Nikon D3100 or D90 - help me decide pls

Messages
3
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
No
After many years without an SLR I'm going to move back and get my first Digital one. I was set on getting one of the smaller lighter bodies like the Nikon D3100 or Canon 550D however, having just tried a D90 with the 18-200 lens (which I really like) I'm now really unsure.

The D90 is quite a bit heavier and, with this lens, I wonder if I'll actually carry it with me that much....which the rather defeats the purpose of having a camera. On the other hand I find the D90 so much nicer to hold. I'm not sure why but it just feels so much more.....right :)

Feature wise, being quite an amateur, I can't see there is anything on either that wins me over but then maybe I'm missing something. Video - yes I'll use it occasionally but quite happy to manually focus and 720p is just fine.

So, I'm after any insight that might help make my decision please. Does anyone with a D90 find they aren't carrying it that often due to the weight ? Despite its age is the D90 still really a better camera when it comes to picture quality ? etc etc.

thanks in advance.

Nick
 
Go for the d90 and get a 50mm f1.8 d lens second hand for about 70 pounds.
 
D90 easy. Great camera and I don't think itstoo heavy for carrying around. But then I normally have a d300 and 24-70 round my neck!!
 
D90 deffo - an the video mode isn't all that bad - I use it all the time and it's pretty good tbh.
 
I got a D3100 in Feb this year but am now wishing I had a top LCD and built-in AF drive (which the D90 has). Never use it for video.
 
I know the D90 is on the way out but I've just bought one for the same reason I bought my D50 after the D40 & D60 had come out, i.e the top LCD and the built in motor. Having said that it was only the small screen on the D50 that made me change to the D90 ( I had to keep putting my reading glasses on and off) More pixels, a better sensor, live view and video are just added extra's as far as I am concerned.
Go for the D90, I think you might end up dissapointed if you don't and end up changing eventually and losing money.
 
Both are great. The d3100 is so small and light it's great for taking anywhere and it still rakes fantastic photos. It's better at high iso than the d90. I was shooting my d3100 at 1600 today without a worry in the world about the quality. The video is better than the d90 too.

However the d90 is better built, has better features and is more user friendly.

You won't go wrong with either IMO
 
if the size thing bothers you couple it with the 35/1.8 - I use this on my D7000 and whilst not pocketable isn't too cumbersome.
 
Thanks for all the comments. Given I'm not upgrading but buying from scratch, I wonder if its worth the extra £300 to get the 7000 . I'd prefer not to spend the extra but, if it means I'm more future proof then maybe its worth it ?
 
Both are great. The d3100 is so small and light it's great for taking anywhere and it still rakes fantastic photos. It's better at high iso than the d90. I was shooting my d3100 at 1600 today without a worry in the world about the quality. The video is better than the d90 too.

However the d90 is better built, has better features and is more user friendly.

You won't go wrong with either IMO

I've recently got a D3100 at work and I'm astonished at how good at high ISO it is, way way way better than my D60 and better than my old D90 and not too far off my D700!

I think I'll be selling my D60 and getting a D3100.

edit: given the choice of D3100 vs. D90 I'd still take the D90 though.

And, the only way to future proof is to spend your money on good lenses.
 
Last edited:
Yep, its certainly good. I was using the D3100 in the reptile house at Cotswold wildlife park. I had my D700 on my shoulder, but chose the D3100 for the shots!
 
Thanks everyone. Have bought a D7000 in the end, figuring I should get the best I can afford now. Currently with the Nikkor 18-200 lens but need to get some primes. Lovely pieces of kit :)
 
Back
Top