D3100 vs D90

lolage

lolage

Messages
911
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I had my heart set on a D3100 but have been hearing time and time again how annoying it is to spend that much money and not have in built motors? Is this such a problem?? Do lenses without built in motors come in alot cheaper or is it all unnecessary?

If it is a problem, i was thinking about getting a d90 second hand? Any opinions on this? Which would you rather get?

Cheers.
 
Like you I'm undecided about a D3100 and a D90, I dont think having the built in motor in the body is too important if you are going to be using the newer lenses which will work on either. I currently use a D50 which has the motor in the body but all my lenses ( 18-55, 18-135 & 70-300) will work ok on the D3100 so I think it's only a problem if you want to buy older lenses, but even those will work, but in manual only I believe.
If it means buying a used D90 or a new D3100, I think I would go for the D3100, but I'm sure other TPers will point out many other differences, such as a greater lcd resolution for instance.
I look forward to seeing all the other comments that I am sure you will get.
 
Unless you actually own old lenses not having a motor built into the camera is not a problem, and anyway old lenses will not have VR and who would want a zoom lens without it?

I got my 3100 recently and do not regret my discission atall. It really depends on what you want - a large heavy serious camera with a great viewfinder and ergonomics, or a very small light weight camera capable of equally good results (or better) but with a smaller viewfinder and requiring more use of menues to select some options.

I get most joy from my camera on holiday, I want an SLR with me but for me a D90 is just too big, heavy and ostentatious for non serious work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top