D90 or D7000

<p>i have have been looking at the D90 and the D7000. This will be my first DSLR . I will be shooting mostly sports and outdoors . i am not sure if the price difference is worth it for what i am going to be using it for. The biggest concern i have is that i will be taking it hiking and skiing a lot . I believe that the D7000 is weather sealed and the D90 is not . I am a beginner just starting out . Does the sealed unit make that big of a difference in the snow as far as the moister. I don't want to get a camera that will be not be good in weather or do i want to over buy a camera that i will not use the extras. thank u for the help</p>

<p>I'm not sure the D7000 is as well sealed as the D300 (which is to a reasonable standard). One thing to watch is whether it will work in low temperatures. I believe one of the Pentax models is well weather sealed and also takes Lithium A4 batteries (K7D?). This might be a better bet.</p>

<p>if you are shooting sports, d7000 is the clear choice, since you get a better AF system--which is probably the d90's biggest flaw. sounds like weather-sealing could be a plus, too. and it's not moisture so much you have to watch out for, it's condensation. but yeah, in bad weather conditions, sealed parts will be better than non-sealed parts. i dont think a d7000 is an overbuy since they are close in price. you get a lot more with the newer camera.</p>

<p>7000 for sports, definitely.</p>

<p>Just remember - if you are concerned about weather sealing - you'll need a good lens too. The kit lenses won't cut it. I have a D90 and used in out in the snow and had no issues due to temperature (it was -20C) but was really careful about the amount of snow built up on the body (it happens pretty quickly LOL) - I carefully blew if off.</p>

<p>Just remember - if you are concerned about weather sealing - you'll need a good lens too. The kit lenses won't cut it. I have a D90 and used in out in the snow and had no issues due to temperature (it was -20C) but was really careful about the amount of snow built up on the body (it happens pretty quickly LOL) - I carefully blew if off.</p>

<p>I think that you may do a better job for yourself buying a D90 (more ore less with current prices we are speaking of half the price of the D7000).<br>

The reason is quite simple: action shots require anticipation, there will never be a camera fast enough, or an AFS as well. If you pretend to shoot when the action happens you will always be late (search for the works of Mark Chirghizi, even for the human brain, certainly faster than a D3 whatever when taking pictures, anticipation is a need in vision), once you will learn that you will be in a position to understand better what you really need or not, till then may opinion is to spend the less.<br>

20 or 30 years ago great sport shoots where taken with totally manual cameras how did they ? Easy, they anticipated, waited in focus for the place where the action was supposed to happen. Did they have failures ? plenty, as much as today.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>20 or 30 years ago great sport shoots where taken with totally manual cameras how did they ? Easy, they anticipated, waited in focus for the place where the action was supposed to happen. Did they have failures ? plenty, as much as today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see that kind of argument a lot. The problem was that 30 years ago, nobody had the modern tools (cameras and lenses) we have today. In other words, everybody back then had the same handicap (althouth they might not realize it at the time) so that it was an even playing field.</p>

<p>20 years ago, it was Canon that first introduced fast AF and in-lens AF motor and suddenly professional sports photographers switched to Canon in huge numbers almost overnight. In merely a couple of years, Nikon went from being the dominent professional SLR manufacturer to a distant #2 behind Canon. It took Nikon one and a half decades to finally turn that around with the introduction of the D3 in 2007.</p>

<p>If you compare sports images and wildlife action images (e.g. birds in flight), there is a huge quality difference between now and 30 years ago.</p>

<p>I've used my D80 while skiing at Winter Park. No problems with the temperature or moisture.</p>

<p>i used a d80 shooting snowboarding in tahoe three years ago. it, too was fine.</p>

<p>but i had a recent scary experience with a d90. i was shooting during a downpour and all of a sudden, after just 5 minutes, the shots in the LCD were foggy.my first thought was that i soaked the d90.</p>

<p>when i got home, i took the d90 out, took the lens off, and put it in a plastic bag. then i did the same with the lens. i left both bags open so moisture could evaporate.</p>

<p>a couple hours later i tried the d90 with a different lens. it worked (sigh of relief). then i tried the lens, a tokina 12-24. it worked too.</p>

<p>what i think happened was that moisture and/or condensation built up on the inside of the lens filter. i have a rubber pull-on cap on the 12-24 which may have accelerated the process.</p>

<p>theoretically, the d90 should be able to handle a little bit of water. but the 12-24 isnt weather-sealed, so moisture could get in there, too.</p>

<p>in any event, i learned my lesson: i now carry ziplock bags with my camera gear.</p><div></div>

<p>The D7000...lots and lots of improvements including the new AF engine. For sports it will make a big difference. Its also not as complicated to set up as the old D300, and is far superior to the D90 which was an economy D300..</p>

 

<p>As long as you use it a lot... you'll be happy with either one. I'll bet the D7000 has the edge since its newer, though you can pick up a D90 now for $400 cheaper, which money can go to some really nice lenses which are the other part of fast AF.</p>

<p>If money is not an issue, few will disagree that the D7000 is a "better" camera; unless you must have something lighter, the D7000 has advantages all over the place.</p>

<p>The thing is that money is usually an issue. It is great to have an excellent DSLR body, but it is more important to have some good optics in front of it and some good gray matter behind it.</p>

<p>Regardless of which body you get, a simple solution to insure long life of the camera is not to get it wet. There are weatherproof pouches you can buy that are inexpensive and offer great protection to the elements.</p>

<p>The AF systems on Nikon DSLR bodies are well designed and more than capable of being used for sports if you learn how to set it up and use it correctly for the conditions you are shooting under. Even cameras of much lesser technology (like the DXX bodies) work well for sports photography. If you have the money, go for the D7000. If not, go for the D90. You will get great shots either way.</p>

<p>For the money if you're worried about weather sealing the Pentax K-7 would be your best bet. Pick up their relatively inexpensive DA55-200mm WR to go with the DA18-55mm WR kit lens and you will have a fine weather resistant DSLR kit.</p>

<p>Got my D7000 last friday 5th its not as well sealed as the D300 and up models but I also had the D200 which was weather sealed same as the D300 however i still never let it get rained all over. they will all go duff if they get water in them so why run the risk as has been said keep the weather off with a simple protector then the choice of camera is all you need worry about</p>