First DSLR: Considering Nikon D90 vs D7000 vs Canon 60D

I

insomniac

Messages
172
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

After a few years of using the G10, I have decided to make the jump to full-blown SLR. On a recent holiday trying to photograph some Northern Lights, I discovered just how vast the difference the difference is between compacts and basic SLRs.

I'd like a machine that I can grow into, and not something that I'd feel compelled to upgrade after a few years.

Am principally interested in night-time, landscape and wildlife photography.

I'm tempted to get the Nikon D90 and spend the savings on lenses, filters, etc. I also have smallish hands, so that would be a consideration.

I haven't tried handling any of the cameras yet but am going across to the local shop later today. I was just curious to hear some opinions.

Thank you.
 
I have the D7000 and I like it quite alot. It is fairly small and compact compared to some other DSLRs but I also have small hands like you, so it doesn't feel "too" small to me. It is also well weighted and the grip feels good in the hand so I feel comfortable wielding it one handed without a strap.

I tried a 60D in the shops ages ago, and whilst yes it felt nice, something just didnt feel quite right to me compared to the Nikon equivilant. It was a similar feeling I had before with a 450D, it felt good and perfectly usable but it just didnt seem quite right and for that reason I never really got on with it as well as I could have done. A feeling I have not had with Nikon. But that is my opinion, Im sure other people on here with say the same thing but the other way round.

I haven't tried the D90, so no point in me commenting on it.

Like you said, if you can keep back some money for other essentials it will be greatly beneficial, such as other lenses, memory cards, a gear bag etc. As all of those things, whilst relatively inexpensive compared to a new camera, soon add up in cost.

What sort of budget are you looking at for your new gear? It may help some other forum members point you in the right direction for getting as much as you can for the money.

I would also look at this website for latest prices on cameras and lenses, to help you try to save some money when you come to buy.
 
I have both, and while the D7000 is certainly a more advanced camera, I do find that the end result is about the same in terms of image quality. Sure the D7000 has a beautifully clean native ISO 100, and is about a stop better on the overall ISO performance, but it's not that much better than the D90. Especially if you don't venture above ISO 1600.

I do prefer the D7000 for it's responsiveness and it's advanced autofocus features, but for me there hasn't so far been an image which I've nailed with the D7000 that I couldn't have with the D90. In fact the decision as to which camera to use more often than not comes down to which camera has which lens on it.
 
hi insomniac,

my progression with nikon dslr's went d40 > d80 > d300.

the d80 (or the newer d90 / d7000) hits the sweet spot for somebody that really wants to learn about photography. the top lcd and dual controls really make for a useable camera.

if i went straight to d300s, i think i may have been overwhelmed by its complexity.
 
Here's 12800 without NR.

375831_10150990257830305_753485304_21554686_1860334959_n.jpg


The D7000 is on paper, not THAT much better better than the D90. After having both I can conclude that the speed in which I work and the shots I can create are much easier with the D7000 due to it being superior in every way. I have no problem shooting 12800 iso and switching to B&W...I'll shoot 25,600 to get a shot! The higher resolution (a must for landscapes) enables greater use of cropping (which is great for wildlife). The user buttons are a blessing and autofocus is lightning fast & accurate.

I couldn't see myself using a D90 again...I used to hesitate over 3200...now I have no problems with 12800 so for me, it's a 2 stop advantage in real world situations.

I don't really know why people on the lower priced camera budget go for canons, you have to spend quite a bit of money to get pro quality glass for them...nikons 18-55mm kit lens, enough said.

If you have the budget for it, a nikon D7000, 18-55mm and 55-200mm would be ideal for what you are looking to use it for (as a start).
 
the nikon d7000 kit doesn't come with a 18-55 VR. You get the 18-135 or 18-105VR i think. I just got the body only when i got my since i already got glass.

If you don't use tele zoom much the 18-105 kit lens is plenty enough, then add a 35mm f1.8 AFS prime you will be all good to go.
 
Thanks a lot for the information and opinions (and that website, Faddius). My budget is ideally about £900-1000 for a starter kit including body and basic lens. I realise that the D7000 will probably push the ceiling on that limit a little bit.

I would've normally though that ISO 1600 would be plenty for most occasions, so never thought of shooting above 3200, but thank you for the opinion, Phil.
 
If you don't mind buying used, you can grab the D7000 for around £700 and then use the rest on a used tamron 17-50 f2.8 zoom lens and a used 50mm f1.8 prime
 
That's a really good suggestion. Actually I was seriously considering buying either additional lenses, or perhaps both body + lenses on eBaY.

Are there any other good online marketplaces someone can suggest?

Thank you.
 
That's a really good suggestion, thank you. Will also give the D5100 a look too, I'd never even thought of it.
 
ynot said:
Have you thought about the D5100? Same sensor as the D7000, smaller, less buttons to learn how to use and newer than the D90.
Click to expand...

Less buttons can become a downside as you progress though. Means you need to mess around in menus more often.
 
insomniac said:
That's a really good suggestion, thank you. Will also give the D5100 a look too, I'd never even thought of it.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind a few things about the D5100:

No top LCD, only one control dial, not as big or bright viewfinder, not anywhere near as good AF as the D7000 (the one thing I miss from moving to my K-5 from a D7000), a fair amount of menu digging for some of the options and no AF with non AF-S lenses (much less of a problem these days but still).

The bigger brighter viewfinder and the second dial come to their own once you start using the camera a bit. I normally use Aperture priority and being able to control Aperture with one dial and ISO with the other is one thing I really wouldn't want to give up on.

BTW I very much agree with the 17-50 Tamron suggestion. I think there was one on here, the one without the motor. If you go ahead with the D7K jump on it, the motor in the Tamron is not very fast and it is a bit noisy, relying on the camera for the motor for that specific lens would make a great optically lens a great AF performer too.
 
Last edited:
The D5100 is a small camera compare to the D7000 and also the D7000 is metal body etc. Not saying is better but worth thinking about if size and durability is something you want as well.
 
I moved from a D5000 to a D90. Genuinely found the lack of direct controls on the D5000 to be an issue. D90 is much quicker to use in real life.
 
i start off using a D5000 but it outgrown quickly as you progress. So if you planning to use the camera to shoot alot then i would recommend getting the D7000 otherwise if you only planning to use it occasionally or holiday snap shots then the D5100 will be enough.
 
I've had the D90 since the end of last year and it is just brilliant and extremely capable. No doubt the D7000 is an improvement otherwsie there would have been no point Nikon releasing it (although technically the D7000 was not the D90 replacement). It will be many years before I'm pushing the limits of it.

I therefore whole heartedly recommned the D90 and then you can use the spare cash to get some decent glass (non DX). Then you have the option to repalce it in the future with an FX body :-).
 
vrapan said:
Keep in mind a few things about the D5100:

No top LCD, only one control dial, not as big or bright viewfinder, not anywhere near as good AF as the D7000 (the one thing I miss from moving to my K-5 from a D7000), a fair amount of menu digging for some of the options and no AF with non AF-S lenses (much less of a problem these days but still).

The bigger brighter viewfinder and the second dial come to their own once you start using the camera a bit. I normally use Aperture priority and being able to control Aperture with one dial and ISO with the other is one thing I really wouldn't want to give up on.

.
Click to expand...

Its hard to miss something you have never had.

As a first DSLR the D5100 is more than enough.
The D7000 is obviously a better camera but has a far bigger price tag too.

Best thing to do is to try find somewhere with some stock and go and see what you prefer.
 
ynot said:
Its hard to miss something you have never had.

As a first DSLR the D5100 is more than enough.
The D7000 is obviously a better camera but has a far bigger price tag too.

Best thing to do is to try find somewhere with some stock and go and see what you prefer.
Click to expand...

As a first DSLR even a D40 would be great , it was my camera for the best part of 4 years. However if you use the camera for more than the occasional snaps and find yourself growing with the camera the limitations mentioned are going to be rather obvious. The moment I got the D40 I wanted to control ISO and simply I couldn't easily at all and found the viewfinder rather annoying. You might not miss what you don't have but you can get frustrated by the limitations of what you do have.

Of course if the aim is snaps then a DSLR is not really the best choice in my opinion anyway, especially when you have cameras like the GX1/EP3 that you can slip in a bigish pocket.
 
I've been through the full range of cameras the last few years, from a G1 to a 5D mkII, with an E-P1, X100, 30D in between.

Personally I find the most important feature of a camera is size and weight. If you don't have the camera with you, it's worthless, it doesn't matter how 'capable' the spec sheets deem it to be.

I've recently got a D5100 with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and love it. Small, light, and as technically capable as any crop camera on the market. I'm not someone who spends hours tinkering with settings on my camera, with a combination of A/S modes and the auto-ISO capabilities of modern sensors, why do you need to? I'll spend maybe 30 seconds from a full days shooting changing settings, maximum, and that'll be at sundown or going from indoor -> outdoor or vice versa.

As a beginner I would go for the smaller, lighter, cheaper option. Bigger, heavier, more expensive cameras won't make your pictures better.
 
mid_gen said:
As a beginner I would go for the smaller, lighter, cheaper option. Bigger, heavier, more expensive cameras won't make your pictures better.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with this quote,i recently attended the sunseeker rally with my brother who was using a Fuji bridge camera compared to my D700.Not only was the picture quality better my camera is much faster for changing settings and easier to use.
I know its an extreme comparison but just saying a more expensive camera will not take better pictures is daft,do you really think professional photographers would spend thousands on equipment if budget DSLR's would do the same job.
 
starletman said:
I dont agree with this quote,i recently attended the sunseeker rally with my brother who was using a Fuji bridge camera compared to my D700.Not only was the picture quality better my camera is much faster for changing settings and easier to use.
I know its an extreme comparison but just saying a more expensive camera will not take better pictures is daft,do you really think professional photographers would spend thousands on equipment if budget DSLR's would do the same job.
Click to expand...

To the contrary I agree with the statement to a certain extent. Unless you are good enough to make use of the marginal difference in quality, there is really no point in paying for the best. For example, I carry a D300s with 14-24mm and 24-70mm and I make use of the lens to the best I can. My equipment weighs over 10kg and it is not fun carrying it around. However, the results are worth it at the end of the day.

I think same goes with professional photographers who are limited by the quality of equipment they have and hence spend "thousands" on them.

However, giving a beginner a D4 and a 24-70mm doesn't mean he can take good pictures. It may only mean extra weight when he doesn't know how to use the complex functions and settings of the camera.

Having said that a beginner camera would preferably give decent image quality and be lightweight (so he doesn't get put off by the extra workout he has to do)
 
D7000 - very nice camera!
D300 (s) - Not as complicated as you think - plus it has a lot you can customise as you progress :)
D90 - I've played with other peoples, disappointing because the d300 has more focus points and other bits... as a first time camera - pretty decent.

I came from a Fuji bridge > Minolta 5D > Nikon D300.

Lenses :
Portrait: 35mm f1.8 (you have to get it.. fast, quiet and wide enough))
Macro: 105mm micro nikkor or 150mm sigma/105mm sigma/90mm tamron, and some tubes
Extra Wide : Tokina 11-16 is brill - but so is samyang (manual focus) 8mm or 14mm, or the sigma 10-20 (older version is meant to be sharper).

Dunno about Tele as I went to m42 mount and a tair 300mm f4.5 :D plus adapter Perhaps a 50-500 bigma sigma ?

Personal preferences of course and the 10-20, 50-500, 150, 105 siggy, 90mm I haven't used.

Pics for those I own should be in the sig...

Best to handle them in a store and see which fits your hand better. Personally go for as high up as you can afford (with lenses) and grow into it. Setting on A mode and defaults usually works quite well. And the manual is 400+ pages.. ;)



Edit: if you can go full frame too lol d700 :) Depends on what you think you'll be shooting more!
 
Last edited:
starletman said:
I dont agree with this quote,i recently attended the sunseeker rally with my brother who was using a Fuji bridge camera compared to my D700.Not only was the picture quality better my camera is much faster for changing settings and easier to use.
I know its an extreme comparison but just saying a more expensive camera will not take better pictures is daft,do you really think professional photographers would spend thousands on equipment if budget DSLR's would do the same job.
Click to expand...

Two things you missed.

1) Context = We are talking about choice of DSLR for beginning amateur. Not whether a professional should use a bridge camera or D3S for shooting sport.

2) Point = Difference in quality of images between entry level and professional DSLR (IN THAT CONTEXT) is negligible. Certainly small enough to be outweighed by more important factors, such as size, weight, and cost.
 
that looks a bit washed out to me

i have a D3s and prefer to not go above 3200 i used to shoot gigs on film at 1600 and get results.

05619b52.jpg



cd1e04c6.jpg


buy the D7000 and a 35mm F1.8 get used to it then buy another lens :)
 
If you are looking at used options now to get more bang for your buck, I would suggest having a look at mpb (they advertise on here, look for banner at the top), but there is also Grays of Westminster, London Camera Exchange - all of which I would happily use for second hand gear and avoids the potential for mishaps or problems on ebay.

For £900 - £1000 I would be looking at a body, possibly with the D7000s kit lens (18-105mm) and as suggested, either a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8, possibly leaning more towards the 35mm. This should leave enough left over for a good quality bag and a couple of memory cards. Others bits can be brought as and when required, however if you can stretch to a cheap tripod it would be beneficial if you want to pursue night time photography.

OR

Instead of the 35mm/50mm get a 55-200VR which may well benefit you more if you are looking at shooting wildlife pictures and want that extra reach, though the primes may be more helpful when it comes to poor light / night time shooting.
 
Preferaby the D7000 over a D5100, however it is twice the price.
There are ALOT of good reviews of the D5100 aswell, Ken Rockwell for one.
 
The D90 has all the buttons you'll need easily at hand, is easy to use, the top LCD display is useful and overall it's great value for money.

The D90 costs between £300-400 less than the D7000 and the money saved would easily buy a nice fast 35mm prime and small 55-200mm zoom.

You won't be disappointed with a D90.
 
I started with Nikon D60, entry level and although it was a great little camera, didn't take long for me to start getting frustrated with it.
I haven't used a D90 but it is one I was looking at along with a D7000 as they both fit the bill for what i wanted, mainly the ability to use almost any lens and quicker to locate controls.
You said that you want a camera to grow into, for that reason alone, personally I would not go entry level. Even though the camera will give excellent results in the right hands, you will get annoyed by the limits of it's usability.
 
Thanks you for all the replies. It really is confusing with all the choices. The additional consideration of the D1500 is really confusing, because it rates very high on the value front.

On a different note, when shooting in low light, do the additional ISO settings make a large difference on the D7000? I have no experience shooting above ISO 1600.
 
Both D7000 and the D5100 have the same sensor and go all the way to 25600 ISO. They perform very similarly in high ISO. When I had a D7K I got all the way to 3200 with little noise if I was careful and it was noise that could be removed in PP. The D5100 I expect to be the same. 1600 ISO will be almost noise free and 6400 will be rather usable. Above that noise will take its toll.
 
i think we all agree that both D7000 and D5100 have the same high ISO performance. Now back to the original question that the op asked. He wanted a camera that will last him a long time, not something he will outgrown very fast.

Sounds like he taking photography seriously, so i think the D7000 or D90 will be good for you. The D5100 control and handling you will soon outgrown very quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top