Should I Upgrade to D90?

M

mtjones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
58
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello!

Could do with some advice... Have had a D3100 for 6 months and really enjoyed it so far, however on occasion I have found it to be quite small and after a full day out often have a bit of aching in my right hand.

I've seen a D90 (mint, 7k shutter count) on the classified forum and it's got me thinking if I should upgrade?

Photography wise the D3100 hasn't restricted me in any way at all since I've had it but looking to the future and trying out more subjects/shooting styles I'm beginning to think the D90 will have more for me to 'grow in to' ... bracketing, wireless remote support, wireless flash commander, built in AF motor, top LCD, high quality rear lcd, official battery grip available, slightly larger sensor and the larger body would suite my chunky hands more comfortably?

I've just bought a Nikon 70-300 VR for use at air shows etc and it is quite front heavy on the d3100 too.

If I could clear £200 for my D3100 (2.6k shutter count) then I could make the upgrade for a net cost of about £120-150 I reckon.

Would this be a decent step up - or am I just falling in to the trap of wanting more kit as I'm new to it all? :)

Cheers,
Mike
 
Yes do it, but buy mine!!! :P

My D90 has been a great camera and I've loved using it.
 
I had the d3100, then got a d90 and think its great, not least for the motor drive not restricting lens purchase, ocf and extra command wheel and wb iso buttons
Both good cameras, but I wouldn't want the d3100 back, but I do kinda miss it with a 35mm for easy handling, especially as the d90 with 17-55 or 70-200 weighs a lot more
Dont think you'll regret it
 
A slightly biased opinion, mark! :) plus your d90 is not the cheapest on offer at the moment! :)

Was the d90 your first dSLR?

Bruce - thanks for the input. Out of interest, how long did you have the d3100 for?
 
The D90 will feel more like a 'pro' camera but the 3100 is still a great little camera. IQ wise there is not much in it but I have seen more awesome images from the D90 than the 3100.

If it were me and i did not need low light performance the yes I would get the D90. Great classic camera!
 
AndyWest said:
The D90 will feel more like a 'pro' camera but the 3100 is still a great little camera. IQ wise there is not much in it but I have seen more awesome images from the D90 than the 3100.

If it were me and i did not need low light performance the yes I would get the D90. Great classic camera!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Andy. The 'feel' of a more substantial body is definitely a draw for me.

You mention low light performance... is there much in it? Is it the age (i.e. later generation) of the D3100 sensor that makes it better in low light? Or are you referring to the fact that it will go up to ISO 12800 vs the D90's ISO 6400?

I've been to shoot a friends band couple of times - I enjoyed it lots and was quite pleased with my results, max ISO being 3200.
 
I use Canon gear but a while back I chose a mint condition 40D over a new 550D simply because it felt so much nicer in the hand. Plus it's built like a tank!

I couldn't go back to a smaller body now. I don't think you'd regret it.
 
mtjones said:
A slightly biased opinion, mark! :) plus your d90 is not the cheapest on offer at the moment! :)

Was the d90 your first dSLR?

Bruce - thanks for the input. Out of interest, how long did you have the d3100 for?
Click to expand...

Around 6-7 months
Bought it second hand, got my money back and bought a low click immaculate d90 that had been lying in a rig workers drawer for 350 with 3 nikon batteries and a memory card
Absolute bargain if you ask me, but I tend to hang off and look for a sweet deal rather than jump in
I found the d3100 a great learning body, the d90 feels like a step up and a few new things to work on, meaning for me, a natural progression in camera evolution
 
I went from the D3000 to the D90, and I've not regretted it for a minute. I'd nowhere near outgrown the D3000, but was attracted by the better controls, top LCD, extra wheel, bracketing, etc... and the battery life is amazing. Can't see me wanting a body upgrade for years now, it's a great bit of kit.
 
mtjones said:
A slightly biased opinion, mark! :) plus your d90 is not the cheapest on offer at the moment! :)

Was the d90 your first dSLR?

Bruce - thanks for the input. Out of interest, how long did you have the d3100 for?
Click to expand...

Mank :)

Feel free to make an offer on it!

I started out with a D60 and it was a big step up for me. The D90 felt so much better in my hand. And as others have said the other controls/features were a lot better too! :)
 
Thanks for all the input, guys. Much appreciated.

At the moment I'm thinking I'll hold off. I've got a few things coming up in September... Wife's birthday, Duxford Airshow, Holiday to Greece plus I wouldn't mind making my first trip to the Mach Loop before the weather sets in for the winter... So plenty of opportunities for shooting with the D3100 and then see if I feel it's time for an upgrade... Hmmm...

Although... :) a mint D90 body with only 7k clicks, battery and charger for potentially the £350 mark does sound like a bit of a bargain?
 
Go to a shop and have a feel of them, you may find you like how a different body feels in your hands.
 
mtjones said:
Thanks for all the input, guys. Much appreciated.

At the moment I'm thinking I'll hold off. I've got a few things coming up in September... Wife's birthday, Duxford Airshow, Holiday to Greece plus I wouldn't mind making my first trip to the Mach Loop before the weather sets in for the winter... So plenty of opportunities for shooting with the D3100 and then see if I feel it's time for an upgrade... Hmmm...

Although... :) a mint D90 body with only 7k clicks, battery and charger for potentially the £350 mark does sound like a bit of a bargain?
Click to expand...

Of course you could always skip the D90 and go straight to a D300 for not a lot more :naughty:
 
mtjones said:
Thanks, Andy. The 'feel' of a more substantial body is definitely a draw for me.

You mention low light performance... is there much in it? Is it the age (i.e. later generation) of the D3100 sensor that makes it better in low light? Or are you referring to the fact that it will go up to ISO 12800 vs the D90's ISO 6400?

I've been to shoot a friends band couple of times - I enjoyed it lots and was quite pleased with my results, max ISO being 3200.
Click to expand...
The d90 has a better body but don't expect better image quality or iso performance.
 
D90 is a superb camera ergonomics and control wise although second hand D7000 cameras should be going for very attractive rates now with the price drop
 
mtjones said:
Although... :) a mint D90 body with only 7k clicks, battery and charger for potentially the £350 mark does sound like a bit of a bargain?
Click to expand...


7k clicks??

Read on here somewhere that they would not buy anything second hand with 10k clicks on it.

I am now starting to think 2nd hand for a first DSLR but struggling to find what is the maximum number of clicks to go for.
 
I've had a D3100 since June 2011 but I've felt for a while that I'm outgrowing it so I've been looking at the D7000.
 
I love the D90 (came from a D3000), and at the time the D7000 was just out of reach for me budget wise, but they are coming down in price now - I would probably go for the 7000 if I was buying today. In the last week i've seen a couple of decent specimens for £500 on here - that's a nice camera for 500, not 'that' much more than a d90....
Learned a lot from the D90, but then again thinking about it, I did from 3000 as it was my first dSLR back then.
So i'd go D7000 now rather than any of the 3 or 5000 models tbh.
 
It's a good thing to know that the price of D7000 is going down lately. I have a friend using D7000 telling me that it is remarkable, performance wise. I think this is the best time to have one.
 
Zoomboxer said:
7k clicks??

Read on here somewhere that they would not buy anything second hand with 10k clicks on it.
Click to expand...

I don't know who said that but I can't see the logic! Most Nikon cameras are tested to a minimum of 100,000 actuations, often more. And that's just 'tested to' not as often misinterpreted as 'failed at'. My D200 had getting on for 200k and was still going strong.
 
gad-westy said:
I don't know who said that but I can't see the logic! Most Nikon cameras are tested to a minimum of 100,000 actuations, often more. And that's just 'tested to' not as often misinterpreted as 'failed at'. My D200 had getting on for 200k and was still going strong.
Click to expand...


Thanks - that helps a bit.

MPB's web-site includes some with 600 odd clicks - I might look at them again when I get home - site gets rejected by works PC cos we only run IE6 :bang:
 
...I never worry about shutter actuations, you'd never shoot anything...is it not only ~100 quid for a repair anyway?
Does indeed seem to be a lot made of this. Just look for something in decent nic, i'd be more worried about it looked bashed and marked showing general lack of care than someone who's been sitting on continuous for a year or two :) Bet you replace the camera before the shutter dies.
 
Zoomboxer said:
7k clicks??

Read on here somewhere that they would not buy anything second hand with 10k clicks on it.

I am now starting to think 2nd hand for a first DSLR but struggling to find what is the maximum number of clicks to go for.
Click to expand...

The D90 is good for 100k actuations. Mine has 30k+ on it and still running smooth [apart from one viewfinder issue, nothing to do with the shutter] - It's taken 2 years to hit 30k, and I shoot all the time. Daily. I know people who shoot a lot more frames than I do [spray & prayers] and have their cameras many years [older models like the D70, D80, or Canons like 350/400D]

I really wouldn't worry about actuation/shutter count. Unless you're planning on using it for over 5 years.
 
7k is nothing, a pro could do that in a week.
 
Ok - so I think I've decided what my plan will be...

Will continue with the D3100 for now. The suggestions of going for a D7000 rather than D90 have make me think that in reality I would want my next body to last me for a long time (i.e. I'm not planning on going pro/full frame etc) so maybe the D7000 would be a better investment and I hopefully wouldn't run into problems with IQ further down the line like I could do with the D90.

The discussions over shutter count too have given me the confidence that I don't necessarily need to be looking for a model with low, low clicks.

So - in a few months, maybe even stretch it out until Christmas then I could be in the market for a D7000. Prices may have even dropped a little again by then.

Thanks for all the advice and suggestions, guys.


Mike
 
used D300 is around £450-500 so if you can push abit more then it could be a potential buy.

I use my D300 as my main instead of the D7000 .....
 
badboy1984 said:
used D300 is around £450-500 so if you can push abit more then it could be a potential buy.

I use my D300 as my main instead of the D7000 .....
Click to expand...

That is an interesting suggestion...

Comparing the D300 and D7000 there doesn't appear to be much in it at all -the main advantage of the D7000 being the larger ISO range, where as the D300 has more AF points. I'm discounting the lack of video as it's not something I'm interested in.

I presume the D300 has slightly more on-camera controls?

For me a disadvantage of the D300 would be having to swap all my SD cards for the more expensive CF... but the lower 2nd hand cost of the D300 would probably cover the cost of doing this.

What's everyones opinion on the better camera of the two (for a long term body purchase?)
 
mtjones said:
That is an interesting suggestion...

Comparing the D300 and D7000 there doesn't appear to be much in it at all -the main advantage of the D7000 being the larger ISO range, where as the D300 has more AF points. I'm discounting the lack of video as it's not something I'm interested in.

I presume the D300 has slightly more on-camera controls?

For me a disadvantage of the D300 would be having to swap all my SD cards for the more expensive CF... but the lower 2nd hand cost of the D300 would probably cover the cost of doing this.

What's everyones opinion on the better camera of the two (for a long term body purchase?)
Click to expand...

The D300 is basically a pro body (same casing as D700 to all intents and purposes). It is therefore an all metal body, very rugged and very well weather proofed (though don't take it swimming). The AF system is supposedly better than the D7000 and the buffering for continuous shooting definitely is but I imagine most people buy it for it's heft and handling. You'd be surprised how much bigger a D300 is.

The control layout is quite different to the D7000 as you say. The AF selector allows selection of AF-A, AF-C or manual rather than just the AF on/off selector. There is a second selector for choosing your focusing mode, zone, 9 point etc... and another selector that allows you switch between spot, matrix and centre weighted metering. The top controls are quite different too though I would say the ISO selector is in a terrible position on both! The biggy that wins it on the control front for me is the AF-on button on the D300 which makes back button focussing a dream rather than a clumsy affair.

The D7000 does have a better sensor (about a stop better in terms of noise control and better dynamic range), has video and has dual memory cards. It's smaller size might also be perceived as an advantage. The other thing that may be advantageous is that the D7000 has a full range of auto modes. When I bought my D300, it's lack of any auto shooting modes meant that my wife could no longer use the camera. Positive advantage as far as I was concerned :) but some might not see it that way.
 
Last edited:
Thats the exact reason why i do not buy prosumer cameras big old heavy things. It does however annoy me that Nikon does not add a few more buttons on the back and leave out the AF motor on entry level bodies. All the other brands seem to manage this with the budget.
 
Thanks, Graham. Some good insight there...

I obviously need to get down my local shop and have a play with both of them... The D300 does sound like a real 'beast' and maybe a little bit too much for my amateur needs. :thinking:

Sounds like in terms of IQ the difference is negligible - so it'll come down to what feels right in my hand! :)
 
rjbell said:
Thats the exact reason why i do not buy prosumer cameras big old heavy things. It does however annoy me that Nikon does not add a few more buttons on the back and leave out the AF motor on entry level bodies. All the other brands seem to manage this with the budget.
Click to expand...

It's all about model differentiation. Leave features out on the lower models and people will gradually work their way up your range and spend more of their cash. I can see the logic.
 
gad-westy said:
It's all about model differentiation. Leave features out on the lower models and people will gradually work their way up your range and spend more of their cash. I can see the logic.
Click to expand...

Yes i can see the logic too, but its very annoying!:)
 
mtjones said:
Sounds like in terms of IQ the difference is negligible - so it'll come down to what feels right in my hand! :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's negligible but in well lit, low contrast scenes, you'll have to have special powers to tell the difference. When things start getting more tricky the D7000 is undeniably better. 1 stop extra of usable iso range is actually pretty significant when you're stretched for example.
 
gad-westy said:
I wouldn't say it's negligible but in well lit, low contrast scenes, you'll have to have special powers to tell the difference. When things start getting more tricky the D7000 is undeniably better. 1 stop extra of usable iso range is actually pretty significant when you're stretched for example.
Click to expand...
As much as the lack of direct buttons on my d5100 annoys me the iso performance makes up for it. This was the choice i made over the d90 and d5100. I would take a d7000 of a d90/d300 all day long. Price wise on ebay there isn't much in it.
 
rjbell said:
As much as the lack of direct buttons on my d5100 annoys me the iso performance makes up for it. This was the choice i made over the d90 and d5100. I would take a d7000 of a d90/d300 all day long. Price wise on ebay there isn't much in it.
Click to expand...

Shows how personal this sort of decision is as I'd take the D300 every time. It's a shame there isn't yet a D300 with a bang up to date sensor.
 
gad-westy said:
Shows how personal this sort of decision is as I'd take the D300 every time. It's a shame there isn't yet a D300 with a bang up to date sensor.
Click to expand...

You're dead right.
 
Last edited:
mtjones said:
A slightly biased opinion, mark! :) plus your d90 is not the cheapest on offer at the moment! :)

Was the d90 your first dSLR?

Bruce - thanks for the input. Out of interest, how long did you have the d3100 for?
Click to expand...

:lol: Was mine the one that prompted your thinking? Im afraid it's sold elsewhere...... although the battery grip is still for sale :thumbs:

I would still recommend the D90, i only sold it as i needed a second body with 'Quiet' shutter mode. My first DSLR was a D3000 which i quickly replaced with the a D300s and D90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top