Nikon D40 to D90 or D7000?

N

Number6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Edit My Images
No
It's nearly time to upgrade the trusty D40. Key things I'm looking for are:
  • More pixels so that I can crop more and still produce large prints.
  • In-body autofocus drive so that I get a wider choice of lenses.
  • Better low light performance - particularly for 'theatrical' (well, village hall!) work.
  • More autofocus points.
  • Improved dynamic range would be nice.
  • And if I'm spending the money, a slightly more robust build quality

I was tempted by the D7000 now it can be picked up for £600-700, but I wonder if there's any point given that I'm not interested in many of its features (e.g. anything to do with video, dual card slots, or burst shooting frame rates).

So is it worth pushing the boat out for the D7000?
Or would the D90 be as good for me (and £100+ cheaper)?
Or would the panel recommend another Nikon body entirely?
 
The D7k has the newest sensor and works very well in low light. Worth the extra IMHO. I was very pleased with the one I had:thumbs:
 
This gets asked daily across photo-forums, and the suggestions are usually based on budget and/or actual needs vs wants.

Sounds like the D90 would be ideal for your case. You don't need video [D90 has 720p video, but it's a bit crap] - it has the motor drive for older lenses, it's not too bad with higher ISO levels. 3200 is usable. And it saves you money over the D7000, put that towards a nice prime lens maybe.

Only pixel peepers could tell the difference between images from a D90 and D7000.
 
D90 without question. Put the extra on a lens.

I've had both, the ISO isn't that much difference, I'd have to look hard between well exposed shots at ISO6400.

The D7000 sounds like a lot of features won't get used so what's the point in having...
 
Swings and roundabouts question. D7000 has the better low light and ISO noise apparently compared to the D90 but the D90 is cheaper but is less pixels and less autofocus points.

I would try both and see which you prefer if possible.
 
Number of auto focus points isn't really very important (lets be honest, most people who don't have the thing on auto just use center point 90% of the time anyway although admittedly the 3 points of the D40 is a little limiting).

What you want is GOOD auto focus points, or at the least a good center point AF point as this will enable you to AF in low light which is what it sounds like is what you want, both the D90 and D7000 have this.

In your situation my money would be on a D90 and then get a decent lens to go with it, either a prime for low light or a Sigma/Tamron f/2.8 zoom, again for low light. This combo will be a massive step up from your D40.
 
Thanks for the comments everyone. Although it's tempting to look at the shiny all singing all dancing D7000 (!) it does sound like - from my perspective - it doesn't add much functionality that I'd actually use.

And since the price of the D90 seems to be dropping through the floor at the moment (~£400) it's hard to turn it down! (Plus - as Nawty pointed out - it might leave some cash to put towards a nice bit of glass.)

Thanks all.
 
what lenses do you have for your d40?

I have one (bro has it now) and together with the 35mm f1.8 was such a fantastic combo still miss the compactness of these.

Having said that if you can get a D7K for only £100 more than a D90 go for it. More pixels to crop fantastic high ISO and AF performance, better built generally a much better camera. When it first came out at £1k the difference was too big so there were reasons to get the d90. but unless you can get one for 350-400 even if you have to go s/h then i see no point.

Make sure you have some decent lens to go with it though. You will need them.
 
Last edited:
Wookee said:
The D7k has the newest sensor and works very well in low light. Worth the extra IMHO. I was very pleased with the one I had:thumbs:
Click to expand...


I Second that, just got a 2nd hand one of ebay and it's awsome!
 
I had a play with my cousins D90 and it's good, but compared to my new D7k in low light there's no comparison IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top