Stop-Gap upgrade: D90 to D7000?

rampanthamster

rampanthamster

Messages
1,250
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, i'm another one who's eagerly awaiting news of the new nikon bodies, with a view to moving to full frame with the d800. Realistically though, it's likely that these new beasts won't be available to the general consumer until next year some time.

My d90 is great, and i do enjoy using it, but i'm sometimes limited by the low light performance and don't even like going over iso 800 if i can help it. I'm also suffering slightly from the 'getting something different for the sake of it' bug..

Now, the d7000's seem quite reasonable second hand at the moment, and i'm reasoning that for perhaps 200-300 ish i could make the upgrade and that could tide me over for the next 6-9 months until i can get a d800.

But...is this a wise move? Is there anything other than the stronger ISO performance to really tear me away from my d90? Has anyone else made the step from d90 to d7000? Many thanks.
 
I'd say wait. I own both, and I'll be honest and say that I still use the D90 the vast majority of the time.

For me personally there's something that just doesn't feel right about the D7000, but I can't put my finger on it - other than to say the D90 seems far more consistent. It might be that I've got a duff D7000 - I don't know.
 
Slaphead said:
I'd say wait. I own both, and I'll be honest and say that I still use the D90 the vast majority of the time.

For me personally there's something that just doesn't feel right about the D7000, but I can't put my finger on it - other than to say the D90 seems far more consistent. It might be that I've got a duff D7000 - I don't know.
Click to expand...

interesting...no way you can be more specific? Is it that the 7000 doesn't focus as well or doesn't 'feel' as good perhaps?

I've been doing a bit of reading up and the 7000 certainly seems to have quite a lot of advantages over the 90 (better iso, 14bit raw, higher speed, 39pt focus, better metering, more MP, 100% viewfinder...). I'm sorely tempted to at least get one second hand, see how i get on with it and then decide.
 
You've identified all the areas where the D7000 has a superior technical spec...it's really a question of whether you think they'll make a significant difference to you! There were quite a few people who felt the D7000 was more demanding to use than they expected when they first got it.

I have a D7000 which replaced a D70 and am delighted with it, personally whether it's camera's or any other form of electronics I don't think there is generally a big enough difference in one generation from the one that immediately preceeded it (obviously there are exceptions) to justify updating.
 
What Tosh. The D7000 is superior to the d90 in every single way. Its a great camera and one I replaced a D700 with.
 
The23rdman said:
What Tosh. The D7000 is superior to the d90 in every single way. Its a great camera and one I replaced a D700 with.
Click to expand...

No it's not "tosh". Yes the D7000 is superior on paper, but it's not just the raw spec that makes a camera. In truth I prefer the results that I get from the D90, they just seem that bit more consistent.
 
thanks guys...been umming and arring over this one. The way i see it is:

when i do go full frame, i'll want to buy a new camera as opposed to second hand, as it's something i'll hope will last me a good few years. As such, i can't really justify splashing out 1800 ish on a d700 given that it's essentially tech from a few years old (albeit fantastic) and will shortly be updated. I'd also like to wait and see if i can start making a bit of money from photography (Weddings and the like) before fully justifying full frame glass and a body.

So...whilst my d90 is serving me well, i could essentially sell it and my hardly ever used tamron 17-50 2.8 (i'm a big prime fan) and have enough cash to get a second hand d7000 or even a d300s. Thus giving me a better camera and a 'new toy' feeling, which let's face it, we all love from time to time...

I really like the idea of the d300s...the ONLY thing putting me off it is that it doesn't have the low light capabilities of the d7000. I do rather like the idea of a 'pro' style body with 51 point auto focus and super fast frame rates though....oh dear...maybe i'm now talking myself into a d300s second hand instead.
 
Depend what you shooting, I was fighting against the D7000 and D300s when I upgrading my camera. My previous camera is a D5000.

I went with the D7000 instead because is slightly cheaper and does the job what I want to do better than the D300s. i.e low light performance.

I do agree with you that the D300s is a much more better body and feels like a pro camera more than the D7000 and the buffer and burst speed is fast. If you shoot alot of sports then i will definate go for D300s. At the end of the day both is good camera and you can't go wrong with either.

You can always buy one of the 2 and when you have a full frame you can use one of these 2 as backup, spare or second camera.

Slaphead: was wondering when you say the D90 is more constant to you, were you refering to the D7000 metering over expose problem? I had the similar problem when i move from D5000 to D7000 and i constantly getting over expose images but is all good now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top