Anyone gone from Nikon D90 to Nikon D7000 ?

[John Young]

At the moment I have a Nikon D90 which I use for my weddings and it performs well 90% of the time but sometimes a little better low light performance would be good. I was considering saving up for a D600 but then the D7000 caught my eye. On paper it seems a lot better with many more focus points etc but I just want to ask someone who has gone from D90 to D7000 would I notice enough of an improvement in general image quality and especially low light performance to make it worth while.

I have enough money to buy the D7000 now but the D600 would take a LOT more saving

This is not a comparison between the D600 and the D7000 as its no contest and a no brainer its just between the D90 and D7000 or maybe waiting for future funds for the D600

 

[SnappyHappy]

John, sometimes the thought crosses my mind as well, going to fx it is worth remembering about lenses (£) unless you already have them covered with your d90? That puts me off (cant afford it basically/or cant justify it) all my lenses are fairly cheap dx. (but do me most of the time, no probs)

What do you find acceptable on the d90 for iso? 1600? I still find 12mp fine as well tbh. You crop a lot?

I'm sticking with mine for a longtime i've decided (d7000 was tempting). But i use centre point focus nearly all the time as well. i find 1600iso ok and gets me by so wont bother. (just like really good pics of my kids so have no pressure for weddinfs etc that you will)

I'm also intetested to see what replies you get

 

[limpet9]

I`ve gone from D40 to D90 and was impressed with the improved usabilty and picture quality.
However I would also like something that is just a bit....well.....more if you know what I mean.
So I`ve been looking about and I`m seriously thinking about jumping ship and going to the Pentax K5. The main reasons are that it will give me image quality on a par with ( if not slightly better than) the D7000, in body shake reduction that should work with any lens....I think. And a tough metal weather sealed body like the D300 only in a more compact form.
The more I read about it the better it looks, I just have to have hold of one to see how it feels and as Pentax have now released the slightly improved version K5 ll, decide if it`s worth the extra dosh?
I`m not too invested in the Nikon system. I`ll just keep the D40 and the 2 cheap zooms for my little grandson and sell the D90 and the nifty 50.

So what do you think?

 

[architectfadi]

I went from the D300s (I think same sensor as the D90) to the D7000 and I was very impressed with the image quality and ISO performance.

 

[HopefulM]

I have a D7000, and to be honest, I find that the ISO performance isn't all it's cracked up to be - perhaps it's my individual camera, or maybe my expectations are too high?

Other than that, it's a fab camera - light, easy to handle, lovely feel...

good luck with your decision.

 

[John Young]

My D90 is superb and I was told I was daft to use it for weddings but many weddings later its great apart from the noise and high ISO sometimes. Also at the moment its off for repair as it was loosing focus, you could hear the focus motor buzzing away in and out of focus but not locking on and recently the focus point would shift even though I had focuses and locked with the shutter half pressed

 

[Tunbridge]

I did have a D3000 but would regularly borrow my dads D90 which I loved. When it came to upgrading I went for the D7000 and I do think it is a bit improvement on the D90 (it certainly is over the D3000!)

Can't comment too much on the focus points as I much prefer to stick with just a single focus point. Its early days as I've only had the camera a couple of weeks but I doubt you would be disappointed. The high ISO performance seems good to me.

As others have said going full frame would no doubt be better but if you already have a few DX lenses in your collection that would be a major consideration. Can't ever see me going full frame as the D7000 is more than enough for me but I don't use mine as a business tool, if I did it would certainlt be more of a consideration.

 

[ausemmao]

At the moment I have a Nikon D90 which I use for my weddings and it performs well 90% of the time but sometimes a little better low light performance would be good. I was considering saving up for a D600 but then the D7000 caught my eye. On paper it seems a lot better with many more focus points etc but I just want to ask someone who has gone from D90 to D7000 would I notice enough of an improvement in general image quality and especially low light performance to make it worth while.

I have enough money to buy the D7000 now but the D600 would take a LOT more saving

This is not a comparison between the D600 and the D7000 as its no contest and a no brainer its just between the D90 and D7000 or maybe waiting for future funds for the D600

If it's mainly low light performance you're after I'd save for a D600 if I were you, provided you were happy with your lenses. If not, then I'd go for lenses. It doesn't sound as if you'll use much of the stuff the D7000 has over the D90 apart from the low light performance, which while better, isn't enough to upgrade on its own.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I had a D7000 and I reckon it's a worthwhile upgrade to the D7000. Built better, handles better, higher resolution, and MUCH better AF and low light performance.

 

[Cagey75]

My D90 is superb and I was told I was daft to use it for weddings but many weddings later its great apart from the noise and high ISO sometimes. Also at the moment its off for repair as it was loosing focus, you could hear the focus motor buzzing away in and out of focus but not locking on and recently the focus point would shift even though I had focuses and locked with the shutter half pressed

Who told you this?? Only a few years back the D90 was the top DX camera out there. It's more than capable, especially if you can use speedlights during the ceremony. I shot a wedding using a D90 and borrowed D80. Without flash the D80 was a non runner really, apart from outside. But the D90 handled nicely even without flash at ISO 1600 - 2500. Bit of clean up here and there, but the quality was there.

The D7000 offers maybe one stop improvement. But that can mean it'll be as clean at 3200 as the D90 at 1600, if that's good enough for you?

 

[Blueskyez]

I agree re D90, have used it for weddings no problem, great with the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 good also for me so far, but cant comment re the D7000..

 

[John Young]

I had a D7000 and I reckon it's a worthwhile upgrade to the D7000. Built better, handles better, higher resolution, and MUCH better AF and low light performance.

Now see that's what I have read on the Web, some saying its a great camera and a big improvement on the D90 others saying its not much.

Who told you this?? Only a few years back the D90 was the top DX camera out there. It's more than capable, especially if you can use speedlights during the ceremony. I shot a wedding using a D90 and borrowed D80. Without flash the D80 was a non runner really, apart from outside. But the D90 handled nicely even without flash at ISO 1600 - 2500. Bit of clean up here and there, but the quality was there.

The D7000 offers maybe one stop improvement. But that can mean it'll be as clean at 3200 as the D90 at 1600, if that's good enough for you?

I agree re D90, have used it for weddings no problem, great with the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 good also for me so far, but cant comment re the D7000..

Well maybe got the wrong end of the stick or someone was telling me crap but I do enjoy using the D90 and its given me some great results. I suppose its really with the problems I had with it recently that I thought it was maybe time to upgrade.

If you look HERE its interesting to see two images compared between the D90 and D7000. On the 1600 ISO it looks like the D90 has a better/cleaner image to me.

 

[ausemmao]

Now see that's what I have read on the Web, some saying its a great camera and a big improvement on the D90 others saying its not much.

It's certainly an improvement. The question is how much of an improvement, and whether spending the cash elsewhere might be better. If you don't use off centre focus points, you'll never notice the difference in AF (even a D3100 can track virtually anything on the centre point with good AF-S lenses). If you do, then you will. Likewise with the U1/U2, the dynamic range improvements, having native ISO100, the dual card slots, the ( funny in hindsight 1/8000 max SS over the D90's 1/4000) or the non-CPU metering. Great if you need them, but if you don't, seems silly to buy based on them.

Well maybe got the wrong end of the stick or someone was telling me crap but I do enjoy using the D90 and its given me some great results. I suppose its really with the problems I had with it recently that I thought it was maybe time to upgrade.

If you look HERE its interesting to see two images compared between the D90 and D7000. On the 1600 ISO it looks like the D90 has a better/cleaner image to me.

Effective ISO3200, no NR

Effective ISO8000, light NR (19 luma on LR4)

 

[Adam_M]

I had a D7000 earlier this year. Personally I wouldn't bother and get a second hand D700. I wish I had. The AF on the D7000 was great but I didn't like it's high ISO, it didn't seem to handle red (or was it blue?) lights very well at all when you cranked up the ISO.

Considering swapping my 5d mk2 and 24-70L for a D700 + 24-70 just for the amazing AF!

Remember too, the D7000 is getting on a bit now...

 

[Adam_M]

Another thing to consider with the D7000 is the lack of third party batteries, at least the last time I checked. Paying £60+ for official ones didn't sit well with me.

 

[John Young]

It's certainly an improvement. The question is how much of an improvement, and whether spending the cash elsewhere might be better. If you don't use off centre focus points, you'll never notice the difference in AF (even a D3100 can track virtually anything on the centre point with good AF-S lenses). If you do, then you will. Likewise with the U1/U2, the dynamic range improvements, having native ISO100, the dual card slots, the ( funny in hindsight 1/8000 max SS over the D90's 1/4000) or the non-CPU metering. Great if you need them, but if you don't, seems silly to buy based on them.




Effective ISO3200, no NR

Effective ISO8000, light NR (19 luma on LR4)

Those shots are excellent, just the type of ISO performance I need. Are they yours and what processing did you use ?

 

[girl_with_camera]

Just seen that the D7000 can be had at currys for £629.99 using the code ALL499 (have posted in the deals thread) code ends today but its a great price if you wanted to go for the 7000!

 

[John Young]

Just seen that the D7000 can be had at currys for £629.99 using the code ALL499 (have posted in the deals thread) code ends today but its a great price if you wanted to go for the 7000!

Thank you, yeah that is a good deal. Not sure how I would go about stopping my add-on warranty that I pay monthly for from Currys on my current camera and putting it on new one. I bet I would need to go in store and therefore not get the special price Plus my D90 is still of for repair so no idea what the outcome is going to be from that yet

Just checked on currys website and NONE available in my area, only home delivery so cannot ask in store about the change in warranty


Just been reading reviews on YouTube and they all seem to think the D7000 is a great camera even compared to the D90. So could be worth going for.

 

[Nawty]

For me, the difference between them isn't worth the £700, that kind of money would buy you the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens which will do far more for your photography than a D7000.

If ISO noise is your concern, buy Lightroom, shoot raw and learn to expose to the right (ETTR) - you will easily get clean enough shots at ISO3200 and higher if you don't need to print to massive sizes.

 

[girl_with_camera]

I think you would need to cancel the warrenty and take out a new one on the new camera? I'm not sure though.
I used the D7000 last year and I didn't really get on with, it just felt wrong and slower to focus than my D300. Its quite a personal thing though of course.

 

[MIKEROPHONICS]

I went form d40x to d7k - chalk and cheese. Just shot my step mum's 60th party in a dingy pub with a 35mm f1.8G - great results and hardly bothered with my sb400 flash.
Cheers

 

[John Young]

For me, the difference between them isn't worth the £700, that kind of money would buy you the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens which will do far more for your photography than a D7000.

If ISO noise is your concern, buy Lightroom, shoot raw and learn to expose to the right (ETTR) - you will easily get clean enough shots at ISO3200 and higher if you don't need to print to massive sizes.

I do shoot RAW and use photoshop for RAW conversion (cant get on with lightroom) I also have a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 which is excellent in low light and I can clean up high noise images but sometimes I just see other camera results like the samples above on this thread and think...Wow! I want one. If the images I have seen online such as DigitalRev on youtube at high ISO on the D7000 are right my D90 cannot touch it :nono:

I think you would need to cancel the warrenty and take out a new one on the new camera? I'm not sure though.
I used the D7000 last year and I didn't really get on with, it just felt wrong and slower to focus than my D300. Its quite a personal thing though of course.

Yeah you are probably right but what I meant (and I explained it wrong) was I cannot set it up for monthly payments as I do now if I buy it off line. There seems to only be the option to buy the warrantly outright. At the moment I pay £5 a month and it covers me for as long as I pay it and its just come in very hand as my D90 is acting up and is now away for repair having been picked up and packaged by a courier

I went form d40x to d7k - chalk and cheese. Just shot my step mum's 60th party in a dingy pub with a 35mm f1.8G - great results and hardly bothered with my sb400 flash.
Cheers

Yeah that's what a lot of reviews online seem to say, the low light capabilities seem to be excellent from what I have read and samples seen

 

[ausemmao]

For me, the difference between them isn't worth the £700, that kind of money would buy you the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens which will do far more for your photography than a D7000.

If ISO noise is your concern, buy Lightroom, shoot raw and learn to expose to the right (ETTR) - you will easily get clean enough shots at ISO3200 and higher if you don't need to print to massive sizes.

ETTR is a waste of time anyway, but it is especially so at high ISO - you're already aperture + shutter limited, so there's no more exposure to be had

As for low light, aside from the OP having a 2.8 zoom already, a 1.8 or 1.4 prime is the way to go if more light is needed.

Those shots are excellent, just the type of ISO performance I need. Are they yours and what processing did you use ?

They're mine, yes.

Aside from noise, one of the other things that hurts low light/high ISO images is the loss in dynamic range and the consequent flattening and loss of colour accuracy. One of the reasons the D7000 does so well is that with the sensor being as linear as it is, where you would ordinarily use say ISO 6400, you use ISO 1600 and then raise the exposure in post. This allows you to get the same exposure as you would have normally, but protecting highlights while doing so - if I had shot the bar shot at 8000 in camera, the lamps would be white blobs, but shooting at 1600 then pushing allows me to keep them in, which is part of what makes them look good.

Other than that, nothing special going on, just matching contrast and colour to taste.

With that said - if I had to make the choice, I'd rather have taken that shot with a D90+24/1.4 than a D7000+24-70/2.8 (both images were shot with D7000+24/1.4).

 

[John Young]

I also have a nifty-fifty that I love to use and the photos from that are always spot on

The last part of your post is interesting

With that said - if I had to make the choice, I'd rather have taken that shot with a D90+24/1.4 than a D7000+24-70/2.8 (both images were shot with D7000+24/1.4).

Why is that ? just to spend the 'D7000 money" on a better lens ?

What about the D7000 with the 24/1.4 ?

 

[Snapsh0t]

I went from D90 to D7000 and back to D90 again. Yes, the results from the D7000 are wonderful most of the time but I found it overexposed too often when using matrix metering (my norm) - not as much as my D80 but more than the D90. I also never managed to get the focus points under control which resulted in some oof shots but I suspect that was me. The 100% viewfinder is a definite plus, though. Being realistic, even the D90 is overkill for the amount of photography I do these days but I'm comfortable with it and can be confident it'll do what I tell it.

Jonathan

 

[John Young]

I went from D90 to D7000 and back to D90 again. Yes, the results from the D7000 are wonderful most of the time but I found it overexposed too often when using matrix metering (my norm) - not as much as my D80 but more than the D90. I also never managed to get the focus points under control which resulted in some oof shots but I suspect that was me. The 100% viewfinder is a definite plus, though. Being realistic, even the D90 is overkill for the amount of photography I do these days but I'm comfortable with it and can be confident it'll do what I tell it.

Jonathan

Do you think the overexpose problem was a fault with your particular camera as I have not heard anyone mention that before in reviews etc ? When you say you never managed to get the focus point under control what exactly do you mean ? did the focus jump around or something ? did you use center spot focus ?