Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

  1. #1

    Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Hi guys,

    I cannot make up my mind in this situation. First off, let me tell you what I want to do in photography. I am interested in mainly landscape, street, and architecture. I am fairly new to photography but I have grown on the Nikon D3100 and I want to expand my limits and skills. I was researching and I found that usually you want a cheaper body and a more expensive lens. So I looked around a bit and I found a Nikon D90 with a couple extras for a decent price that would allow me to get 1-3 lenses for my needs. But as I looked into the D7000, it started to look like a better camera for the money, but would only allow me to get 1-2 lenses. I already have a 55-200mm and a 18-55mm. So I was looking for probably a prime lens and/or a wide angle. So basically, I am stuck between getting a D90 and a D7000 and depending on which one I choose, what lenses will be the best for my needs.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    6,571
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    It's hard to help define someone else's needs but between those two options, the D7000 is a superior camera. The additional pixels are good for landscape type stuff. If you are growing as a photographer and demanding more out of your equipment then the additional customizable settings etc. will be useful. Good luck with your decision and welcome to CIC.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    17,892

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    I recommend that you find or make a list that compares the capabilities of the two cameras. Lots of them are already available on the Internet. Once you have reviewed that list, decide which capabilities that are unique to the D7000 would be especially useful to your style of photography. As an example, if you plan to do a lot of low-light street photography, the dramatically improved high-ISO capability of the D7000 will be extremely helpful.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grafton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,340
    Real Name
    Allan Short

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    I would not get the D90 just too old, compared to the D7000 (I have both), I would suggest the 16-85mm I use it for all of the above interests. You might sell your two lens and replace with the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 not fast as in f/stop, but is a very fast focusing lens. I would also suggest, if you do not already have one, a good sturdy tripod and a cable release for use in your landscape and architecture work. The lens I have on my camera (D600) most of the time is the 16-35mm f/4FX lens as I like wide, after that the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 FX lens. If you wanted to go super wide the Sigma 10-20mm DX lens, I have never had any problems with it on either the D90 or D7000. It does take time getting use to the super wide angles.

    Cheers:

    Allan

  5. #5
    Moderator GrumpyDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,344
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    I agree with Alan - I have the D90 and I still shoot with it, but the D7000 is about a year younger and technically a better camera (and has just been replaced by the D7100, so you should be able to get a good price on it).

  6. #6

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Thank you all for your responses. I think the D7000 will be my choice later down the road once I get the money. What do you guys think about getting a combination of a prime and maybe a 70-300mm?

  7. #7

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    If I were to get the D7000, what would be a all around lens that can do both street and landscape? Is there really any lens that won't break the bank and can perform well in both situations?

  8. #8

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Quote Originally Posted by Polar01 View Post
    I would not get the D90 just too old, compared to the D7000 (I have both), I would suggest the 16-85mm I use it for all of the above interests. You might sell your two lens and replace with the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 not fast as in f/stop, but is a very fast focusing lens. I would also suggest, if you do not already have one, a good sturdy tripod and a cable release for use in your landscape and architecture work. The lens I have on my camera (D600) most of the time is the 16-35mm f/4FX lens as I like wide, after that the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 FX lens. If you wanted to go super wide the Sigma 10-20mm DX lens, I have never had any problems with it on either the D90 or D7000. It does take time getting use to the super wide angles.

    Cheers:

    Allan
    I actually wouldn't mind selling the other lenses, but the reasons I am keeping them and have to is because I can share them with my mom when we go out shooting.

  9. #9
    Moderator GrumpyDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,344
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    While I shoot primes on occasion (I own four of them for my Nikons), most people find them quite limiting. I personally would not go with the combination you are looking at as the 70-300mm on the crop frame sensor will give you a full-frame equivilent of 105 - 450mm. This is not a range most photographers will shoot. It can be used as a portrait lens, but is a bit slow at the long end for wildlife shots (I own the 55-200mm; the 55-300mm was introduced later). I would not bother with the 55-300mm as I'm not sure what it will buy you.

    The two lenses I use most on my D90 are the 18-55mm and my pro f/2.8 24-70mm. For street photography I use the f/1.8 35mm, just because it is fairly small and unobtrusive. My wife shoots virtually solely with her 18-200mm (she has a D90 too); so if you were looking for an all round lens, you might want to think about it, but frankly, you already have those focal lengths and the two lenses you have actually perform a bit better than it does.

    Like Alan, I like super wide angle lenses and shoot the f/2.8 11-16mm, but it is not an easy lens to use and might not be one you get a lot of use out of.
    Last edited by GrumpyDiver; 24th July 2013 at 12:27 AM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    468
    Real Name
    Larry Saideman

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    There is nothing wrong with getting a D90. At least, I hope there isn't since I am shooting with one. The general idea of getting better glass by saving on the body is a good one. The improvements the D7000 offers are real but not revolutionary. Better high iso shooting, sure, but the difference might not add up to all that much. From what I have read, the D90 is more approachable and easier to get to know. It might be ancient in tech terms, but Nikon sold it new until very recently. Why? Because it sold very well. I got mine soon after it came out and it still seems new to me.

  11. #11

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    While I shoot primes on occasion (I own four of them for my Nikons), most people find them quite limiting. I personally would not go with the combination you are looking at as the 70-300mm on the crop frame sensor will give you a full-frame equivilent of 105 - 450mm. This is not a range most photographers will shoot. It can be used as a portrait lens, but is a bit slow at the long end for wildlife shots (I own the 55-200mm; the 55-300mm was introduced later). I would not bother with the 55-300mm as I'm not sure what it will buy you.

    The two lenses I use most on my D90 are the 18-55mm and my pro f/2.8 24-70mm. For street photography I use the f/1.8 35mm, just because it is fairly small and unobtrusive. My wife shoots virtually solely with her 18-200mm (she has a D90 too); so if you were looking for an all round lens, you might want to think about it, but frankly, you already have those focal lengths and the two lenses you have actually perform a bit better than it does.

    Like Alan, I like super wide angle lenses and shoot the f/2.8 11-16mm, but it is not an easy lens to use and might not be one you get a lot of use out of.
    I think I will probably get a 35mm or 50mm for the street and general use. What other lens would be good? I think my budget for the other lens would probably be up to $400-$500. Also if there is a older and cheaper model of any good lenses that you think I should get, let me know because I am not so worried about autofocus since the D7000 has a motor built into it.

  12. #12

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Quote Originally Posted by Brev00 View Post
    There is nothing wrong with getting a D90. At least, I hope there isn't since I am shooting with one. The general idea of getting better glass by saving on the body is a good one. The improvements the D7000 offers are real but not revolutionary. Better high iso shooting, sure, but the difference might not add up to all that much. From what I have read, the D90 is more approachable and easier to get to know. It might be ancient in tech terms, but Nikon sold it new until very recently. Why? Because it sold very well. I got mine soon after it came out and it still seems new to me.
    See this is when I change my mind all of a sudden. I can get a lot better glass with the D90 option. And the price is so appealing. I just don't know what to do. If I got the D90 for around $500, what lenses would be good to get with $500-$600?

  13. #13
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,206
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    The D90 was (technically still is) a good camera but in digital terms its ancient history. If you have one and still use one that fine but it would be bordering on misleading to recommend one as a purchase today unless the budget available was very tight....even then I'd hesitate and save a little longer.

    The D7000 is better in every possible way:

    The Sony 16mp sensor is still used today in several brand new (2013) camera bodies - it is that good - probably the best 1.5x crop sensor ever produced.
    The AF is vastly superior with more sensors and more cross type sensors covering a larger area of the viewfinder with better low light sensitivity and better subject tracking.
    On the subject of the viewfinder it has 100% coverage which is a big plus point.
    The ISO performance is hugely superior not only in terms of noise but in the way it holds dynamic range and colour accuracy across a broad range of ISO's.
    The build is better with a half metal body and weather sealing.
    It is faster, not only in frame rate but also in overall performance.
    It shoots good quality Full HD.
    The dual SDHC slots are brilliant and open up all sorts of extra possibilities.

    As I said it is better in every possible way to the D90. Will you need all of those features? Possibly not at the time of purchase but I'm guessing this will be a long term upgrade and the D7000 will let you grow your skills far longer.

  14. #14
    dubaiphil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    1,850
    Real Name
    Phil Page

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Just a heads up. I used to shoot a D90 and still own it. I traded up to a D700 before the D800 was announced and just after the tsunami. Considering that production of the D800 would potentially be delayed and D700 prices were on the rise I went for it. Despite the D800's arrival, I don't regret that at all. Is 12MP limiting? Hardly! Is a lack of video a hindrance? I think not! I do smile when a fellow photog bumps into me and says that I'm shooting with an old camera. 2008 technology is so out of date.

    D90 to D700 - forgetting the sensor size - low light capability was a massive improvement, which allowed me to shoot different styles of photography. The D7000 is close to the low light capability of the D700, so for certain styles of photography that may be a big advantage to you.

    Having said all that, I brushed the cobwebs off my old D90 the other day and got this shot at ISO2800 - I wouldn't even have thought of pushing it that far in the past when I was using it, but it didn't do too bad!

    Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    and then here are a couple of others from the walkabout:

    2. ISO800

    Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000


    3. ISO200

    Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000


    4. dynamic range isn't too bad for such a dinosaur

    Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    There will be a difference in capabilities, a difference in resolution which can effect your print sizes (though 12MP still lets me print big), and the D7000 offers more customization.

    So brushing the cobwebs off the D90 didn't reignite a love affair, but showed me that the old girl can still offer good output. If you are REALLY after an ultra wide angle (which are relatively expensive), a daylight shooter, and budget is tight I wouldn't totally discount it.

    And after all that:

    I'd not recommend getting an ultra wide just yet though - I'd go for a D7000 in your shoes, perhaps with a 16-85 and then holding fire on a purchase above 85 if required

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    468
    Real Name
    Larry Saideman

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Quote Originally Posted by black pearl View Post
    The D90 was (technically still is) a good camera but in digital terms its ancient history. If you have one and still use one that fine but it would be bordering on misleading to recommend one as a purchase today unless the budget available was very tight....even then I'd hesitate and save a little longer.
    Bordering on misleading? Is that another way of saying deceptive? I guess it is misleading if that means disagreeing with your recommendation. But, let's disagree without denigrating. Regardless of all the improvements you listed, the D90 can do what most people will want in a camera. If the choice is between the D7000 and an 18-105 or the D90 and the Sigma 18-35 1.8, I will take the latter (trying to go for the correct price difference not really an exact equivalency in function). I am not sure what is misleading about this advice. He can take it or leave it. Older tech is older tech with an obvious array of negatives. But, I see no issue (ethical or otherwise) in my recommending stuff I actually use. If I sold him my D90 and used the funds for a D7100, my advice would then be misleading.

  16. #16
    Brownbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    7,244
    Real Name
    Christina

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    As someone who has just upgraded from a D80 to a D7100 (similar upgrade I think) I can say that I captured many beautiful photos with my D80 and the camera served me well for people and landscapes, and still does.

    However with the D80 for action shots, ie; trying to capture a moment I struggled a lot especially in low light conditions. Doable with the D80 but you have to work harder to get a decent action shot.

    The D7100 captures and holds on to focus easier, and because it has a faster shutter speed it allows for more opportunities to capture a shot. The noise at higher isos is also superior to the D80 which comes in handy in low light conditions. It also has a bunch of fancy things that I have yet to check out but I'm delighted with the D7100 simply because of the faster shutter speed, easier and sharper focus, and being able to use higher isos in low light conditions.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Grafton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,340
    Real Name
    Allan Short

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    Larry: Just checked on e-bay here in Canada, the price difference between a D90 and D7000 was just over a $100.00 CDN. Having had both cameras though the D90 is a fine camera, Nikon kept producing it long after newer models were out as it was a cash cow still an excellent camera to get into photography, however the price difference between the D90 and D7000 on the open market makes the D7000 a better purchase. If you have were able to compare the two shooting the same images you will see what that Sony sensor can do, that sensor design is now in all the newer models.
    Just checked the Nikon Site, they show a difference of $300.00 CDN whereas the open market for used is just over $100.00 as I said the D90 is a good camera, still selling making them money.

    Cheers:

    Allan
    Last edited by Polar01; 24th July 2013 at 04:46 PM. Reason: added a last line

  18. #18
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,206
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    How about I put it this way then.

    The OP has a D3100 which is not only newer than the D90, it has a better quality, higher resolution sensor, better ISO performance and better video...the AF and metering are about the same.
    Recommending a D90, regardless of ownership or personal opinions isn't sound advice. It is an upgrade in physical body - twin dials - a tiny bit tougher - Creative Lighting - shaft drive etc but the actual image quality from the camera they own now will be better.

    I'm not knocking the D90 but it is not a good upgrade.

  19. #19

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    I found a couple of used D7000 on Amazon for around $650. Good buy, or risky? And I haven't had any experiences buying cameras on ebay. Can't that be risky also? Any tips? I like some of the prices I see but I'm just not sure.

  20. #20

    Re: Nikon D90 vs. Nikon D7000

    So you are saying I should lean towards the D7000?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •