D90 or D7000

DoctorJ

DoctorJ

Suspended / Banned
Messages
332
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about my decision to upgrade from a a D5000 to a D90 and we all agreed it was the right thing to do, I love the feel (emotional and actual) of a D90, it is a great camera, but for not much more I can get a D7000 body. I already have reasonable glass. Is it worth the extra money? There are obvious benefits but I am a an enthusiastic amateur, photographing landscapes and my young family mainly. any thoughts? I keep loooking at websites ans am now beyond deciding! :bang:
 
DoctorJ said:
Well I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about my decision to upgrade from a a D5000 to a D90 and we all agreed it was the right thing to do, I love the feel (emotional and actual) of a D90, it is a great camera, but for not much more I can get a D7000 body. I already have reasonable glass. Is it worth the extra money? There are obvious benefits but I am a an enthusiastic amateur, photographing landscapes and my young family mainly. any thoughts? I keep loooking at websites ans am now beyond deciding! :bang:
Click to expand...


If it was me and you already have the glass I would get the D7000, the D90 is a great camera but the video on the D7000 alone would be enough to push me to it. I have a D300s, D700 and a D3 and I am still tempted by the D7000 for its video capabilities. I'm a wedding photographer though so I have canon video envy ;)
 
Agreed, I'd get the D7000- some extra pixels, higher ISO, better AF and a much improved (though still flawed- COME ON NIKON!!) video implementation are worth the extra.
 
Get.the d7000. In addition to what others have said you also get - two card slots and great battery life.
 
D7000, Lovely camera. I had a play with one at work yesterday and it was a nice camera to handle plus as said ISO is very good. Also it has 2 SD card slots which is a bit of a bonus!
 
I had the same decision a week or so ago and bought the D90, for me 2 card slots is just a gimmic, i'm never likely to shoot at an ISO that high, not convinced i'll ever use the video mode and really dont need a million focus points.

I can always upgrade to a D7000 later if i want to but i cant see any reason at the moment why i would need to.
 
Good timing this thread for me. I'm in a similar boat. Had my D5000 since September. When I bought it I had no idea that the photography bug would bite so hard and now I find a couple of aspects a bit limiting, the main one being that it doesn't offer 'flash commander' mode. In terms of pure image quality, it's still far better than it's operator!

I'm currently torn between D90, D7000, D300 and D300S.

The D90 appeals because it basically is a D5000 but with some additional features that I would like. it wouldn't cost too much to make the swap either. Maybe £150-£200 if I bought used. It's hard not to think about the D7000 when considering a D90 and I am sorely tempted but it would cost me twice as much. When I look at what the D7000 offers over the D90, I'm not certain that I can justify the cost difference. High ISO performance is the main appeal, but I'm considering a flash so this isn't too important. I never bother with video and the additional memory card wouldn't change my life. 16.2mp would be nice but I think maybe 12 is enough.

So personally with your dilemma, I think you'd probably be very happy with a D90 and a chunk of change in your pocket. Have you thought about a D300/s though? They make the D5000 feel like a toy... It's probably what I would like to go for if funds will allow.
 
For me the choice is made by what I want to take photos of.... sports, and some of this is indoors.... so it has to be the D7000 for the high ISO performance and the AF.

If you are 'sure' about what you want to use the camera for then pick the one that best suits your purpose.:thinking:
 
Thanks all for some thought provoking feedback. 300/s is sadly out of the question, new baby daughter just arrived and my wife would definitely divorce me ASAP..the extras on the D7000 look very tempting but I am not sure I need them to be honest so I may stick with the D90, even though it is the older model. Video is something I tend not to use in anger so quality issues are not too much of an issue for me.
 
I had a D7000 before going the D3 route and it was a fantastic camera. Only think that would temp me for the D300 is the layout of buttons, similar to the D700 I had which I loved. D7000 is new tech and has notable ISO imrpovments, a good all rounder.
 
All these cameras will give you brilliant photos, I got myself a D300s rather than a D7000 because I prefer the layout and build quality. If money is an issue at the moment go for the D90
 
DoctorJ said:
Thanks all for some thought provoking feedback. 300/s is sadly out of the question, new baby daughter just arrived and my wife would definitely divorce me ASAP..the extras on the D7000 look very tempting but I am not sure I need them to be honest so I may stick with the D90, even though it is the older model. Video is something I tend not to use in anger so quality issues are not too much of an issue for me.
Click to expand...

(second hand) D300's (plural D300) cost less than D7000's? In fact, if you're looking at a new D90, the D300 goes for about the same second hand
 
Being an ex D300s owner I would opt for the D7000, other than the build quality the D7000 wins hands down. The D300S ISO control is outrageously bad even at 3200 in decent light.
 
The D7000 all the way. The technology your getting for that price is outstanding, the processor is top quality and I've heard it works in low light incredibly well.
 
D7000 All the way - I Swapped from a D300 to the D7000 and aside from the pro type body feel (Which I missed so much I bought a D700 to complement it!!) The D7000 is a simply awesome bit of kit 2 SD slots are soooo useful -
just think RAW on one, JPEG on other and 3200 ISO is really useable and impressive.

You will NOT be dissapointed.
 
I'd get the 7000, the low light performance is unbelievable. So the young family indoor shots will be so much cleaner and it gives you much much more flexibility to balance shutter speed against ISO for those perfect photos :-)
 
they say the d7k is an upgrade to the d90 thus the d7k is a consumer model, i say nope it's pro as the glass you need imho needs to be pro grade, put midrange glass on a d90 and you get great image quality do the same on a d7k and it's ok but much better with high grade glass
 
DannyDMR said:
they say the d7k is an upgrade to the d90 thus the d7k is a consumer model, i say nope it's pro as the glass you need imho needs to be pro grade, put midrange glass on a d90 and you get great image quality do the same on a d7k and it's ok but much better with high grade glass
Click to expand...

Have to say I agree with this. I upgraded to a D7000'from my trusty D70 which I used my 18-200 VR on a lot. Since buying the D7000 I have also bought a 50mm F1.4 G and the £0-200 VRII....I was going to keep the 18-200 as a holiday lens as we have two young kids so I need to travel light. I am going to have to re-think that strategy now as the 70-200 blows the 18-200 out of the water and also makes the 50mm look soft IMHO.
 
How about the D5100 which is an upgrade on the D90 and D5000 - without breaking the bank ?
 
deeslexia said:
How about the D5100 which is an upgrade on the D90 and D5000 - without breaking the bank ?
Click to expand...

It is a really nice camera, but without the top LCD and lack of button commands it's not really a very nice choice, IMO. Setting things through menus is a pain. Though, if you don't mind that, it's a totally good choice. Oh, and it doesn't have an AF motor for those non AF-S lenses.
 
Hisdem said:
It is a really nice camera, but without the top LCD and lack of button commands it's not really a very nice choice, IMO. Setting things through menus is a pain. Though, if you don't mind that, it's a totally good choice. Oh, and it doesn't have an AF motor for those non AF-S lenses.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts, whilst IQ might be there, the handling is enough compromised for me to discount anything below a d90
 
DannyDMR said:
they say the d7k is an upgrade to the d90 thus the d7k is a consumer model, i say nope it's pro as the glass you need imho needs to be pro grade, put midrange glass on a d90 and you get great image quality do the same on a d7k and it's ok but much better with high grade glass
Click to expand...

Are you saying that with the same non-pro lens attached, the D90 would take better pictures than the D7000?
 
Syd said:
D7000 All the way - I Swapped from a D300 to the D7000 and aside from the pro type body feel (Which I missed so much I bought a D700 to complement it!!) The D7000 is a simply awesome bit of kit 2 SD slots are soooo useful -
just think RAW on one, JPEG on other and 3200 ISO is really useable and impressive.

You will NOT be dissapointed.
Click to expand...

Is high iso better on the D7000 than the D300s ? I would have assumed it the other way round due to pixel density ? I find the d300s sucks for high iso, and if i use PS CS5's noise reduction it just makes images look soft.
 
gad-westy said:
Are you saying that with the same non-pro lens attached, the D90 would take better pictures than the D7000?
Click to expand...

yes and no, i am saying there is a smaller margin for error. never had a D90 but had the D80 and seen alot of shots from a D90 (brother in-law has one)

So if you are a newbie or even if you have been shooting for a while you may find the D90 will give you a more satisfactory final shot than the D7k even though the D7k is miles in front of the D90

The D7k takes practice but lens choice is very important with the D7k it's like buying a bentley and putting a punto engine in it

but that said, if you put high end glass on both then the D7k will blow the D90 out of the water.

So really all i am saying is, if you intend on buying consuming grade glass, other than ISO performance you might aswell buy the D90 and save a few pounds, but if you intend on buying higher grade glass then it's a D7k all day
 
DannyDMR said:
yes and no, i am saying there is a smaller margin for error. never had a D90 but had the D80 and seen alot of shots from a D90 (brother in-law has one)

So if you are a newbie or even if you have been shooting for a while you may find the D90 will give you a more satisfactory final shot than the D7k even though the D7k is miles in front of the D90

The D7k takes practice but lens choice is very important with the D7k it's like buying a bentley and putting a punto engine in it

but that said, if you put high end glass on both then the D7k will blow the D90 out of the water.

So really all i am saying is, if you intend on buying consuming grade glass, other than ISO performance you might aswell buy the D90 and save a few pounds, but if you intend on buying higher grade glass then it's a D7k all day
Click to expand...

cheers. I think what you're saying is that a D7000 will more readily show up consumer lenses limitations. That being the case, it makes the D7000 seem less attractive to me. I'm currently deliberating between a D300 and D7000. I would say that most if not all of my glass would be considered 'consumer'. Certainly not pro. The last thing I want to do is buy a camera that will reduce image IQ over my current D5000 (same sensor as D90) and if I was going to have to shell out for pro lenses, I may as well save a bit more and go for a D700 to attach them to...
 
at the end of the day your images will only be as good as your lens, put a low end lens on a D7k/D300/s,D700,D3s,D3x and you will get the same result imo put a high end lens on all the said camera bodies and then look at the difference..
 
DannyDMR said:
at the end of the day your images will only be as good as your lens, put a low end lens on a D7k/D300/s,D700,D3s,D3x and you will get the same result imo put a high end lens on all the said camera bodies and then look at the difference..
Click to expand...

+1 I'm at my happiest when using my 70 - 200 2.8 - whether it be on my D700 or D7000 ;)
 
DannyDMR said:
at the end of the day your images will only be as good as your lens, put a low end lens on a D7k/D300/s,D700,D3s,D3x and you will get the same result imo put a high end lens on all the said camera bodies and then look at the difference..
Click to expand...

Would the same not apply if one were to put a high end lens on a D90 (or any other camera for that matter)? It shares the same sensor as a D300/s after all.
 
i haven't used a D90 or a D300 so can't really comment on the differences but just because they have the same sensor doesn't mean they are being used to there full potential the D300 sensor will be used better than that of the D90 that's one way of making more money without designing something new
 
DannyDMR said:
i haven't used a D90 or a D300 so can't really comment on the differences but just because they have the same sensor doesn't mean they are being used to there full potential the D300 sensor will be used better than that of the D90 that's one way of making more money without designing something new
Click to expand...

Not sure that I follow. Same lens, same sensor, same output surely for RAW at least. I appreciate that the D300 has a better AF system and the control system is ultimately better but I would have thought that IQ will be no different. I might be missing something though.

Maybe I'm being paranoid but I've spent the last week deliberating over whether to go for a D300 or D7000. I really don't want to spend that sort of cash and then find out that the lenses I have been perfectly happy with up to this point suddenly fall short.
 
I can't see there being a massive difference between D300 to D7000 with regards to image quality.

Someone correct me if im wrong but it isn't down to the sensor it's what the camera does with the image once it comes from the sensor, shooting in raw, it still has to write the image to raw, it's there i would have thought the differences would be
 
I started this thread with a D90 or D7000 question, now the budget has slightly changed and a D300S is a possibility. I am concerned though by the points on here about using 'consumer' glass (which I have) on a 'pro' body. Will this lead to an inevitable need for better glass (which if I buy the body I won't get past the finance director at home for the time being..)?
 
DoctorJ said:
I started this thread with a D90 or D7000 question, now the budget has slightly changed and a D300S is a possibility. I am concerned though by the points on here about using 'consumer' glass (which I have) on a 'pro' body. Will this lead to an inevitable need for better glass (which if I buy the body I won't get past the finance director at home for the time being..)?
Click to expand...

This is my concern too. I was always under the impression that with like for like circumstances (i.e. same user, same light, focus blah blah), two things will affect IQ. The sesnor and the lens. I would have thought that they were mutually exclusive. i.e a better lens is a better lens and a better sensor is a better sensor. You put a better lens on a camera and you'll get a better image and vice versa. Surely a better sensor cannot make a lens perform worse?

What I can understand is a balance of quality, i.e. if you spend £1500 on a 70-200 lens, you might want to invest in a D700 to make the most of it. Similarly a D3 might be a little wasted with a 18-105 kit lens stuck to the front but I can't think that a D3's image would be poorer than D90's with the same lens.
 
DoctorJ said:
I started this thread with a D90 or D7000 question, now the budget has slightly changed and a D300S is a possibility. I am concerned though by the points on here about using 'consumer' glass (which I have) on a 'pro' body. Will this lead to an inevitable need for better glass (which if I buy the body I won't get past the finance director at home for the time being..)?
Click to expand...

By the way. I'd be interested to hear what you decide. It seems that we're in exactly the same boat. I feel that I have reached a stage where the D5000 is frustrating me. Ultimately I'm not after better IQ as I appreciate ultimately full frame and snazzy glass and a massive overdraft is probably the only way to truly feel happy with ones kit. Or maybe that is when I'd start looking jealously at medium format kit.

Anyway, I'm digressing slightly. Like you I can't decide if I should go for the solidity and ergonomics of a D300/s or for the better sensor (in terms of high ISO) and other new fangled features of the D7000. I'm largely happy with the lenses I currently use. They're not expensive lenses but I have chosen them carefully and I'd be happy that they should all perfrom ok on an APS. Just need to make my mind up!
 
Last edited:
i would say the D300 will give you a better q picture than a D90 because it has fine tune focus which will improve lens
 
it's all about the pixels, the more you have the better the IQ will be but it is harder to achieve that higher IQ because you have more pixels showing up more errors so thus making a lower end lens look worse than if it was on a D90

Low end lens + High end Camera = the image will only be as good as the lens but the higher IQ will make the lens appear weaker because it shows up more user errors.

Low end lens + low end Camera = a balance of the 2 so the image should be fine.

i would say because of the high pixel on the D7000 and the fact you are happy with your lenses then the D300 would be your best choice

I'm starting to confuse myself now lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top