D90 vs D7000

D90 vd D7000

  • Total voters
    142
tim_uk said:
You might even consider starting with something a little lower than the D90 - the D40 and D40x which were smashing beginner SLRs are now discontnued - you could always look for one second-hand.
Click to expand...

I agree. I still have my D40 and it's a great little camera, especially for beginners.
I can't bring myself to sell it!
 
braddersmd said:
Tim_uk, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what is it that makes the D7000 (or indeed the D90 as you also mention this) not suitable for a first DSLR? What functions does either have that a beginner would not be able to learn?

.
Click to expand...

I just felt if he is completely new to photography and digitial cameras he will have enough to learn in terms of composition, exposure, whilte balance even before he thinks about camera features. With this in mind I thought why spend the money on a high end camera from the start.

I had missed the bit about him being loaded cash wise, so in that case he might as well get the D7000 and leave it on Auto until his knowledge increases. The difference between the D90/D300s and D7000 is like night and day - and the D7000 can takes pics in the night too with its high ISO !!
 
Ahh, got ya. I guess I approached things the other way round, in a kind of fashion. Granted understanding exposure (if you pardon the pun) was important, but I learned functions before looking at composition.
 
tim_uk said:
...I had missed the bit about him being loaded cash wise....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily Tim.

I don't want to spend a small fortune if I can help it as Christmas does that & recently becoming a statistic plays a part too.

My goal is to learn all I can to find out if I'm actually any good at this, you never know I may not have the "eye" for photography.

If that is the case it seems a little pointless having £1500+ of kit to use as a Point & Shoot.

Hence the reason I have also been looking at other options.
I do know I will be going down the Nikon route as I prefer the feel & usability.

Options are :
USED : D50, D70s, D80, (D90?)
(Internal Motors)
or
NEW : D90, D7000

with accompanying equipment for Sports, Portrait & Landscape (in that order)

I've had a headache for about a week now trying to decide.

Sesame
 
Just looking at the type of photography you plan to do I'd say for portraiture, any of the cameras will do - its more down to the lens, since you're most likely to have a better degree of control over lighting you're less reliant on the capabilities of the camera.

For landscape again it wouldnt matter too much - you might feel the compactness of a D90 is easier for carrying around if your making long backpacking trips etc. Then again weather sealing/durability from a D300/D300s/D7000 might make them more suited to the outdoors (especially in this weather)!

For sports, aside from the obvious need of a longer zoom lens, speed would be key - this is where the d300/d300s has the edge along with being weather sealed and having a better weight balance if u got a heavier lens attached.

So really, its down to you to think about what you really need or want to do with the camera and then pick the body accordingly. Like I said I picked to keep my D90 over my D300s because its compact and can happily use it for casual stuff. But if it was my only camera I would keep the D300s. If I had neither and needed a backup to my D700 or didn't have the D700 for low light shooting, then I'd consider paying top whack for the D7000.
 
Last edited:
Sesame said:
Not necessarily Tim.

I don't want to spend a small fortune if I can help it as Christmas does that & recently becoming a statistic plays a part too.

My goal is to learn all I can to find out if I'm actually any good at this, you never know I may not have the "eye" for photography.

If that is the case it seems a little pointless having £1500+ of kit to use as a Point & Shoot.

Hence the reason I have also been looking at other options.
I do know I will be going down the Nikon route as I prefer the feel & usability.

Options are :
USED : D50, D70s, D80, (D90?)
(Internal Motors)
or
NEW : D90, D7000

with accompanying equipment for Sports, Portrait & Landscape (in that order)

I've had a headache for about a week now trying to decide.

Sesame
Click to expand...
Ok, so a D7000 costs around £1200 with an 18-105mm kit lens.
By the time you've added a lens that's good for sports or a lens that's great for portraits (usually a prime) you're looking at the best part of £2k (including tripod, memory card, case, strap etc. etc.).
If you are brand new to photography spending that amount of money on your first camera is a bit crazy imo.

If you haven't even properly learnt how to compose a shot yet there's no point in you having a camera that's meant for pros (or semi-pros).
An entry level camera will be (MUCH) lighter, cheaper and easier to use because the menus won't be twenty layers deep and there'll be far less buttons all over the camera.
Bear in mind that these are buttons that you won't use yet, and some of them are buttons that almost never get used even by the pros (anyone use their DOF preview button on the Canons?).

I can understand the desire to get the best possible camera that you can afford because you want the best possible image quality but believe me the difference between the IQ on a £1200 camera and the IQ on a £600 camera is not reflected in the price, and without being patronising you won't be able to tell yet anyway.

I actually wanted the D7000 myself because it looks awesome and because I want the best that my budget will allow but I ended up buying a Canon for half the price in the end because the D7000, by the time you get a serious lens on it, weighs a ton. I then spent the rest on AWESOME lenses.
Obviously you can pick it up and handle it easily but imagine how much it'll annoy you after a 5 hour walk around Prague/Paris etc.

All the while you won't be justifying its quality because you don't have the skills yet.

Remember that the biggest factor affecting the quality of the photos you take is the skill of the person taking them.
An experienced photographer will take better photos with his iPhone than you will with the D7000.
So my advice is to buy an entry level camera like the D40 or the D3100 and spend the rest on fun (and megasharp) lenses but not before you've done a brief course in photography.

I can even recommend a great photography tutor who'll come and teach you in your own home.

;)
 
^ Actually I kind of disagree with that thinking. I don't think its any harder to learn DSLR photography on a "pro-spec" body than a consumer/entry-level one. Most of whats needed is in the buttons and controls which are pretty much the same i.e. exposure control, af and shoot modes etc.

Yes the menus are a bit more complicated but once set up the user wont need to touch them except on occasion.

The thing is when the shooter wants to take some challenging shots (i.e. sports or low light scene photography), this can soon show up limitations and eventually they're gonna end up upgrading anyway which is hassle and in the long run costs more.

In short, get the best you can afford.
 
kman said:
^ Actually I kind of disagree with that thinking. I don't think its any harder to learn DSLR photography on a "pro-spec" body than a consumer/entry-level one. Most of whats needed is in the buttons and controls which are pretty much the same i.e. exposure control, af and shoot modes etc.

Yes the menus are a bit more complicated but once set up the user wont need to touch them except on occasion.

The thing is when the shooter wants to take some challenging shots (i.e. sports or low light scene photography), this can soon show up limitations and eventually they're gonna end up upgrading anyway which is hassle and in the long run costs more.

In short, get the best you can afford.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily the case, both the Canon 550d and the Nikon D3100 are great in low light situations and 3-4 frames per second is enough to shoot most sports unless it's archery or something very high speed.
They're both much cheaper than the D7000.

I also think this point by the OP is important:
you never know I may not have the "eye" for photography.
Click to expand...
If it turns out that he doesn't, the amount of money he'll lose after selling the more expensive gear is obviously more than if he sold the cheaper stuff.
So with the expensive camera there's more of a financial risk.
 
Hi Guys,

Thanks for your replies.

I've just come across this via HotUKDeals:

New D90 Body for £549.00
http://www.rgb-photo.co.uk/cameras-...2/nikon-nikon-d90-digital-slr-camera-body-p11

Has anybody had any experience with this company?

&

Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens £86.99 from Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-...LEN4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1291256063&sr=8-3

&

Nikon 55-200 f4-5.6 G AFS DX VR IF-ED for £120 (Half Price) from Jacobs
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-37203-jacobs-digital-nikon-55-200-f4-56-g-afs-dx-vr-if-ed.aspx

&

£100 for Card, Bag & 2 X Filters

Giving a grand total of £856

I'm just not sure how good the 55-200 is for my needs.

What do we think?
 
Last edited:
Sesame said:
Hi Guys,

Thanks for your replies.

I've just come across this via HotUKDeals:

New D90 Body for £549.00
http://www.rgb-photo.co.uk/cameras-...2/nikon-nikon-d90-digital-slr-camera-body-p11

Has anybody had any experience with this company?

&

Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens £86.99 from Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-...LEN4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1291256063&sr=8-3

&

Nikon 55-200 f4-5.6 G AFS DX VR IF-ED for £120 (Half Price) from Jacobs
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-37203-jacobs-digital-nikon-55-200-f4-56-g-afs-dx-vr-if-ed.aspx

&

£100 for Card, Bag & 2 X Filters

Giving a grand total of £856

I'm just not sure how good the 55-200 is for my needs.

What do we think?
Click to expand...
Quick question, have you actually seen a D90 in the flesh so to speak?
 
To the OP, if you think you are going to get serious with photography buy the best you can afford first time, otherwise you'll end up wanting to upgrade quite quickly down the line.

If you just want a camera that will take pictures better than a compact, and not be too serious, you might be better off with something like the D3100.

It really depends on how serious you think you will get into photography?
 
redddraggon said:
To the OP, if you think you are going to get serious with photography buy the best you can afford first time, otherwise you'll end up wanting to upgrade quite quickly down the line.

If you just want a camera that will take pictures better than a compact, and not be too serious, you might be better off with something like the D3100.

It really depends on how serious you think you will get into photography?
Click to expand...


I want to get serious.

I've looked into the 3100 but have excluded it and other models as they do not have a motor in the body.
 
Sesame said:
Hi Guys,

Thanks for your replies.

I've just come across this via HotUKDeals:

New D90 Body for £549.00
http://www.rgb-photo.co.uk/cameras-...2/nikon-nikon-d90-digital-slr-camera-body-p11

Has anybody had any experience with this company?

&

Nikon 50mm F1.8D AF Nikkor Lens £86.99 from Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-...LEN4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1291256063&sr=8-3

&

Nikon 55-200 f4-5.6 G AFS DX VR IF-ED for £120 (Half Price) from Jacobs
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-37203-jacobs-digital-nikon-55-200-f4-56-g-afs-dx-vr-if-ed.aspx

&

£100 for Card, Bag & 2 X Filters

Giving a grand total of £856

I'm just not sure how good the 55-200 is for my needs.

What do we think?
Click to expand...
With just the 50mm and the 55-200mm - you might find you want something wider.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Nikon describe it as a "consumer" camera, no mention of the word (or suffix) "pro" anywhere....

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/slr/consumer/d7000
Click to expand...

Instead of splitting hairs with other people why don't you contribute to the thread and answer the OP's question....?



Sesame said:
Yes.

I've been in a a number of shops a number of times.
Having a feel & play to see what I prefer - it's Nikon.
Click to expand...

Good, well you can't go wrong with either camera as they both have excellent image quality and great features.
Personally I preferred starting with something a little more compact but that's just me.

Good luck with your decision, you won't regret it either way.
 
ShoeQueen said:
With just the 50mm and the 55-200mm - you might find you want something wider.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lyn,

What would you recommend for a wider lens?

Do you have any views on the 50-200mm, did I mention it is half Price.

Or if you (or anyone readi g the thread) could suggest a couple or few lens that would cost upto £500 what would they be?

BTW,
I saw a video that highlighted a design fault in the D700 where the Mic slips out as the port is not centred.
&
Something about pressing the OK button doesn't zoom in and out fully like on other cameras (???)

& TODAY I'M MOSTLY LEANING TO THE D7000.........sigh
 
Last edited:
d7000 and 16-85mm which will cover most of your range. I also have a 35mm f1.8g, both the lenses are very sharp . Unfortunately had to send my camera back due to many hot pixels. As reddragon says buy the best you can afford if you are going to be using it very often. I went from a d300s to a d7000 and didn't regret this. Apart from the slightly faster buffer , i didn't find the d300s better in any other way. Not used a d90 so can't say much about this , but d7000 should be ok for a beginner as it has full auto and also the scenes mode, you can start with this and then move onto the manual modes once you start getting the grip of things. The d7000 will last you for a few years.
 
mjjiva said:
1) d7000 and 16-85mm which will cover most of your range....
2) Unfortunately had to send my camera back due to many hot pixels...
3) I went from a d300s to a d7000 and didn't regret this....
Click to expand...

Thanks mjjiva,

1) Will the 18-85 that noticeably different than the kit 18-105 to a beginner?
2) Are you sticking with the D7000 & did it go back to the shop or Nikon?
3) I'm surprised as people I spoke to still think D300s is better...
 
the 16-85mm is a very sharp lens , and buid quality is way better than the 18-105mm kit lens, for example the former has a metal mount whereas the latter has a plastic one. the 16-85 can be picked up mint/used for under £300, well worth it. had the 18-200mm vrII before this and sold it as it was a bit too soft.
yes definately take the d7000 over d300s any day. may wait though as I still think the price of the d7000 should come down after christmas, then again i bought it for £950 off amazon but they're now selling it for £1020. Best to go to a camera shop and try both the d300s and the d7000. I don't shoot fast action/sports etc even if i did i doubt wether the d300s would be much faster. As a former owner of the d300s i prefer the d7000 for a number of reasons
better low light performance
better battery life
lighter
better video
u1 and u2 settings
auto wb ( indoors colour in low light look more natural rather than a orange tint with the d300s , where it can be correctted but you have to adjust the kelvin temp).
51 point metering is not required in my case and even for fast action i'm sure the d7000 can handle it easily.
Next step up will be a full frame, probably a d700 replacement
Go for the d7000 you wont regret it.
Poll getting closer now
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised as people I spoke to still think D300s is better...
Click to expand...

it's better in some areas worse in others, just depends what is important for each individual. D300s for me as I find I get very detailed pics from 12mp and prefer the heavy build - many prefer the lighter D7000.
 
I'm reading this thread with interest, have a similar dilemma, D90-D7000???

Weight is an issue for me, however, the difference between D90-D7000 is only 70grs, (2ozs), Its the glass that weighs, I had an 18-200VR, weighed 20ozs on its own, thats without the image issues that all such lenses have, sold it, not sorry! If I want 'light', then I pick up my Panasonic G1, 14-45mm, now there's light . . . ;)

I have settled on a Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5, reasonably light'ish, super IQ, backed up with a Nikon 50mm f1.8, and a Sigma APO 70-300 for the od long shot. The 18-70mm rarely comes off the body.

One is getting a headache, trying to square all 'the personal circles' that are emerging. D7000, semi-pro? well, it does not have any 'preset modes', indicating its not an entry level camera wouldn't you say?
I would suggest reading these two reviews:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

Totally different ways of looking at the same issue, with plenty of comparisons as bandied about in this thread . . . they say it all, IMHO. Its especially interesting to read KR's view on where the D7000 sits in relation to the D300s. He draws an interesting comparison between the D100 and the D70 a few years back. You may not like Kens views, but he says it as 'he sees it'. I dont agree with all he says, but I will give him the time of day.

:bonk: . . . CJS
 
I can't undestand the "D7000 is not professional enough" comments - if Nikon had named the D7000 the D400 would be people still be saying the D300s is better ?

If you want a genuine professional camera the only one Nikon sell is the D3 - for the average user this is impractical in terms of size, cost and weight. To me these features make the D7000 amptly pro enough:

150,000 shutter, weather sealed, magnesium body, dedicated buttons, dual same format memory cards, fully usable with all nikon lenses, 100% viewfinder and direct access user modes.

Try using the camera in a shop with a lens and memory card - the camera is instantaneous in every respect - I have never known a camera with such a quick mirror up blackup. I would guess this is just down to the new circuitry but you can't judge these things from the reviews which will often just list reams of various ISO sample images.
 
Sesame said:
I read in a dpreview thread that Kens advice/reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt...and not seriously (???)

Strange as a lot of people seem to point to his site
Click to expand...

Ken lives in the real world, he says as 'he' finds, and ruffles a few feathers on the way. His finding are personal and seem to be unscientific . . . The views expressed in these TP threads are certainly not 'scientific' . . . in fact I'd go as far as to say, KR has a lot more experience than most here where Nikon is concerned?

Like some much these days, take the meat and spit out the bones . . .

The significance here of Ken R's review on the D7000, is his reminder of the introduction of the D70 and how he saw it in relation to the D100 . . . It seems, he sees the same scenario developing with the D7000 - D300?

My worry over the D7000 is its tendency to over expose in strong and contrasting light . . . I've had the D100, D70s, D80 and the D5000, apart from the D5000 they have all required a minus figure on EV compensation of -1.0 to 0.7, the D5000 required -0.3.

Specification, on the whole, tell me the D7000 is the next generation of DSLR? . . . 'me', thats a personal view.

Personally, I think there might be a 'D7000s', sooner rather than later . . . ?

CJS
 
Last edited:
Ken Rockwell is an interesting subject actually.
I agree that he's unscientific and to me he also seems to favour Nikons over Canons as the Nikon reviews seem to be a bit more glowing on the whole.

I like his FART technique and I imagine it's very helpful for newbie photographers.
However some things that he says just leave me in shock frankly.

For example, somewhere on that site he says "I am a memory miser and don't like large files so I shoot everything in small jpeg format."
I mean what the hell....?
It's not as if memory cards are expensive these days.
What happens if you want to blow something up....?
Most people agree that shooting in RAW is better for a number of reasons so I don't get that one.
 
tim_uk said:
I can't undestand the "D7000 is not professional enough" comments - if Nikon had named the D7000 the D400 would be people still be saying the D300s is better ?

If you want a genuine professional camera the only one Nikon sell is the D3 - for the average user this is impractical in terms of size, cost and weight. To me these features make the D7000 amptly pro enough:

150,000 shutter, weather sealed, magnesium body, dedicated buttons, dual same format memory cards, fully usable with all nikon lenses, 100% viewfinder and direct access user modes.
Click to expand...

Nikon wouldn't have named the D7000 the D400 as it's a completely different body type. Here's the D7000 chassis....

nikon-d7000-chassis-500.jpg


and here's the D300/s one...

nikon-d300-chassis-magnesium.jpg


You'll notice that the D300 (with the exception of the grip/battery area) is all magnesium. Contrast that with the D7000 one above, the majority of that, notably the lens mount, is made of plastic.

The D7000 is, according to Nikon, a consumer camera, whereas they market the D300s (and the previous D300) as a professional one. The D300/s also have numerous other areas (more af points etc) where it is superior to the D7000.

The telling point for me was when I went into Jacobs to have a shot of a D7000, the D300s was in a cabinet with the D700 and D3s, the D7000 was out on a table in the middle of the shop with the rest of the consumer range such as the D3100 and the Nikon p+s cameras....
 
Inchpractice said:
Ken Rockwell is an interesting subject actually.
I agree that he's unscientific and to me he also seems to favour Nikons over Canons as the Nikon reviews seem to be a bit more glowing on the whole.

I like his FART technique and I imagine it's very helpful for newbie photographers.
However some things that he says just leave me in shock frankly.

For example, somewhere on that site he says "I am a memory miser and don't like large files so I shoot everything in small jpeg format."
I mean what the hell....?
It's not as if memory cards are expensive these days.
What happens if you want to blow something up....?
Most people agree that shooting in RAW is better for a number of reasons so I don't get that one.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that one, a long time ago, he probably needs to review it. I dont like some of his camera menu setting, like 'Vivid +3':cautious: but he has a personal view to which he is entitled:shrug: However, as said . . . spit out the bones . . . he says a lot that is worth thinking about, a bit straight between the eyes for some, especially Canon users I suspect, but read carefully and he has some harsh words for Nikon kit as well :naughty:

CJS
 
CJS said:
I remember reading that one, a long time ago, he probably needs to review it. I dont like some of his camera menu setting, like 'Vivid +3':cautious: but he has a personal view to which he is entitled:shrug: However, as said . . . spit out the bones . . . he says a lot that is worth thinking about, a bit straight between the eyes for some, especially Canon users I suspect, but read carefully and he has some harsh words for Nikon kit as well :naughty:

CJS
Click to expand...

Yes I remember reading about his settings as well.
He does a lot of in-camera editing and boosts up the colour and tone of everything.
That always struck me as odd because as far as I know most photographers do all that in PP.
Although I did hear someone say that in some circumstances it's easier to do it in-camera because once you've taken the shot you can't always pull the image back to where you want it without losing too much IQ.
 
ok heres my suggested list of what id get if i were you :)
second hand d90, around £500?
nikon 50mm around £75
nikon 70-300mm vr around £300-£350
then spend the rest on a good wide lens (dont have a clue about wide angle lenses so no point suggesting one)

The reason id suggest buying second hand is because, as you say, you may not 'have the eye for it'
if you buy new, your stuff will depreciate alot, buying second hand will alow you to almost make your money back if you decided to sell, so there would be no worries if you realised it wasnt for you.
 
Last edited:
braddersmd said:
There's a deal on at Jacob's at the moment for brand new D90. £529.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=278527

No credit taken for the heads up.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that, thanks.

D90 + Nikon 18-105 F3.5/5.6G VR ED
= £768.99

I've managed to get £50 off the Nikon D90 18-105 KIT
= £699

Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??
May just go for this and get a 50mm 1.8D

Some more negotiating on Monday after weekend of research & though after some advice from the learned members on here.
The bad weather is giving me some time, but really need to buy before VAT increase on Jan 4th/5th (???)
 
Last edited:
Sesame said:
Yes, I saw that, thanks.

D90 + Nikon 18-105 F3.5/5.6G VR ED
= £768.99

I've managed to get £50 off the Nikon D90 18-105 KIT
= £699
Click to expand...
That's a good price, cheaper than the ones listed on camerapricebuster - http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod724.html

I got mine for £739 with 18-105 kit lens in Calumet (wanted to go to a local store and buy it) a month ago.


Sesame said:
Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??

May just go for this and get a 50mm 1.8D
Click to expand...
I think its fine as a starting point - but then I'm a beginner! I've got it and the 50mmm 1.8D (bought a couple of weeks ago s/h)
 
Sesame said:
I've managed to get £50 off the Nikon D90 18-105 KIT
= £699

Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??Is the 18-105 OK for a beginners starter ??
May just go for this and get a 50mm 1.8D

The bad weather is giving me some time, but really need to buy before VAT increase on Jan 4th/5th (???)
Click to expand...

I still use my 18-105 a lot, don't find any major problems with it. Please don't discount the Tamron 55-200, one just sold on Ebay for £30.

Is VAT really an issue ? it would only add about £14 to the price above.
 
leaky5 said:
Is VAT really an issue ? it would only add about £14 to the price above.
Click to expand...


If you hadn't noticed the D7000 price has dropped this morning from £1299 to £1180.

BTW the £699 mentioned for the D90 105 kit was an error it was for the 18-55 kit.
 
Last edited:
Ive just been to Jessops to get some photos and a few bits and strolled over for a mosey of the D7000. I was shocked at how big it was compared to my D5000. Not saying its a problem, i just didnt realise the size difference between my D5000 & D90 and the upper priced range.:eek:
Phil
 
I've been using a D700 for the last year, and yesterday took delivery of a D90. Finding it very dinky indeed, so I guess things are very relative!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top