I have owned a D50 for 4.5 years and am looking at upgrading since it has taken in excess of 18,000 photographs for me, served me well and... lets face it, I fancy a new toy!
I have been traipsing around the local camera shops and have narrowed my choice to the D90 and the D7000 but I wanted to ask which is REALLY better? On paper, yes, the D7000 has more megapixels etc but seeing as I am unlikely to ever use the HD Movie feature, am I spending a lot more money for very little advantage over the D90.
If you could buy either (as someone just getting into using the manual modes on the camera but looking to progress) do some courses etc, which would it be?
I own the D90 and know quote a few D7000 owners. My response is "It depends". Budget reasons are really the big reason to go with the D90. I always say d90 means it does 90% of what I want to do. If you are looking to shoot birds in flight or other fast focus situations, definatly go with the D7000. If you shoot alot of low light situations, definatly go with the D7000. Otherwise the D90 will perform very well and you should be more than happy. If you already have many 4GB and smaller SD cards, the file size of the D7000 may fill your cards too fast. Remember the D7000 has alot more resolution. If your lenses aren't high level lenses, you may be having to tweek your shots in post a bit differently. The camera may out pace your lenses. The high resolution will detail bad things as well. The 12 mega pixel D90 produces fabulous shots. More quality than I usually produced with my trigger finger for the 1st few years of use.
I'd choose the D7000 each and every time. Far newer technology, can drive screw focus as well as new electronic lenses, low light sensitivity is excellent, AF is better. Other than for price, I can't see any reason to go to a D90.
Ignoring price the D7000 has much better AF, many more menu edit options, higher resolution when you need to crop, and video. Every year fewer photographers stop saying they will never use AF, or in camera metering, or digital, or video. If you have children or grandchildren video does a lot that stills cannot. It is probable, as just about every new compact camera does video, adding video to a DSLR in theory adds less than 5% to the production price, whilst sales increase more than 30%. With more production volume reducing costs adding digital may cost nothing
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
If you were considering an upgrade from the D90, it would be a tougher choice, but from the D50, the choice is much easier: D7K. It is a more challenging camera than the D90 to shoot (had a D90 and upgraded), but in the long run, it will be a more rewarding experience. Keep in mind, also, that the D90 is old technology now while the D7K represents the latest thoughts on DSLR at the price point.
Like others who have posted, I'd go with the D7000. But don't expect that you'll see a big difference in your photos. Yes, you will at high ISO, and it's great to have the extra pixels if you're cropping and printing big, but the D50 will do just as well as those other cameras in most situations.
I have a D50 (with 46,000 shots taken, so yours seems like a new camera to me!), and a D300, which has the same sensor as a D90. I love the D300, and sometimes it offers real advantages, but for most photos in most situations, you couldn't tell which camera took them. I've printed as large as 20"x30" with my 6mp D50, and the prints look great.
I wouldn't say you shouldn't get a new camera. I got one, even though I'm still using my D50 a lot. I would say that except in really difficult situations, don't expect to notice much difference in your photos. The D50 is a really wonderful camera.
If you are going to upgrade, why not get state-of-the-art technology in the D7000 rather then camera technology that's a few years old? What's your reason for upgrading? If you want more pixels and better high-ISO performance, you get more of both in the D7000. Plus, the body is more durable, and I think (not having much experience with either) a camera that is a bit easier to control (change settings).
>But >don't expect that you'll see a big difference in your photos. >Yes, you will at high ISO, and it's great to have the extra >pixels if you're cropping and printing big, but the D50 will >do just as well as those other cameras in most situations.
I agree with Randy. And I believe the low light capability of the D7000 to be a little exaggerated. Sure it has higher ISO settings, and image quality is better at ISO 1600 than some other cameras, but it is not night and day, it is marginal, perhaps a stop or so as compared with the D90.
The primary influence on your photographs is of course your composition skills and ability to make use of interesting light.
The secondary is creative use of shutter speed and aperture.
Welcome to the community! What all have said are true reasons to consider the D7k. As Thom Hogan stated that while the D7k is similar to the D90 on the outside it is quite a different beast internally. Newer technology, great skin tones, ISO, longer battery life, etc., etc. As a general rule, "if you could buy either" - many people have bought less to save money only to later wish they had spent more to get more. Either camera will give you good service. Good luck with your decision.
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. <><
D7000. A no brainer really. I came up from a D70s, and I had considered the D90. My sister in law has one and loves it. I was almost at the point of buying a D90, but then I got to comparing and thinking. For about $300 more I could have a real thoroughbred and a camera system for the future. Even if you do not use all the features this camera has to offer right now, somewhere down the road you may and why be limited?
My main reason for going with the D7000 is the autofocus. Omg, from 5 dinky sensors to 39! And so may ways to use them! It's like driving the family station wagon to a car dealership and trading in for a Ferrari! Oh, and ISO! Wow. And don't forget that nice big LCD on the back of this beauty. Makes checking your exposure so much easier, and let's face it. As we grow older our eyes just don't see the details on a dinky little screen like the D70's as good as we can on the big screen. I still have a lot to learn about my D7000, but that's the fun part. So much to play with. I'll never be bored!
As noted in another post on this forum, I just purchased the D7000 after using the D90 for over a year. I love the D90. You really won't go wrong with either of these cameras. If you can afford the added cost of the D7000 I would probably go that route just because of the new technology of the D7000.
That is a great problem to have. I have taken some amazing photo's with my D90.
Thu 19-May-11 05:54 AM | edited Thu 19-May-11 06:09 AM by richardd300
This is a tough call and what I say here may be challenged, but this is my personal experience. I loved my D90 for both static wildlife and birds in flight. I was torn between a D7000 and a D300s (which cost less than the D7000 at the time). All the D7000 hype made it the camera to have! I changed to the D7000 and in my opinion if I had used it for shots up to say 100mm I would have said there was an improvement over the D90 in sharpness and slightly in AF speed. Over 100mm and up to 300mm my experience was that the differences and any improvements lessoned. The D7000 worked satisfactorily straight out of the box for wide to about 100mm, but at long lens focal lengths my experience was that there is a steep learning curve needed compared to the D90. I have mastered that and now get comparible results to my D90, it was however, hard work.
The bottom line is that if I went back to last November when I swapped D7000 for the D90, would I have still done the swop today? No I wouldn't! Why, because of the reasons above and I don't believe I made some massive leap with the exception of better crop quality due to a higher number of pixels and utilisation of the wonderful U1/U2 function.
Making that decision now, I wish I'd bought the D300s or kept the D90. Controversial that may be, but that is my opinion. I don't envy your decision making situation, but best of luck.
When it comes to camera, it amazes me how a few hundred dollars makes such a difference to the average buyer.
For me the D7000 (coming from two D3 bodies) is very inexpensive. It is by far the best Nikon deal for the money. Best Buys have them at the same price as a D90. If all you use your camera for is travel, hiking, snapshots, and video, buy a D5100 and save a few hundred dollars.
Hi, I have a D90 and use it mainly with a 300 2.8 with 2x converter for bird photography. Many of these birds are small so there's a lot of cropping involved. I'm thinking of upgrading the body to a D7000 primarily because of the extra pixels which should show better image quality when cropping (I hope?). Would you think I'd notice a great difference? Do you think the D7000 would be the right choice or something else (do you know of any other models in the pipeline?) Tks Dave
Quote> Would you think I'd notice a great difference? Do you >think the D7000 would be the right choice or something else >(do you know of any other models in the pipeline?) Tks Dave >Quote
There will be a great + difference in Resolution and image quality. However, you may find it more difficult to get that picture. The 16mp Sensor is NoWare as forgiving and will show movement and other user error more better than the D90.
There is always a better camera in the pipeline thanks to digital progress and competition.
I like the D5100 better for Landscape & Videos, but my D7000 has more controls and is better for Action.
Sun 09-Oct-11 05:03 PM | edited Sun 09-Oct-11 05:05 PM by RRRoger
>Thankyou very much for prompt reply. Are you saying I would >need more stability with a D7000? I use a monopod at the >moment so would a tripod be needed instead? Tks
Not necessarily, some peoples hand hold technique is so good, that they do not even need a MonoPod. So just increasing camera speed by the same proportion as the Sensor size may be enough as the higher ISO capability will be able to compensate.
Coming from a D3, my hand holding had gotten so sloppy, that it took a month to adjust. The D7000 is bigger & heavier than the D50, so you might find it easier to hold steady.
The D7000 sensor does have greater resolution than a 12MP sensor as in the D90, but the increase is only about 15% (4928 pixels across rather than 4288). That may or may not be sufficient to give you the improvement you're seeking.
The D7000 sensor has about 30% more photosites than a D90, but photographic resolution is measured linearly - meaning in one direction - as "Line Pairs per Millimetre". With digital cameras, it can be thought of as the number of photosites (pixels) along one edge of the sensor. The D90 has 4288 photosites on the long side, the D7000 has 4928.
To put it another way, if you are happy printing a D90 image at a size of 12 x 8 inches, you could print an image taken under the same conditions with a D7000 at 13.8 x 9.2 inches.
After many years of Nikon film cameras, I rediscovered the joy of photography when I could afford my first DSLR (D40) and left P&S digital behind. Now I've "graduated" through D80 and D300 to reach the D7000, and I feel I'm back at P&S. The AF is so fast and so quiet, and the shutter is so sensitive, I've taken the shot before I know it! No breath-holding at mid-point, poised for the magic moment. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned and with digital VR the new style is to just fire away, on C of course. Am I the only one to complain about the D7000's perfection? Oh well, I guess I'll get used to it.
I have made the progression from D50, D80, D90 and now D7th. I agree with most of what has been said so far. For me, the low light capabilities are significant for the d7th. It allows me greater flexibility in modest light to be more creative and not be limited as much as I would be with the D9o.
My vote on this one would be for the newer D7th.Enjoy. POC
I just purchased the D7k today and I must say that right out of box, this camera is phenomenal. I charged the battery and took it to the Air show here in Maryland. The low light performance coupled with so much flexibility makes it a winner over the D90 hands down. I love my D90 but I had to play the guessing game a lot to get the perfect shot.
It was easy for me as this is my first digital slr and I had been shooting film up to this point. It Has taken me a month to learn how to use a camera computer and I have to say That the results are amazing. It's a whole new world. I guess any current model would have blown me away but since I don't upgrade much I opted for the latest technology
I'm a D40 owner, and had just about convinced myself to pick up a used D90... After reading this, looks like I would be better served holding off a little while for a D7000. I'm interested in: 1. Better low-light performance 2. AF-Motor 3. Commander Mode 4. Additional Resolution
I'm pretty convinced that I'll be able to take advantage of the upgrade. Here's the big question:
My wife uses our camera about 20% of the time, but is not interested at all in 'learning what all the buttons do'. Will she be able to use the D7000 at all? It sounds like it will get harder for her to produce quality pictures with a D7000 than a D40 -- is that true?
>I'm a D40 owner,. Here's the big question: > >My wife uses our camera about 20% of the time, but is not >interested at all in 'learning what all the buttons do'. Will >she be able to use the D7000 at all? It sounds like it will >get harder for her to produce quality pictures with a D7000 >than a D40 -- is that true? > You will have to set it up for her. If you use mostly AUTO settings, it should be pretty easy to switch back and forth.
Wed 25-May-11 09:35 AM | edited Wed 25-May-11 09:36 AM by PAStime
A feature that the D7000 has that the D90 does not is two user settings U1 and U2. You could configure the camera for you as U1 and for her U2. I don't have the D7000 so can't comment on how well this works. I do wish I had it on my D90. I use the AF-On technique of focusing and reverting back to more usual focusing method (via partial pressing of the shutter release button) for handing the camera to someone else takes drilling down through menu picks. Peter
Sun 09-Oct-11 08:59 PM | edited Sun 09-Oct-11 09:00 PM by paddlenut
I have owned the D80, D90 and now the D7000. I have to disagree with others who say you cannot tell the difference in image quality. I think the colors are richer..and better on the d7000. I have no scientific facts to back this up ..just my eyes. The other thing I have noticed is th ISO capabities..are much better then the D90. For me this is important. For around $1150. its a steal. I would pass on the D90.
Could you do me a favour a read my contributions in this thread re: going froma D80 to a D7000. I'd like the low light capability and more accurate first time image exposure that the D80 more than sometimes makes me work for. Money aside, did you find the same kind of issues with D80 and governed your decision to go D7000?
As this is my first post on the website firstly hello. I had to reply here because I just stepped up from a D50 to the D7000 last week. I was fortunate enough to take her on her maiden voyage to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. I am not going to sit here and spout tech stuff but if you feel you have outgrown your D50 then I would pounce all over the D7000. You will love it I promise.As fast as technology changes the D7000 is way above the D90. If I already owned a D90 that would be the only reason I wouldn't get a D7000. As for the video I thought I wouldn't ever use it but I love it. I made great videos of bull elk fighting and bugling so I am glad to have that capability. On a bad note, my wife who has never used more than a point and shoot took the D50 and the kit 18-55 and had a ball so my expensive photography habit may have just multipled. Good luck in your decision, It was tough for me being a younger guy on a very limited budget but I am honestly in love with it.