Full frame DSLR vs Nikon D90

M

mrk123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
290
Name
kane
Edit My Images
No
I need to upgrade very soon. Currently using Nikon D80. Not a bad camera but lets face there are better around now.

I need video.... And was looking at the Nikon D90 mk2 (or is it just D90).

But heard about full frame DSLR.

I'd like a full frame, but not sure fin these are way out my price range.

What is the most affordable full frame with video?

And would I notice much difference between a good full frame and a Nikon D90 on both photography and video?
 
Full frame everything becomes way more expensive!

For price/quality have a look at D7000.

There are some great videos on the web that have been shot with nothing but a D7000.
 
Also Kane don't be afraid of buying 2nd hand, especially from someone like MPB.

I have bought a D300 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8 and have been over the moon with both.

Also they will buy you old gear off you or you can use it as part exchange.
 
If video is very important, I'd look at Canon for the 60fps and Magic Lantern options.
 
The D7000 looks ok... But not full frame....

So the difference between full frame and normal (is it CMOS)? is a big one??

Can anyone tell me what i would pay for a full frame 2nd hand??? Cheapest one??
 
how many times does this topic come up?

Really if you don't know at all the difference between full frame and crop then with good glass there is little likelyhood you will see a phenominal difference other than at high iso... i.e over 6400.

Yes they do provide a better image which is obvious, they have a larger sensor... does it mean people cant get professional images with a crop sensor? No or people wouldn't be making money with crop sensors still.

To say the D7000 and 7100 and Canon crop look "ok" is a little strange.

Take a look at sample images and search the forums for the D7000 and 7100 images and see just how good a crop sensor nikon can be, if you use canon search for the 7d and 60d and the images crop sensors can be fantastic.

Full frame search the 5d's and the 6D and 1d and then the nikon equivelants.

Full frame is great but by no means a needed thing to produce good images, people keep forgetting the person behind the camera is just as important as the thing itself!
 
Yeah I fully agree... The person with the camera has the skills money cannot buy... I still use an Olympus Trip 35 from 1970 and I am more than pleased with these results..

1017200_10152910590670302_461596247_n.jpg


hehe... shameless promotion..

I'll look into the 7000 and 7100....

I think I am a Nikon soul...
 
As Dale has said if you have to ask then I don't think you need Full Frame.

Get yourself the D7000 and save yourself a lot of money! Because the cost of full frame is not just the camera. If you have a D90 then chances are you have DX lenses so you will also need to upgrade to FX lenses.

And full frame cameras punish cheap glass. You really need top quality glass to get the best out of the camera.
 
gadgeteer said:
And full frame cameras punish cheap glass. You really need top quality glass to get the best out of the camera.
Click to expand...

But that's true with any camera and potentially more true of smaller formats as for the same image size you'll need more magification and possibly a higher resolution to start with.

Anyway, my own view is that when going from APS-C to FF the main difference is not really image quality as such, not until you go to the very highest ISO's. After decades of shooting with 35mm I moved to an APS-C DSLR and got used to it but when going back to FF with a 5D what struck me most was that I was fighting aperture and shutter speed much more as with FF you possibly end up using longer lenses at smaller apertures and slower shutter speeds. That's something that surprised me as a 99.9% hand held shooter.

For me the sweet spot for hand held shooting is probably more MFT/APS-C than FF, more so when bulk and weight of kit is considered.
 
Some really valuable information here and I'm glad I came.

OK lat question - D90 or D7000

I'm guessing D7000???
 
mrk123 said:
OK lat question - D90 or D7000

I'm guessing D7000???
Click to expand...

Search for a comparison between the 2!

But if it were my money it would be D7000.

I paid £1000 for my D7000 when they first came out and I don't regret a single penny!
 
Why not rent a camera eg. D90 or D7000 and try them out yourself?
 
Last edited:
mrk123 said:
wow the d7000 really kicks the d90's ass!!

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D7000-vs-Nikon_D90
Click to expand...

I might get hammered for it but imo I wouldn't get too hung up on what snapsort say about cameras and their so called ratings.

According to snapsort the 7000 destroys the Canon 60D and 7D in image quality and especially in low light performance... when looking at crops from various samples at high iso (i.e 3200-6400) this just isn't comparable to the numbers that they post up so I would take everything they say with a pinch of salt... but like I say, thats in my very own opinion.

For example I could counter Snap sort with tests from DP and their noise tests which I find fairly useful when I view and their reviews seem fair... they love the 7100 and the 7000 and also support the 7D and 60D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/11

This shows just how little there is in the noise between all the top crop sensors.. (imo obviously)

Personal thoughts, try both cameras and go from there but the 7000 should be the better camera . :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I was used to using the pro Nikon F5 (film) camera and when I acquired the D7000 I was quite pleasantly surprised with its astounding results. It will serve you for a good many years. Good luck :thumbs:
 
If you can afford it then definitely go for the D7000 (if you prefer Nikon), they're insanely good value for money these days, particularly if you find one in good condition at the lower end of 2nd hand prices.
 
The cheapest 'new' Nikon FX is the D600. I seriously considered this camera before purchasing my D7100.

I had a Pentax K5 IIs but just wasn't getting on with it so borrowed my friends Nikon D7000 and decided I wanted to go Nikon.

I tried both the D7100 & D600 with similar lenses (16-85/24-85 and both with the 70-300 VR).

In the hand both felt very similar. There really is not much difference in size and weight. In use, they were also very similar, I really couldn't say one was better than the other.

If anything the D7100 was slightly better build wise. Only say this for very small niggle that the D600 battery door did not sit flush (and this seems to have been mentioned before). That's just be being picky though.

I did however prefer the larger focusing area of the D7100.

IQ wise, I'm no super Pixel Peeper and up to 1600 I really couldn't tell you that the FX sensor produced anything better. At 3200 the D600 was a bit better and beyond 3200 it was superior to the D7100.

I don't do a lot of high ISO shooting, so that was not an issue for me.

I do however do some Equestrian photography and wildlife. This is where the extra reach of the crop sensor one it for me.

Obviously, it's a very personal choice. I would say, if you shoot a wide range of subjects a D7000/D7100 is a better choice.

If you are a high ISO shooter and portraits are your thing, maybe FX is the way forward.

DX has come a long way since I first had a Nikon D40.
 
To second the comments above, in most circumstances there will be minimal difference in the image quality between FX and DX. There will be a difference between the older generation of sensors (D90) and newer (D7000/D7100), so I'd suggest bypassing the D90 and looking at the D7000 or D7100 depending on needs and budget. The D7100 sounds like one hell of a camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top