daylight and overcast.What's even worse is that no matter what you set before you launch into video, it chooses the ISO for you. You can choose aperture, and you can make the camera stop adjusting exposure by locking AE, but you cannot make it stay in a low ISO in low light, and its low light video is too grainy to be used outside of personal footage. It looks great on the LCD, and on Youtube videos, but full screen, it looks much worse. I have yet to make this camera shoot low light in a low ISO, which does not show up in EXIF data like stills. The video stays the same quality no matter what kludge you try, and there are many out there, but people keep realizing that their video ends up the same no matter what.It is NOT a low-light miracle worker in video period. Shooting video also mandates that you use battery-sucking Live-view, which stays ON until you stop) In room light or daylight, it does much better, but you still can't control the ISO. Plus if you really like shooting video, you will need the $120 in AC adapters or several batteries, because I would say the battery does about 20 minutes in video. Honestly, it even looks small, although it does charge fast, in about 60-70 minutes, which is about 1/3 faster than my EL-9.This camera is a perfectly portable size, but otherwise a major disappointments. The D5100 is sold for a fair price but promises too much. I wanted to make the video work somehow, and workarounds are fine, and it does shoot good daylight video, but a camera that takes my settings and then ignores

Both the Canon t5i and the Nikon D5100 are very good and comparable cameras. Ten years ago cameras like these would have cost several THOUSANDS of dollars, so regardless of what anyone tells you, these cameras are both good and both offer what would have been professional quality and features just a few years back.We also have a D3100 and a very awesome D7100. This is the reason we stay with Nikon... the ability to share lenses and other accessories saves a lot of money. If our first camera had been a Canon or Pentax instead, we might own a bunch of Canon or Pentax cameras right now, except that Canon does not have any camera that can compete with the D7100 anywhere near that price range, and Pentax was significantly more expensive than both the Canon and Nikon cameras we were considering when we got our first camera. Canon's closest camera to the D7100 cost 3 times more than the D7100, so in that respect Nikon smashes Canon.I would have bought 2 D7100's instead of a D7100 and a D5100, but the D7100 does not have a moveable screen like the D5100 does, and that was an issue. The D7100 is a far superior camera to the D5100, so if the moveable screen is not an issue and you can afford to spend roughly double the amount of the D5100 than I would definitely recommend the D7100 over the D5100.The D5100 fills a need for us and we are happy with it. It is a very capable piece of equipment and the quality is on par with the best of the cameras in its price range.If you are having trouble deciding what brand of camera to go with, the truth of the matter is that virtually all of the big name camera companies like Pentax, Nikon, Canon and others make truly great cameras. The biggest reason why we went with Nikon is the wide range of lenses and other accessories and the prices of those items compared to other competing companies.If we could afford it, we would own cameras from all 3 of those companies, because they all make cameras that we want. But like for many other people out there, money is an issue. I had to make a decision in regards to the best balance of quality and price (for us), both now and down the road as our equipment arsenal expands. For this reason I chose Nikon.I actually plan on buying cameras from both Canon and Pentax in the future as they both have cameras that are great, and our Nikon collection will continue to grow as well with some higher end cameras as the need arises.I hope that this honest review has helped!