Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Upgrade: D90 or D7000?

J

JuiceyJuice

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 11, 2010
24
0
Philadelphia, PA
Ok, with the D7000 out and in people's hands now, I'm wondering what to upgrade to.

My current setup is a D3000 with 18-55mm kit lens, along with 55-200mm nikon and the 35mm 1.8 nikon.

I'm looking to see what people think would be the better upgrade, since either way I'm going one way or the other.

I could go the route of getting the D90 on amazon for $740.00 for the body only or $920.00 with the 18-105mm lens.

Then there is the new flashy D7000 for $1200.00 or $1500.00 with the same 18-105mm lens.

I have the money to go either way, but saving money is always nice, as I'm saving for a new MB Pro when they are released and am moving to California in September, so the less money I spend could help me out. BUT, for a few hundred more I could gain a superior camera and future proof myself. Then on the other side I could go for the D90 and spend the difference on a better lens. I'm really just looking to get print-worthy shots.

I've also read that the boost in MP's in the D7000 is also making lower-end lens' unusable. Meaning having to spend more on higher-quality glass.

Amazon.com is also currently running a special that if you buy certain bodies you can save a good amount on specific lenses, so thats an incentive.

Any ideas or advice?
 
I've also read that the boost in MP's in the D7000 is also making lower-end lens' unusable. Meaning having to spend more on higher-quality glass.
Click to expand...

Bull. You need to read better sources.

The D7000 is far superior to the D90 (which, though an excellent camera, is over 2 years old). You've already got the glass, so buy body only. IIf you want a far better "all around" lens, the new 18-200 is excellent and $250 off with the camera.
 
Whatever you read about making lower-end lenses unusable is complete bull. edit: Ok, after reading his review again I see what you are talking about. Your lenses that you have now will still work well and afaik Thom was mentioning "cheap third party" lenses like oh, Quantaray. Thom was talking about diffraction which is when sharpness declines when you are shooting at f/22, f/32, etc. I like to stick to either f/8 and 11 on my 28mm f/2.

If you go D90 look for a used/refurbished body only at $700 or less, no more.
 
Last edited:
joepunk said:
Whatever you read about making lower-end lenses unusable is complete bull.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify myself, I didn't mean absolutely unusable, I just meant they can actually take away from the camera itself.

http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm

There is the link to his review, which a lot of people trust, and he mentions this all under the "Resolution" section most of the way down the page.
 
I still own a D80, I invested my money inglass like 2.8/17-77; 1.4/85; 1.4/30 Sigma, 1.4/50 and the 4-5-56/55-200.

I would always prefer better glass over a better body.

I've compared the D90 to the D7000 feature by feature. Asking myself every time a feature was better or more elaborated on the D7000... will this enable me making better pics.

I didn't come up with any. So for me it will be the D90.
 
I have a D7000. It's a great camera but very hard to find right now. Had one on order at Adorama -- with long waits reported -- until I got lucky and called my local camera store the day they got some in.

I will probably end up selling it when the D400 comes out. I bought the D7000 to relace my D200 for panning race cars, but the D7000 buffer sucks. If shooting RAW it can only handle about 10 shots in continuous mode.
 
JuiceyJuice said:
Just to clarify myself, I didn't mean absolutely unusable, I just meant they can actually take away from the camera itself.
Click to expand...

They only take away from the camera in the sense that the sensor's resolving power (at lower ISOs) surpasses that of cheaper lenses and is more sensitive to diffraction (which occurs in all lenses when you stop down past a certain aperture), and that this effectively eliminates the advantage the new sensor has over older sensors with fewer pixels - at least when it comes to resolution (but not dynamic range, noise levels, etc).

You'll be fine with your current lenses, but it doesn't hurt (other than your wallet) to invest in better glass.
 
Yep, 16mp is better than 12mp. Mostly. Poor lenses start showing just how poor they are with this level of pixel density, and you definitely need to watch to make sure that diffraction doesn't start robbing back much of what you gained. For a 19" print, for example, you'll see clear diffraction impacts starting at somewhere around f/9 or f/10, depending upon your viewing distance and eyesight. The 18-105mm kit lens is not quite as good a performer as the 16-85mm DX lens. You can't tell that on the 12mp cameras, but on the D7000 there is a small, but discernible difference. That's not to say the 18-105mm is bad on the D7000. It isn't. It's just that the 16-85mm delivers a tiny bit more performance (as does the 17-55m). I've got a couple of cheap third-party lenses still hanging around, and they look cheap on the D7000 ;~). So I'll just put it this way: don't buy the D7000 for it's resolution and then wimp out on lenses. You'll achieve nothing that you couldn't get on the 12mp cameras. If you're going to invest in more pixels, you need to invest in good lenses. The 18-105mm is at the bottom of the scale of what I'd use on the D7000. The D7000 is going to force me to go back and re-evaluate a lot of lenses. The 18-200mm starts to look more like a mediocre performer on the D7000, as do several other lenses. If you're buying the camera for resolution, you need to look seriously at your lenses, just as D3x users have to.
Click to expand...

Unless you have crappy lenses, and you blow up your photos, you will do fine. Basically, the pros already know that the glass is the best investment.

You picked this paragraph out of what was a glowing review of the D7000. He basiclly say, unless you are upgrading from a D90, this is your best option outside of the 100's series.
 
eawmp1 said:
Unless you have crappy lenses, and you blow up your photos, you will do fine. Basically, the pros already know that the glass is the best investment.

You picked this paragraph out of what was a glowing review of the D7000. He basiclly say, unless you are upgrading from a D90, this is your best option outside of the 100's series.
Click to expand...

Well, I consider the lenses I mentioned that I have to be on the lower end of the spectrum.

But anyways, back to the original dilemma of the upgrade. Anyone?
 
You shouldn't have a problem with the lenses that you have.

D7000 is a superb camera. I don't see any reason to choose D90, it's an older generation of camera.
 
Well if I was doing it now I'd get the D7000. I have the D90 and I won't upgrade or make a slightly better investment at this point but it has some things I wish that the D90 had such as dual SD slots, better FPS and a few other things. I'm at the point of just buying better glass and once I'm done there then I'll figure out which body to go with, maybe. I don't see kids playing soccer faster because my camera is now replaced with one of better tech. nor would the subject really care ;)

Since you don't have either I feel one should go with what they can afford and why not, but keep in mind I have seen some great photos of lower end units with top quality glass and I have to say every time, if you are good at becoming (or understanding) as a skilled photographer (comp, framing, subject, etc.) you could best someone while using a P&S or low end body and quality glass. Side note, there was someone this past spring/summer that posted in here that shot drag racing photos using a P&S and they were brilliant fwiw. Put good quality glass and a good body in their hands and look out…
So, if you can afford it, don't mind some iffy feedback which could be very subjective and the body meets your current and future needs then you have your answer.
 
Age means nothing, i have a D700 which is 2 years old and out performs new cameras today.

All the features on the D7000 is to help not great photographers get better pictures with minimal effort.

Professionals turn all those features off and shoot in RAW, if you want better low light you get better glass 1.4,1.8,2.8 etc...

I've had the D90 and to be honest my D80 performed just as well ( as a backup camera )

In my world glass is king not the body.


Matt
 
hank-b said:
I have a D70 which is 6 years old and still out-performs (some) new cameras…

-HB
Click to expand...

yup your right D70, D70s, D80 even the D40 are still cameras. The D40 is especially very popular as its predecessors never really got better like the D60.

I love my D700 just waiting hopefully for a D800 next year its about time Nikon released another FX camera.
 
I sold my D90 for a D7000. The D7k should be your choice. The D90 while great, it just can't compare to the D7000 at all. I was really surprised at how overall better this camera is.
 
Honestly while I respect your opinion you aren't correct. The D7k in RAW mode out performs my D90 without having to hardly do any adjustments on the pictures itself. It is much faster, more solid feeling and overall a better built camera. With the new AF system, it locks on to things fast, and way better in night shots. For someone to say it is for those non-professional photographers to get better pictures with minimal effort just some ignorance on your part.

I actually sold my D90 to a friend who had a D80 and he has taken way better pictures with it vs his D80. He is very impressed with it. Sounds to be you are making excuses to not upgrade.

standingquiet said:
Age means nothing, i have a D700 which is 2 years old and out performs new cameras today.

All the features on the D7000 is to help not great photographers get better pictures with minimal effort.

Professionals turn all those features off and shoot in RAW, if you want better low light you get better glass 1.4,1.8,2.8 etc...

I've had the D90 and to be honest my D80 performed just as well ( as a backup camera )

In my world glass is king not the body.


Matt
Click to expand...
 
Rowbear said:
In which case you should get better glass. Period.
Click to expand...

And most of the time, that is what makes the pictures come out better. It's not the camera but the lens. But going from a D80 to a D7k or even a D90 to D7k will improve the quality of your photos by a significant amount.
 
nizmoz said:
Honestly while I respect your opinion you aren't correct. The D7k in RAW mode out performs my D90 without having to hardly do any adjustments on the pictures itself. It is much faster, more solid feeling and overall a better built camera. With the new AF system, it locks on to things fast, and way better in night shots. For someone to say it is for those non-professional photographers to get better pictures with minimal effort just some ignorance on your part.

I actually sold my D90 to a friend who had a D80 and he has taken way better pictures with it vs his D80. He is very impressed with it. Sounds to be you are making excuses to not upgrade.
Click to expand...

Upgrade? Going from a D700 to a D7000 would be a downgrade. Have you ever thought that your friend is getting better pictures because he's getting better? Faster AF doesn't mean a better picture and unless your shooting fast moving subjects like sports what does faster AF matter? When i'm on set in a studio or on location fast AF is not on my mind. You say you have to make less adjustments with D7000 well every picture is different unless you had both cameras shoot as the exact same time you can't compare.

End of the day its the person behind the camera that makes great shots not the camera and all its features, just because you have the best camera doesn't mean your the best photographer. I could give my wife a D3x and take better pictures than her with a old D100.

Yes the D7000 handles higher ISO's better for low light/night shots but is that what the OP wants it for if not its a waste, The D90 is a very capable low light camera, but again a professional doesn't want to shoot at high ISO's as you loose quality this is where lighting and remote triggered flash guns come into play.
 
nizmoz said:
But going from a D80 to a D7k or even a D90 to D7k will improve the quality of your photos by a significant amount.
Click to expand...

Thats false, ask any pro and he will tell you the same thing. No disrespect but i'm sure i could take better pictures than you using a D80, its the person behind the camera, and remember taking the picture is only the beginning of a great shot the rest is how to treat it in Lightroom.

Thats why all the features are aimed for the amateur shooting in JPEG does it all on the camera, and yeah does a good job but not the best job.
 
standingquiet said:
Upgrade? Going from a D700 to a D7000 would be a downgrade. Have you ever thought that your friend is getting better pictures because he's getting better? Faster AF doesn't mean a better picture and unless your shooting fast moving subjects like sports what does faster AF matter? When i'm on set in a studio or on location fast AF is not on my mind. You say you have to make less adjustments with D7000 well every picture is different unless you had both cameras shoot as the exact same time you can't compare.

End of the day its the person behind the camera that makes great shots not the camera and all its features, just because you have the best camera doesn't mean your the best photographer. I could give my wife a D3x and take better pictures than her with a old D100.

Yes the D7000 handles higher ISO's better for low light/night shots but is that what the OP wants it for if not its a waste, The D90 is a very capable low light camera, but again a professional doesn't want to shoot at high ISO's as you loose quality this is where lighting and remote triggered flash guns come into play.
Click to expand...

Not sure where D700 came in here but you can't compare a DX to a FX camera period. So let's leave the D700 out.

And my friend doesn't get better OVERNIGHT taking pictures he did with his D80 then a D90 the next day same pictures he tried.

Again, sounds like you are making excuses with no reading on how the new D7000 is even better in some cases to the D300s.
 
standingquiet said:
Thats false, ask any pro and he will tell you the same thing. No disrespect but i'm sure i could take better pictures than you using a D80, its the person behind the camera, and remember taking the picture is only the beginning of a great shot the rest is how to treat it in Lightroom.

Thats why all the features are aimed for the amateur shooting in JPEG does it all on the camera, and yeah does a good job but not the best job.
Click to expand...

Well I guess all the PROFESSIONAL photographers on the other forums out there for photography, are wrong too. Because they all upgraded and are saying the SAME THING about the D7k.

:rolleyes:

This is where I am ending it because I am not going to argue with people wanting to state their opinions as facts. I read enough reviews and have my personal experience to give to the OP. That is enough.
 
nizmoz said:
It's not the camera but the lens.
Click to expand...

Don't delude yourself though, the photographer probably affects the image more significantly than either the camera or the lens in 95% of typical shooting situations.

There is a lot of misinformation flying around here. Thom's comments re: diffraction have nothing to do with the quality of the lens. Upgrading to a better lens won't do anything in terms of diffraction. The jist of what he is saying is that the 16MP DX sized sensor has an incredible resolving power, and if your lenses and shooting technique are not up to snuff, you are not going to get any more usable detail out of a 16MP shot than 12 (or 10, or 6...). He's saying if you have a low-end lens that you can see the optical shortcomings on right now, you're not getting any better results by moving to a new 16MP sensor.

The OP is missing one very important statement in his post. He failed to mention what was lacking about his current setup. This is IMHO the most important question to answer, and if you cannot give a satisfactory response to yourself or us on the forum, then maybe you should reconsider your purchase.

Ruahrc
 
nizmoz said:
Well I guess all the PROFESSIONAL photographers on the other forums out there for photography, are wrong too. Because they all upgraded and are saying the SAME THING about the D7k.

:rolleyes:

This is where I am ending it because I am not going to argue with people wanting to state their opinions as facts. I read enough reviews and have my personal experience to give to the OP. That is enough.
Click to expand...

The D7000 was a upgrade to the D300s and is a semi-pro camera not a professional camera.

My D700 came into it as something was said about age and then you said i was putting off upgrading when i have a D700. My D90 and D80 were backup cameras if anything ever happened to my D700 when shooting say a wedding or event.

No Pro will ever say the camera makes a better photographer i can assure you that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back