Did you 'upgrade' from a Nikon D90 to the D7000?

[euripides_smalls]

<p>Seeking some 'devil's advocate' type feedback.<br>

I have had a Nikon D90 for about 18 months. Approximately 70% of my shots are night/low-light (taken between 7pm and 7am). My subjects of choice are: urban landscapes, abandoned buildings, and street photography. The largest I've ever printed is 13x19.<br>

The 3 lenses that I use most often are: Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (75%), Sigma 24-70mm (20%), Nikon 10.5mm fisheye (5%). I only use a tripod about 25% of the time. I almost never shoot above ISO 1600, and try to keep it under ISO 800. My opinion is that the D90 is fine up to ISO 800, but the shadow detail starts to go bad beyond ISO 800.<br>

I have always preferred to use two bodies. Back in the 'olden' days of film, I kept a wide zoom on one body and a medium tele on the other.<br>

I cannot decide whether to buy the new D7000 or another gently used D90 (for half the price of a D7000). In general, I am NOT a, "gotta' have the latest and greatest" type of person however, while I'm an amateur, I am a passionate amateur, and photography is my escape and avocation.<br>

The night/low-light D7000 images that I've seen do indeed look impressive. The daylight images---not so much.<br>

I guess where I'm stuck is, "If I bought a D7000, am I getting maybe 20% to 25% more performance of a D90, but at double the price?"<br>

I guess my real question (for people who went from a D90 to the D7000) is: Sure, it's 'better' and it has more bells and whistles (better auto ISO, the 2 custom settings, and the virtual horizon are tempting to me), but <strong>"Based on having used both, in your opinion, how much better is the D7000 than the D90?"</strong><br>

<strong>The other thing that keeps ringing in my head is the DSLR axiom of, 'Don't buy successive generations of DSLR's, better to skip a generation.' (which means that incremental $600 could be used toward my next camera.</strong><br>

<strong>What say you?</strong></p>

[richard_a5]

<p>Thom Hogan answers "Should You Get a D7000?" with:</p>

<ul>

<li><em>Consumer DSLR owner that's upgrading (D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D3000). </em>For all but the D90 user it's a no-brainer: if you need or want more, the D7000 is a<em> <strong>lot</strong></em> more. It's a bit like trading in your old CRT-based TV for a nice new LED backlit LCD HD large screen one. There will be some learning curve shock, but the performance you can obtain puts you in a different league. D90 users aren't making so large a step, but it's still a significant step. If you're comfortable with 12mp and ISO 1600 tops, stay with the D90. If you need to shoot in low light, need more pixels, or feel disadvantaged in autofocus, the D7000 is a step up for the D90 user. </li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm</p>

<p>There are lots of comparative pictures out there, see dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com (compare to D5000 if they don't have a D90 sample).</p>

<p>There is no objective scale to quantify "how much better."</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I am not planning to upgrade from my D90 until at least the next generation. I got four years out of my D50, hope to do the same with the D90.</p>

<p>I'd LOVE some of what the D7000 offers, especially the ability to meter with my old MF lenses, but I'm not willing to pay for it at this time.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The real question to the OP is whether you are happy with results from the D90?</p>

<p>A couple of months ago, I borrowed a D90 and did a three-way comparison among the D90, D7000, and my D300, but I only had the D90 for a weekend and my more extensive comparions were between the D7000 and D300. Since the D90 and D300 have very similar sensors, their high-ISO results are also very similar. I would say up to ISO 800 or so, there is not a huge difference between the D300 and D7000. At ISO 1600, the D7000 clearly has better (less) shadow noise. By ISO 3200, the difference is quite significant, close to a stop.</p>

<p>On the other hand:</p>

<ul>

<li>The D7000 has much better AF than the D90, especially under dim light.</li>

<li>The D7000 has much better video capability than all Nikon DSLRs introduced in 2009 and earlier, including full 1080p HD and much better AF for video.</li>

</ul>

<p>In other words, if you only use up to ISO 800, I don't think it is a good idea to upgrade to a D7000 for the purpose of better high ISO results. However, if AF under low light is an issue on your D90, upgrading to a D7000 should help.</p>

<p>So if you are already happy with the D90, there is no point to upgrade. If you are not happy with the D90, in which ways that you are unhappy?</p>

[photo5]

<p>I rarely shoot at high ISO, but when I do, the D300 offers good enough quality for me so I feel no need to upgrade to the D7000 for that. There are too many downgrades going from D300 to D7000 for me to consider it. I have had my D300 since late 2007 and plan to keep it another few years at least. It's still a superb camera for me. I've read nothing but good reviews of the D90 as well. Unless you want to use manual focus Nikon lenses, or shoot 1080p video, I'd keep the D90.</p>

[elyone]

<p>I waitin' for da D8000 ;)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>a bigger issue may be that you are using a f/4 lens for 70% of your low-light photography with no tripod. i have a tokina 12-24 and a d90 too, and i almost never use it in those conditions. perhaps a tokina 11-16, which is constant 2.8, would be a solution here. as for the d90 vs. d7000 comparison, the d7000 is clearly a better camera, but it may not matter for what you shoot, especially if you aren't shooting above 1600 ISO. i say get another d90 and an 11-16. you could also add to your kit with a gorillapod focus tripod, which would allow you to shoot at lower shutter speeds at crazy angles without being too heavy to lug around.</p>

[jgredline]

 

<blockquote>

<p>David Lee wrote: There are too many downgrades going from D300 to D7000 for me to consider it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, What downgrades are your referring to. I have a D300S and a D7000 and the only place that I can see that the D300S is better than the D7000 is in FPS and buffer size. Aside from that, I will even go as far as to say that the D7000 has faster AF, especially AF.C 3D, and it focuses better in low light. High ISO is a no brainer, So I am curious. </p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>With the D7000 being able to use AIS lenses, how is the viewfinder? Is it really bright and contrasty enough to fine focus these lenses by hand without problems? Am coming from Nikon F2 and F3 bodies and that is the viewfinder I am used to. Nice and bright and easy for me to focus. Many of my friends digital mirror boxes are not as nice.<br>

Does the D7000 solve this with a pentaprism that is bright enough for us older folks used to older cameras that still work well? Or would a D300 have a better finder? I know, another variable. Am looking at the Nikon digital bodies now that it looks as if all might work well with the older AIS lenses more easily - or have I not understood this too well?</p>