D90 or D7000

Cheers Daniel. Trying to take all this on-board and I too am confused.

I can see that more mp are going to show up deficiencies either in a lens or a small amount of camera shake but I'm not sure that would show on a monitor or smallish print so may not personally affect me. I'll do a little more research, regardless. Appreciate the input.
 
Graham, the more I think about it the more I am drawn to the 300S. I have read various things about focussing problems on the D700 (on this blog, the D7000 users thread) which concern me. I almost can't find a bad word about the D300S. I have glass, if I need to upgrade it I will over time but I will at least be able to go out on day 1 and shoot something! The 16MP seem to cause a fair few problems in themselves that are less apparent with 12MP.
I will probably jump in this week, I will let you know.
 
You certainly dont need "pro" lenses for either the d7000 or d300

The key difference between pro and nonpro lenses is not image quality but their construction & longevity. Sure a pro lens is nicer to use but the cheapest nikon 18-55 will still give great shots

Have a look at a load of pictures, apart from some depth of field giveaways you wont be able to tell which are on cheap lenses
 
If you look on the official Nikon website, they only have 4 professional cameras, D700, D300s, D3s and D3x.

I use the D300s and it is a fantastic camera, I upgraded from the D5000 for sports photography.
 
The D7000 is definitely a bit more of a challenge as I encountered from the D70, and I hate to admit but it is true the majority of the 'camera doesn't focus', 'the picture is soft' was definitely my sloppy handling. And I blamed the camera as well, but a 'semi pro' showed me a few tricks in person and the results he was getting from my camera and it showed the only thing to blame is me.

Whilst I agree with DannyDMR that it can show up as worse because it is better, that doesn't really make it worse ;-) Still with me :-)

There is definitely a bit more to learn and it is much less of a dSLR to run in full automatic snapshot mode. You need to invest some time in it but then it is rather rewarding. And I am still learning.

Personally I really liked this picture, I took my daughters out yesterday in the fields behind our house purely for me to learn more about the advanced focussing system. Sure perhaps not the best photo in the world, but not bad on the ultra cheap no-pro Nikon 55-200VR lens. The PP was limited to making it a touch warmer, brought the black level in to the curve and added .2 sharpness.


DSC_7241 - Version 2 by JP de Jong, on Flickr

Ultimately it is about the photograph, some of the best may technically not be the best. I think it produces some great results on cheap lenses like the 50mm f1.8 and my old trusty 18-70 f3.5-4.5. Definitely provides a lot of room to grow and hone one's technique before any existing lenses become a hindrance.

Anyway just my 2p from someone who just made the jump from a D70.
 
I've had to change certain self-made rules that I shot with on my old D80, for eg I used to always think I could generally shoot at 1/60th at a pinch if there wasn't much movement in the frame. Now with the D7000 I always make sure I have a decent shutter speed as I do think the extra megapixels can be less forgiving. But with the excellent ISO performance this isn't really a problem.

Once you set the camera to how you want to use it it gives fantastic results. Personally I find shooting RAW and adjusting sharpness/saturation etc in PP much better.

I have the 18-70, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 70-300VR and they all perform really well with perhaps the 18-70 needing a bit more care to get the most out of it. That's the only lens I might change at some point.

Snapped these critters on Saturday, the first with the 70-300VR and the second with the 35 1.8, and thought that the detail and clarity were just fine:

p992776266-4.jpg


p933727110-4.jpg
 
DannyDMR said:
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
Click to expand...

its all about the pixels so does that mean that canons pic quality is better than nikon because it has higher pixel count d300 or d7000 less than the 7d
and d700/d3/d3s all lower than 5dmk11,
 
A chap at work has got a D300 and a D7000. He raves about the 7000 and how good it is in low light. He's convinced me to get one instead of a D90.
 
Having moved from the d90 to the d7000 its a no brainer. if you have the option go for the d7000.
 
All i am saying is if you want a camera that will work straight out of the box with your current lenses D300 is better but if you want to learn how to use the D7000 properly then it is just as good if not better than the D300/s
But you do have to learn how to use it properly. Hence why i say this is not a consumer camera like the D300 it's more pro like the D300's and deserves good quality glass
 
DannyDMR said:
All i am saying is if you want a camera that will work straight out of the box with your current lenses D300 is better but if you want to learn how to use the D7000 properly then it is just as good if not better than the D300/s
But you do have to learn how to use it properly. Hence why i say this is not a consumer camera like the D300 it's more pro like the D300's and deserves good quality glass
Click to expand...

There is no difference between the D300 and D300S in terms of IQ. The main differences are movie capability, a faster fps and dual card slots. Beyond that the differences are very minor.
 
DoctorJ said:
Graham, the more I think about it the more I am drawn to the 300S. I have read various things about focussing problems on the D700 (on this blog, the D7000 users thread) which concern me. I almost can't find a bad word about the D300S. I have glass, if I need to upgrade it I will over time but I will at least be able to go out on day 1 and shoot something! The 16MP seem to cause a fair few problems in themselves that are less apparent with 12MP.
I will probably jump in this week, I will let you know.
Click to expand...

Glad to see that somebody is capable of making a decision. I am more undecided than ever. I'm even now considering a D700 but that one would depend a lot on finding a decent deal and initially would almost be a backward step as I'd have to sell half my lenses to fund it! Would be great to hear how you get on with the D300S. Have you found a decent deal somewhere?
 
Graham, I have won some High Street vouchers at work so it is going to be Jessops, they are the only camera retailer that accepts them (except Argos and they only go as far as a D90). So no, not a great deal but there it is!
 
DoctorJ said:
Graham, I have won some High Street vouchers at work so it is going to be Jessops, they are the only camera retailer that accepts them (except Argos and they only go as far as a D90). So no, not a great deal but there it is!
Click to expand...

Make sure you maximise the deal you get by getting 4.04% cashback via Top CashBack.
 
DoctorJ said:
Graham, I have won some High Street vouchers at work so it is going to be Jessops, they are the only camera retailer that accepts them (except Argos and they only go as far as a D90). So no, not a great deal but there it is!
Click to expand...

I have heard that some branches will price match. Maybe worth asking....
 
Have to agree with Daniel, D7000 :thumbs:.

I have read many reviews and comparing the D7000 with D300s then the D7000 wins hands down.

I am very happy with my D300s, BUT, if I was upgrading from my old D5000 now I would go for the D7000 as the low light capabilities are a lot better for my type of photography.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been having the same problem recently, having sold my Pentax Dslr and lenses I want a camera mainly for landscapes, the D90 has such a good reputation but I went into Curry's digital in the Arndale in manchester and tried the D7000, took a few shots at different iso, etc and was completely blown away, it feels so good as well, really well built, in fact if it was a woman i would marry it and have its children, definately my next camera.
 
I've got to be careful here as this is my first proper post on this forum but I can't say I really follow DannyDMRs arguments. Maybe I am misunderstanding but the way I see it is as follows....

For most use the resolution of the image is likely to be user or lens limited. Having a higher resolution camera won't affect things much. It might look more blurred on a D7000 with a cheap lens but only if you display it 100% where you are magnifying it more so you can see the deficiency of the lens more than you would with a 12MP camera. Resize the D7000 image to 12MP for a fair comparison and I doubt you will see much resolution difference.
The D7000 is a better sensor (not just in resolution terms) than the D90 and D300 so I would be amazed if anyone could demonstrate worse IQ when images are displayed/printed at the same size.

My personal experience is going from a D50 to a D300. Straight from the camera the D50 general gives sharper images. However using RAW and PS there isn't much in it. It is limited by my lenses and how steady I can hold the camera.

I was also a bit disappointed to be honest by the ISO performance of the D300. It is better than the D50 but still struggles beyond ISO 400 to 800. From what I have seen the D7000 will do MUCH better than this.
Personally I see the D7000 as an upgrade from my D300, despite the pro feel of the D300 (which is the main reason I love the D300 over the D50).

Toby
 
zak5ive said:
I have been having the same problem recently, having sold my Pentax Dslr and lenses I want a camera mainly for landscapes, the D90 has such a good reputation but I went into Curry's digital in the Arndale in manchester and tried the D7000, took a few shots at different iso, etc and was completely blown away, it feels so good as well, really well built, in fact if it was a woman i would marry it and have its children, definately my next camera.
Click to expand...

...Pitty you sold those lenses then - its got exactly the same sensor as the Pentax K5 :lol: (except that the D7000 is not as well built)....
 
lensflair said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

A GH2 does better video than any of them.
 
D7000 hands down. i must say the ISO performance of the D7000 is very good. and the dual card slots, that's a bonus. 9cross type AF points vs 1cross type.

D7000 is the way to go ;)
 
+1 for the D7000. The D90 is quite an old beast by now, the D7000 is better in most aspects.

Cheers
Aled
 
I have a d300s but still use my D90 a lot, its still a very capable camera. Video? just bought a jvc 445 for £199, much easier for video and hd quality......dont get on with video on either Nikon.

D7000 is great but not sure its worth the considerable premium over the D90.
 
Well, I had a play around with a D7000 this evening. It's certainly a nice bit of kit and I'm sorely tempted. One thing that I still can't get off my mind is that it just doesn't feel as meaty/robust as the D300/s. To me it feels no different to a D90 in your hand (to be expected perhaps). I should say though, that it had a kit lens attached and I know that's a pretty lightweight lens. Maybe it would feel different with a heavier piece of glass attached. Perhaps that shouldn't be too important but I do much prefer the feel of the 300 so far. What I really want to do is have a play with a D300S and D7000 at the same time but nobody seems to have a D300S in stock at the moment.
 
gad-westy said:
Well, I had a play around with a D7000 this evening. It's certainly a nice bit of kit and I'm sorely tempted. One thing that I still can't get off my mind is that it just doesn't feel as meaty/robust as the D300/s. To me it feels no different to a D90 in your hand (to be expected perhaps). I should say though, that it had a kit lens attached and I know that's a pretty lightweight lens. Maybe it would feel different with a heavier piece of glass attached. Perhaps that shouldn't be too important but I do much prefer the feel of the 300 so far. What I really want to do is have a play with a D300S and D7000 at the same time but nobody seems to have a D300S in stock at the moment.
Click to expand...

feels no different because it is an updated version of it, not the next model up. The D7000 does very well - it's much more like the 60D than the D90 was the 50D. But it's still not a 'pro' camera, and if that's what you're looking for you won't find it in the D7000. I have it and am very happy with it, the D300s felt easier to handle (more buttons wise - the size is fine on both, hell size is fine on a D3100) when I tried it out. However, as I can get around the handling far easier than I can get around the sensor performance, I got the D7000.

If anything, you may as well wait until the D400 is out and make a choice then - if you needed either the D7000 or D300's incremental improvement (aside from AF which is way better on both, and if AF mattered to you you'd have already switched) over the D90 you'd have got one already ;)

On the 'robust' thing...The A380 is 35% plastic, the F22 and F35 are majority plastic. Make of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
DannyDMR said:
All i am saying is if you want a camera that will work straight out of the box with your current lenses D300 is better but if you want to learn how to use the D7000 properly then it is just as good if not better than the D300/s
But you do have to learn how to use it properly. Hence why i say this is not a consumer camera like the D300 it's more pro like the D300's and deserves good quality glass
Click to expand...

Your talking tripe mate, D7000 will be just as good as a D300s with the Nikon 18-70mm which is its cheapest or near to cheapest zoom.

D300 and D300s are the same minus video and some other tweaks. They are both weather resistant PROsumer bodies. They have 51AF which is awesome for racing, sports etc, the D7000 has none of this, therefore is not prosumer, it is consumer, and therefore is not as good as the D300s. It has a better sensor, but I dont even think it has as good a processor as the 300s ? Also the shutter isnt rated for as many clicks, etc.

Ive done a1 prints with D300s and 18-70mm cheapo lens and the quality is fantastic I really dont see why you need 3MP more, everyone gets caught up on MP.
 
Top of consumer versus bottom of pro DX, do you really think one is better than the other? Unless you really need that weather resistant body I do not think it is a clear cut as you make it out to be.

Fact is both a very very good :-)
 
dejongj said:
Top of consumer versus bottom of pro DX, do you really think one is better than the other? Unless you really need that weather resistant body I do not think it is a clear cut as you make it out to be.

Fact is both a very very good :-)
Click to expand...

Got to agree 100% with that. But then all modern DSLRs are from the D50 onwards!

everyone gets caught up on MP
Click to expand...

Got to agreed with that too! One of the reasons I like Nikon as they are quite good understanding how the cameras will be used. The D3s and D3x are great examples. If you need to Mp then fine - get a D3x, but if you want good low light and fast shooting then the D3s is what you want. Unfortunately, for the non pro cameras, they cannot afford the luxury of two cameras in the same category so a compromise is needed.

I think the D7000 does very well in this respect as a general purpose camera. The big improvements in sensor technology (particularly in read-out noise control) means it can get significantly better low light performance than the D300 even at the expense of a slightly reduced quantum efficiency due to the increased resolution. And the increased resolution helps with those that think they will need it.
So the best of best worlds in that respect?

Now of course a D7000 sensor in a D300 body would be even better but the D400 hasn't been released yet ;)

Toby
 
brman said:
Got to agree 100% with that. But then all modern DSLRs are from the D50 onwards!



Got to agreed with that too! One of the reasons I like Nikon as they are quite good understanding how the cameras will be used. The D3s and D3x are great examples. If you need to Mp then fine - get a D3x, but if you want good low light and fast shooting then the D3s is what you want. Unfortunately, for the non pro cameras, they cannot afford the luxury of two cameras in the same category so a compromise is needed.

I think the D7000 does very well in this respect as a general purpose camera. The big improvements in sensor technology (particularly in read-out noise control) means it can get significantly better low light performance than the D300 even at the expense of a slightly reduced quantum efficiency due to the increased resolution. And the increased resolution helps with those that think they will need it.
So the best of best worlds in that respect?

Now of course a D7000 sensor in a D300 body would be even better but the D400 hasn't been released yet ;)

Toby
Click to expand...

Maybe hang on for the D400 - I swapped my D300 over for a D7000 and still hanker after the feel of the D300 - such a nicely balanced camera - my favourite yet.
(that is if you can wait!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top