Price conundrum: D90 vs D7000

I

insomniac

Messages
172
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

I apologise if this issue has been raised before, but am a bit confused.

I've been using the G10 for a few years and have decided to make the leap to full-blown DSLR. After spending some time on various forums (including this one) and visiting the local Jessops, I settled on the D7000.

I wanted a machine that was advanced, and to some extent new, enough for me to not want to upgrade in a couple of years.

The D7000 unfortunately has been out of stock. Even if it were in stock, the cheapest price I could find was GBP 849 at the local Currys. The same store carries the D90 for GBP 520.

So now I'm wondering whether it would be smarter to get the D90 and spend the savings on lenses.

I have no interest in video, so the superior video capabilities of the D7000 didn't play into my original decision.

The only thing I'm concerned about is that given the D90 is now four years old, how has digital technology evolved and and am I paying a lot for image quality that can now be had for cheaper?

Thank you.
 
I was going through the same issue a little while back, d90 vs d7000
I went for the d90 and dont regret my choice.

As you say, the difference in price can be spent on lenses, which would be a good move.

From my research, i found that the d7000 sensor is a fair bit better, and handles low light well, but bear in mind that the d90 is no slouch, even by todays standards!
Of course you know the spec of the cameras, so it is only down to your decision, whether the extra features are worth your moneys.
 
I think the choice would really come down to whether you'd find yourself shooting in low light conditions, particularly indoors as the D7000's high ISO performance is a fair bit better than the D90 once you get above ISO1600. If you won't go above ISO1600 then the D90 has to be seriously considered.

Of course, the D7000's 39 AF points might appeal, along with the (up to) 6fps continual shooting and dual card slots.

Tough choice!
 
You have obviously looked at the D7000 and the D90 and you have your reasons for your choice.

One other to have a look at, as the D7000 is hard to get, is the Pentax K5. It is more expensive than the price you mentioned for D90 but it is a camera more comparable to the D7000.

The range of lenses for the Pentax is probably not as great as for a Nikon, but the K5 has the IS in the body so any Pentax K mount lens used is image stabilised. All Pentax K mount lenses from about 35 years ago will fit. With many you will lose some or all of the auto functions and that may well be something which means the K5 is a non starter for you. If not, it may be worth looking at some reviews.

At the moment the K5, 18-55mm lens and cases is £729 from a respected dealer in Watford.

Dave
 
I should add that I'm most interested in wildlife, landscape and night-time photography (including the moon, night-time sky, etc).
 
depend on budget, with D7000 you won't have much money left on buying lens. With D90 (new) you have some left to buy another lens etc, i.e 35mm f1.8 AFS.

If you don't mind the second hand route, look for a used D90 which is even cheaper then you have plenty of money to buy lens. Then look for a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and add the 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 depend on taste.

If you really want a pro body feel, i would say get a used D300 (around 500-600) then just get the lens above.
 
As Badboy said, you can find used D90s around, get one of them and a good lens ... then get the more modern body later if you want?
 
I use 2x d90 and a d300s.

I would say you can get a new d300s for £1000 or used for £700.
But the d90 punches well above its weight and is a might little beast!

I find them to be powerful and reliable.

I have a had a few uses of a d7000 and to be honest, prefer the feel and usability of the d90.

to me there is not enough upgraded in the d7000 to warrant the extra cash.
 
Don't get me wrong had I had the cash I would have purchased a D7000 but I always knew that the D90 was the sensible choice. The D90 might be "pushing on" but age doesn't mean it isn't less capable than it was at release. Great camera :-)
 
I'd go with the used D300. You since you don't need video I think you'd prefer the semi-pro feel.

Same image quality as the D90 with better auto focus, faster and the obviously better body.

If you're shooting motorsport, I'd advise just going for the nikon 18-55mm VR & 55mm-200mm VR, great combination! Add in a used 50mm f1.8 and you're looking at £850 for a great semi pro body, pro optic quality lenses ranging wide - tele and a lens to use in low light!

You'll get the tamron for around £270 but may miss the longer focal length for motorsport. For the same price you can get up to 200mm and a lens for low light, both of which have better optical performance...so just bear that in mind...

Good luck though I'm sure you'll love either decision you make!
 
Phil Young said:
I'd go with the used D300. You since you don't need video I think you'd prefer the semi-pro feel.

Same image quality as the D90 with better auto focus, faster and the obviously better body.

If you're shooting motorsport, I'd advise just going for the nikon 18-55mm VR & 55mm-200mm VR, great combination! Add in a used 50mm f1.8 and you're looking at £850 for a great semi pro body, pro optic quality lenses ranging wide - tele and a lens to use in low light!

You'll get the tamron for around £270 but may miss the longer focal length for motorsport. For the same price you can get up to 200mm and a lens for low light, both of which have better optical performance...so just bear that in mind...

Good luck though I'm sure you'll love either decision you make!
Click to expand...

Not to flame you mister but the 55-200 and the 18-55 is not very pro optic quality nothing. :suspect:

I'd wait and go for the D7000, it's better than the D300s (A guy who works at Nikon told me this), and you wont feel like updating to a full-frame for a very long time. And you can always afford the 35mm F1.8G anyways. :thumbs:

I think you'd find yourself way more happy with purchasing the D7000 rather than the d90 or d300. I'd also take a look at these links:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300-vs-Nikon_D7000
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300s-vs-Nikon_D7000
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D90-vs-Nikon_D7000

And just let me quote:

"Arguably the best high ISO performance of any current APS-C DSLR"
dpreview.com | talking about the D7000's iso-noise

"The Nikon D7000 produces high quality output in almost any shooting situation."
dpreview.com | talking about the D7000's image-quality
 
Phil Young said:
Have you used them?
Click to expand...

The 18-55 and 55-200 are entry level lenses that were designed specifically for use with the new line of motorless bodies ( starting back with the D40), they're not really intended for use with the likes of the D300 and up....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The 18-55 and 55-200 are entry level lenses that were designed specifically for use with the new line of motorless bodies ( starting back with the D40), they're not really intended for use with the likes of the D300 and up....
Click to expand...

He actually asked if you'd used them......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The 18-55 and 55-200 are entry level lenses that were designed specifically for use with the new line of motorless bodies ( starting back with the D40), they're not really intended for use with the likes of the D300 and up....
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you don't have either lens.

My photographer friend (tog for 15 years) had bought a 70-200mm VR 2, hadn't used the 55-200mm before and when first when I said it had the same IQ as the tamron 90mm he didn't believe me, but when I let him borrow it for the weekend, he said he "felt silly for buying the 70-200mm 8x the price..."

...and he had a D300.
 
TordFuglstad said:
I think you'd find yourself way more happy with purchasing the D7000 rather than the d90 or d300. I'd also take a look at these links:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300-vs-Nikon_D7000
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300s-vs-Nikon_D7000
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D90-vs-Nikon_D7000

And just let me quote:

"Arguably the best high ISO performance of any current APS-C DSLR"
dpreview.com | talking about the D7000's iso-noise

"The Nikon D7000 produces high quality output in almost any shooting situation."
dpreview.com | talking about the D7000's image-quality
Click to expand...

Snapsort is a very poor site, I wouldn't read much into what it says. It makes sweeping assessments of cameras based purely on numbers in the the specs. It takes DxO's sensor test figures and uses them as a direct measure for image quality, which is simply isn't.

I'd be much more inclined to trust the advice from people on here who have actually used the cameras and are basing their assessment on that ;)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't discount the D90 or D300 just because D7000 have better sensor and ISO performance. I have both D7000 and D300 and i use D300 as main camera. The question is why? If i don't need high mega pixel or high iso shooting my D300 will outplay my D7000 in term of control, handling and balance when using my 28-70 and 70-200.

D7000 is good when i use it for landscape, low light shooting without flash and good walk around camera.

Is all depend on your budget and what is important to you, everyone is different. I won't bother look into a D300s if you don't need video, also the D300s video is completely sucks anyway.

In terms of the lens 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR. I own both ages ago and sold both because i've upgrade to something that suits me better. The optic on both lens is alright, but thats only alright (nothing fantastic). For a start lens to get you going it is more then enough, i took some decent shots using those lens before. I disagree it have a pro quality optic on those lens.
 
Phil Young said:
I'm assuming you don't have either lens.

My photographer friend (tog for 15 years) had bought a 70-200mm VR 2, hadn't used the 55-200mm before and when first when I said it had the same IQ as the tamron 90mm he didn't believe me, but when I let him borrow it for the weekend, he said he "felt silly for buying the 70-200mm 8x the price..."

...and he had a D300.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment here but it does totally dismiss some of the other qualities that pro lenses come with like fast apertures (where a lot of the money goes), weather proofing, full frame compatibly... I'd also contest that good though the IQ is on some of the 'consumer' lenses, I'm yet to see a consumer zoom that actually matches the IQ of some of the better pro zooms. I'm not saying they don't exist but I have had three 18-55 VR's and none of them were as good as even my 18-50 Sigma let alone my 28-70 Nikon.

I do agree that they shouldn't be totally dismissed though, particularly because, if you factor in value for money the 18-55 and 55-200 are just about unbeatable.

On topic, I'd say go for the D7000 if high ISO or video are on the agenda, otherwise I'd personally save some cash and get a D90 and splash the savings on a top notch lens or two. The D300 is getting very cheap though and I would personally take that over either of them regardless of cost.
 
Thanks all for the opinions. I have smallish hands, and as I plan to use this camera when travelling I think the size/weight of the D300S is a negative for me.

I must say that assuming I do go with the D90 body, I'm a bit confused about lenses now. Based on the above posts, I'm no longer to kit lens or not to kit lens. Mmm.
 
Lens wise i would say get a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AFS.
Any money left you could add the cheap Nikon 55-200 VR.
 
Something that goes to 200mm is kind of a must for you I think as you will definately want/need the range.

I can't think of any cheaper 200mm lens that matches that of the nikon...

Will you be working in low light? If so perhaps the 35/f1.8

Actually having thought about it, you may not even need to anything more than those two...the 35mm will cover everything from landscape/street/portraits/general walkabout.

I dont see much point in both the tamron and the 35mm...
 
Phil Young said:
Something that goes to 200mm is kind of a must for you I think as you will definately want/need the range.

I can't think of any cheaper 200mm lens that matches that of the nikon...

Will you be working in low light? If so perhaps the 35/f1.8

Actually having thought about it, you may not even need to anything more than those two...the 35mm will cover everything from landscape/street/portraits/general walkabout.

I dont see much point in both the tamron and the 35mm...
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Yes - I will be working in low light. I am especially keen on night-time photography - street scene, the moon, star trails, etc.

In fact one of the reason I was keen on body only was that I wanted to start with the 35mm/f1.8 lens.

Thanks.
 
Phil Young said:
Something that goes to 200mm is kind of a must for you I think as you will definately want/need the range.

I can't think of any cheaper 200mm lens that matches that of the nikon...

Will you be working in low light? If so perhaps the 35/f1.8

Actually having thought about it, you may not even need to anything more than those two...the 35mm will cover everything from landscape/street/portraits/general walkabout.

I dont see much point in both the tamron and the 35mm...
Click to expand...

I'm not completely agree or disagree about that.

It all depend on what he want to shoot. Zoom lens goes up to 200mm may not apply to everyone.

The OP mention about general walk around and travel camera/lens so the 35mm and tamron 17-50 can't be beaten.

Yes in theory 35mm is good enough for everything but sometimes you want to go wider then that, specially on a crop sensor camera. Thats where the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 comes in. The optic on the Tamron is superb wide open, optic wise is pretty much same as the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 or Nikon 24-70 f2.8. A lens with that kind of optic and zoom range goes from 17-50 is hard to give it a pass. Consider the lens is cheap and light which makes it a perfect walk around and nice portrait lens as well. Reason to get the 35mm f1.8 is the aperture can stop right down to 1.8 for DoF and also nice low light shooting compare to the Tamron. Also the 35mm wide open is nice and sharp as well. Not to mention the Tamron is constant aperture of 2.8 compare to the variable aperture on the nikon 18-55 VR.
 
I was in the same situation but it was when the D7000 had just come out and the price difference was about £400 - just too much of an extra reach for me at the time. I got the D90 and have been very pleased with it.
 
badboy1984 said:
I'm not completely agree or disagree about that.

It all depend on what he want to shoot. Zoom lens goes up to 200mm may not apply to everyone.

The OP mention about general walk around and travel camera/lens so the 35mm and tamron 17-50 can't be beaten.

Yes in theory 35mm is good enough for everything but sometimes you want to go wider then that, specially on a crop sensor camera. Thats where the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 comes in. The optic on the Tamron is superb wide open, optic wise is pretty much same as the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 or Nikon 24-70 f2.8. A lens with that kind of optic and zoom range goes from 17-50 is hard to give it a pass. Consider the lens is cheap and light which makes it a perfect walk around and nice portrait lens as well. Reason to get the 35mm f1.8 is the aperture can stop right down to 1.8 for DoF and also nice low light shooting compare to the Tamron. Also the 35mm wide open is nice and sharp as well. Not to mention the Tamron is constant aperture of 2.8 compare to the variable aperture on the nikon 18-55 VR.
Click to expand...

I recommended those lenses based on his interest in wildlife.
 
wild life equipment aren't cheap at all, i certainly recommend the 55-200 VR for his budget, but i personally would get the ones i mention that meet his landscape, night and walk around photography first. Then either gtab the 55-200 used or save up more for something else. Most of the time for bird and stuff like that he most likely will be using 200mm +. As a starter it is good enough to give him a good taste on what he looking for before investing more.
 
Thanks a lot for all the opinions. I think I'll start with the 35mm and 55-200mm, though the 24-70mm is definitely something to aspire to. However, if I do eventually upgrade to this last lens will it render the prime redundant?

Also Tord - in that photograph you uploaded of the night sky what lens were you using? You have some stunning photos - in fact that's exactly what I'd in terms of night-sky photography.

Thanks.
 
insomniac said:
Thanks a lot for all the opinions. I think I'll start with the 35mm and 55-200mm, though the 24-70mm is definitely something to aspire to. However, if I do eventually upgrade to this last lens will it render the prime redundant?

Also Tord - in that photograph you uploaded of the night sky what lens were you using? You have some stunning photos - in fact that's exactly what I'd in terms of night-sky photography.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate! :) Actually I think I used a 18-105 lens on that photo, which is my current "holiday" lens. It works ok for night sky photography, but you should have something a bit more wide for landscape and night-sky shots. :thumbs:
The sigma 10-20 is a good option for those kind of images.
 
insomniac said:
Thanks a lot for all the opinions. I think I'll start with the 35mm and 55-200mm, though the 24-70mm is definitely something to aspire to. However, if I do eventually upgrade to this last lens will it render the prime redundant?

Also Tord - in that photograph you uploaded of the night sky what lens were you using? You have some stunning photos - in fact that's exactly what I'd in terms of night-sky photography.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The 24-70 won't take away or replace any prime ........ it will be your most use lens but the prime will have its use. i.e DoF
 
insomniac said:
Thanks a lot for all the opinions. I think I'll start with the 35mm and 55-200mm, though the 24-70mm is definitely something to aspire to. However, if I do eventually upgrade to this last lens will it render the prime redundant?

Also Tord - in that photograph you uploaded of the night sky what lens were you using? You have some stunning photos - in fact that's exactly what I'd in terms of night-sky photography.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I won't use a 24-70 because I can carry a 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 24 1.4 and be at the same weight with more low light ability, any of those lenses mounted is far less intimidating than a 24-70, and I don't tend to change FoV one shot to the next that often.

A friend of mine is the exact opposite, and doesn't use primes because the 24-70 covers all the lengths he needs and he likes not having to futz about with lens switches and miss shots because of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top