D90 kit vs. D7000

[caleb_gonzalez]

<p><br /> <br /> I just got this D90 kit, but I'm considering if i should keep it or upgrade right away (I would need to invest around 300 bucks more for the D7000). These are the two options:<br /> <br /> OPTION 1 (1,200.00)<br /> <br /> Nikon D90 Digital SLR Camera Body<br /> 18-55mm VR Zoom-NIKKOR Lens <br /> 70-300mm VR Zoom-NIKKOR Lens<br /> Versatile System Carrying Case<br /> Instructional DVD<br /> 4GB SD Memory Card<br /> Lithium-ion Rechargeable Battery<br /> Quick Charger<br /> Audio/Video Cable<br /> USB Cable<br /> Strap<br /> PictureProject CD-Rom <br /> <br /> <br /> OPTION 2 (1,500.00)<br /> <br /> Nikon D7000 Body<br /> Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR<br /> EN-EL15 Rechargeable Li-ion Battery<br /> MH-25 QuickCharger<br /> Eyepiece Cap<br /> Rubber Eyecup<br /> USB Cable<br /> A/V Cable<br /> Camera Strap<br /> LCD Monitor Cover<br /> Body Cap<br /> Shoe Cover<br /> ViewNX 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> I need to decide soon. Please help me voting.</p>

 

[jalywol]

<p>Do you shoot video? Do you not need a long lens? If you answer yes to those two questions, I would get the D7000. If not, go for the D90 and get the extra glass.<br>

I have a D90 and am in love with the way it handles color and dynamic range. I have not used the D7000, so I have no idea if its IQ is appreciably better, but for me the D90 works phenomenally well, and I wouldn't upgrade myself unless I needed better video capability.<br>

-Janet</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>The other question is - where are you buying this from? The list of stuff looks kind of fishy considering they are listing the STANDARD assessories each camera body ships with - battery, charger, eyepiece cap and cup, cover, etc. ViewNX is free.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Keep your D90 unless you get return it and get all your money back. You can pick up a used/reconditioned 70-300mm VR for about $350.</p>

<p>If money is an issue, keep what you have and enjoy it. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Do you know for yourself whether you need the extra options offered by the D7000? How much use is the 70-300VR?<br>

Those, to me, are the 2 deciding factors. The rest seems rather equal, so the decision should be between those 2 parameters. Though, note, for the D7000 in between the useless list of the rubber eyepiece and the body cap, a SD card is missing. So, add a few $$ for that one. Makes it $1520 instead...</p>

<p>And if you can't tell whether a D7000 will serve you better, and/or whether the 70-300VR and $300 in the bank serves you better..... then how can we tell you?<br>

I'd say, unwrap that D90 and enjoy.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>actually, i would go for the d7000, as its better in every way than the d90--not even close. here's the thing: down the line, when you want to upgrade--and you will--it will cost you much more than $300 because your camera will no longer be new and exchanging won't be an option. also the 18-105 is a better length for a walkaround than the 18-55. you lose the 70-300 and the memory card, but so what? you have a more future-proof camera. you can get a 4g SD card for $10-$20, and a used or refurb 70-300VR for as low as $350. if you are never planning to spend another dime on equipment and never upgrade your camera, then maybe the d90 makes sense. but that's unlikely, speaking from personal experience.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I second Eric's advice and reasons for D7000. D90 was a great camera but is 2 and a half years old now... Translated in human life years this is something close to the age of retirement :-) or at least in the middle age crisis :-) </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>You have a better balance of body to glass with the D90 kit. The D7000 is new technology and I prefer that but I would want more/different glass for it.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>IMO the D90 kit is giving you a better overall package there - and saving you $300 towards another lens, hardware, a flash, books, training etc.</p>

<p>I have had a D90 for the last 20 months or so, and have no plans to upgrade it in the near future. It does what I need it to do, sure the D7000 is a better camera - but in the UK you would pay an extra £380 (body only comparison) - or >60% more than the D90.</p>

<p>Also, I personally cannot see the point in pairing the D7000 with the 18-105mm lens, it doesn't seem particularly balanced ie a very good camera - with a not so good lens (I'm sure others would disagree though)</p>

<p>If it were me, I would go for the D90 and maybe use that $300 'float' to upgrade the 18-55mm to maybe a Tamron 17-50 or other general purpose lens.</p>

<p>I have, via a rather ambling route, got to the point where I think the camera is perhaps behind the person, then glass, in the order of priority for getting good photos.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Mart E, i have a d90 and a d300s in DX format. the d90's achilles heel is its AF module, which has an 11-pt array with one cross-type sensor. though otherwise a fine camera capable of excellent image quality and decent high-ISO performance, the D90 is limited when it comes to action shots. if you only shoot landscape and still subjects, it's a fine, if a bit outdated, choice. however, if you want to shoot anything that moves, ever, the D7000 is simply a much better tool for that application.</p>

<p>besides being one generation newer than the d90, the D7000 specifically has 39-pt AF with 9 cross-type sensors, a new meter and processor, and much faster fps over the d90 (6 vs. 4.5). you also get a much better build quality--mag-alloy chassis and 150k shutter cycle--with the D7k. in shooting action, the d90 is slow and overmatched, compared to the d300s. the D7k narrows that gap considerably.</p>

<p>it's an advancement, evolution and refinement of the prosumer DSLR, so much so that the usual mantra of 'glass first, then body' doesnt actually apply here. right now, the OP has a choice: to leap boldly into the future for only $300 additional investment, or to stay in the recent past (which can only get farther away), plus a telephoto lens and a few doo-dads. To me, that's a no-brainer, since you can always add a telephoto down the line, but upgrading the body down the line will cost much more, since the d90 can only depreciate in value once it is purchased.</p>

<p>the camera body the OP gets will have little to do with their ability as a photographer as far as technique, but i dont think there's any doubt that the d7000 is a much more advanced camera in several key areas, compared to the d90. trust me, i've attempted to shoot action with both a d80 and a d90. it's not fun to miss shots because your camera was too slow. just the better AF and FPS alone is worth $300, not to mention the improved high-ISO performance.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I love my D90, but I'd go for the 7000 and save up for a refurb 70-300 VR lens.</p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>In daylight with static objects, almost any camera from the last years will give you a nice image, with maybe a difference in resolution and dynamic range, but seldom relevant for day to day use, IMO. When it's getting dark or the subjects begin to move faster - situation changes a lot. The D7000 is too advanced to pass on it compared with a D90 in some critical areas of still imagery with the added bonus of better HD video.<br>

However, for $300 difference I would choose the D7000 in a heartbeat, if only to avoid the frustration and remorses that will come after if I'd had chosen the D90 and read the rave reviews of the D7000 :)</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Eric, the D7000 sure is a better camera (the AF you mention is one of many reasons). My point really was that within a limited budget it may be more balanced to spread the $$$ more evenly between camera and lens quality.</p>

<p>Also - it's not a pure $300 difference between the D90 and the D7000, the $300 was also taking into account the lenses (the D90 has the 18-55 + 70-300, the D7000 just the 18-105).</p>

<p>Caleb, I guess a lot of it comes down to how you plan to use the kit, whether this is part of a long term strategy with the camera being the core of the kit to which you will invest in more glass. And of course, what you will be shooting, Eric has put his finger on the big benefit in going for the D7000 over the D90 - which is the AF system - and for fast moving subjects that AF can be a real benefit.</p>

<p>For me, the camera has been a smaller % of the amount I have spent on my kit. I have just checked, and I have spent at least 6x more on glass than I did my camera - and yet I am generally still happy with the D90 (I don't shoot sports - although I have had some reasonable success with Bird In Flight shots even with it's 'poor' AF system).</p>

<p>I suppose the counter argument is that as a total photography expenditure, as the camera was a smaller %, I could have spent a few hundred more and got a better camera with relatively little difference overall.</p>

<p>Caleb, you could provide some detail on what sort of photography you already do / and what plans you may have. Ultimately only you know how this will be used, and what limitation that extra $300 may be for you - and that could be all the difference.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>My point really was that within a limited budget it may be more balanced to spread the $$$ more evenly between camera and lens quality.</em></p>

<p>by more balanced, do you mean, in the short-term? because that's essentially what you're saying.</p>

<p>usually, this is how these things work: you decide you want a camera. you buy it, then you figure out what you need down the line as your shooting style evolves. sometimes, you overbuy because you get stuff you think you might need, but dont really know until a later date what you actually need. let's say i got the d90+18-55+70-300 for $1200. i just saved $300 from initial expenditure, compared to D7000. six months in, i realize i want to shoot action and/or low-light, and i'm not really into wildlife. now all of a sudden, i need faster fps and better AF. also different lenses, maybe some fast primes and 2.8 zooms. now what's my cost? well, first of all, i need a d7000 so i'll have to spend $1100 (body only), minus whatever i can get at that point for a used d90 (let's say $600). also, i need to sell the 70-300 and get a 35/1.8, a 17-XX 2.8, and an 85/1.8. so more additional costs. plus the hassle of buying and selling, etc. i'm definitely spending more than the $300 i would have "saved," no matter how you slice it.</p>

<p>simply put, there's no scenario where getting a d90 package makes more sense unless you're sure you're a) never going to upgrade; b) you will never need or want different lenses; and c) shooting things which move will never be a priority for you.</p>

<p>OTOH, let's look at why a d7000 makes sense. first of all, it's early in the product cycle, so its at its peak of technological relevance and value. A new D90 bought today will quickly depreciate; a year from now, it'll be worth $500. a new D7000 bought today should fetch at least $900 or $1000 in a year. so if the OP decides his upgrade path is a D300-type body or even FF, he'll get more $$ for his older body. second, the initial buy-in might be more, but an 18-105 VR will still be useful as a lightweight walkaround or travel lens, even if you upgrade to specialized and/or pro glass. which almost certainly will happen, in all likelihood or probability. After all, who among us has the internal fortitude to resist the onset of NAS? At least this way, the OP can forget about a new body for a while--years, actually--and then concentrate on developing technique, learning the camera, and identifying areas of photographic interest, which may not be apparent at first.Getting another lens, say, six months down the line makes more sense to me than trying to account for everything in an initial purchase, before you even know what you like to shoot and what glass you need to shoot it. also, unless you are a dedicated landscaper or wildlife shooter, the shorter zoom will probably see more stick time, and the 18-105 has a better overall range than the 18-55, which means less lens changes. so even from a lens selection perspective, i'd go for the D7000 kit. like i said, you can always add a telephoto later if you know what's what you want (as opposed to guessing that's what you might want. personally, my second lens would be a fast prime)</p>

<p>Which is to say, getting the D7000 may actually save money in the long run and absolutely makes better long-term strategy. Believe me, i've been down this road before. $300 may seem like a lot if you're on a budget, but it's not that much dough in the larger scheme of things.</p>

<p>having said that, one thing the OP may want to find out is if getting the D7000 body only is an option. if it comes down to budget, you should be able to get a d7k+18-55VR refurb for $1200. now that $300 plus another $50 can buy a 70-300 VR, if that's what you really want. or it could go toward faster/better glass.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_tam]

<p>It depends on what you shoot.</p>

<p>If you shoot landscapes, keep the D90 and save the money for other lenses. If you shoot in low-light or indoors, get the D7000. It's in another class at high ISO.</p>

<p>I have a D5000 (same sensor as a D90) and a D7000, and the D7000 is one step above.</p>

[caleb_gonzalez]

<p>All your input really helped me to see from as many angles as possible to make the decision. <br /> <strong>Janet W / </strong> I do take video every now and then and I find it very convenient in social events to be able to take pictures and video without having to switch from one device to the other. I think that is one of the important point towards the D7k. Thank you.</p>

<p>J<strong>ay /</strong> I've found it on several sites (amazon, h&r, etc). Basically what is listed is what is included in the box. I know it's not a bundle or a set of extras. BTW, would you recommend an online source?</p>

<p><strong>Elliot / </strong> Since my wife bought it for me at Costco (xmas present), we have 90 days to still get our money back. We will do so. Thank you.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter / </strong> I'm still a beginner, so I shoot a little of everything. But I'm an architect so I guess that places, landscapes and portraits will be a must. I think that (as many mentioned already) the best choice right now is to go for the body that will give me more for the next few years and find out along the way what lenses will meet my expectations.</p>

<p><strong>Eric / </strong> I appreciate a lot your input. I think you understood my main concern which was to invest in something that won't make me feel the need to replace in the short term. I like to make decisions trying to see a little further down the road. Not that the others didn't provide good advice, but you did visualize the way I was thinking. I'll go for the body and basic glass just to get started and then find out what will be my kind of glass and accesories. Thank you.</p>

<p><strong>Mart / </strong> You made a point, and that is why this decision was so hard to make for me. Body vs. body, it would have been a lot easier, but the bundle made sence. I just think that I will invest in a better body for now and get the rest along the way. Thanx.</p>

<p><strong>Peter/ </strong> Short and simple. I like it. </p>

<p><strong>Marius /</strong> You poined something very important to me. Low light conditions. Trying to photograph architecture at night has been one of my worse nightmares. More points for the D7k! Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Phillip /</strong> Same point as Marius. I do need a low light camera. Thank you.</p>

<p>Thank you all again. I feel confident that buying a better body for now will be my best choice. I will be around with questions as soon as I start learning, getting used to the features and trying to improve my skills.<br /> See you.<br /> _klv</p>

<p> </p>

[dbcooper]

<p>D7k all the way. Add lenses down the road after you recover from the purchase. You'll thank yourself later. It's just a superior camera in every way vs the D90 (I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em). The 18-105 kit lens is better than I thought it'd be, too. It can get a lot done. If the D7k had better AEB, it'd be <em>the perfect </em>DX body for me. So far, I'm really liking it, and I'm a hard grader.</p>

<p>Still haven't decided if I'll keep it or sell it (D700 is my main camera, plus I shoot a D200 and a D70s with a buncha lenses), but between it and a D90 for $300 more with an 18-105, IMO there's <em>no</em> question which one to get. And don't forget the main new-camera rule: if you use the kit neck strap, you have to wear Bermuda shorts and dark socks with sandals to complete the 'dorky tourist' look. :-D</p>

[randy_tate]

<p>I've owned a D90 for two years and now a D7000 for two months. First, drop everything off your two lists except the bodies and glass. Everthing else is either free or has such a low price point as to be insignificant to influence your decision.</p>

<p>That leaves us with a D90 + 18-55 VR & a 70-300 VR vs. a D7000 kit. If you ever shoot video then it's the D7000 hands down, all the way. And this is from a person who bought the D90 almost exclusively because of its video. What do you give up by going with the D7000??? ...105-300mm's of focal length that you'll be too busy enjoying your D7000's kickbutt video to miss. </p>

<p>If you're shooting mostly for fun or just friends and family, do yourself a favor and buy a 50mm f/1.8 Series E for $35 off eBay so you at least have one fast, sharp prime in your kit. Once you recover from the expense of getting the D7000, buy the AF 35mm f/1.8 DX and you'll rarely shoot with anything else. It's my go-to lens for parties, walking around and even some stock photography. An old rectangle back 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai zoom is a cheap way to get a great zoom too ($40-$80). The standard 70-300mm can be bought for less than $80 - I got mine for $35. That would round out an amature-enthusiest's kit nicely.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Keep it and enjoy those lenses you won't get with option 2</p>

[sriram_srinivasan1]

<p>Interesting discussions / comments..<br>

I have a D5k and am finding that I have a limited choice of lenses (I can use only the AFS lenses)... so am thinking of upgrading.. this discussion will be useful for my decision (D90 vs. D7K)...</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>I'm with Eric's and D.B's initial postings. D7000 is certainly the better choice and recouping some of the costs now is better than later on when the value of the D90 is lower. I suppose it comes down to this Caleb; if you're already thinking about the upgrade then perhaps you made the wrong choice to begin with based on the type of photography you wish to do. The newer technology of the D7000 places it on par with the D300 more so than the D90 (with a mid way point in number of AF points between the two).<br>

After using the D7000 you will come to appreciate what lens suites your style/need and so thats when you can make a better/informed decision about lenses, rather than now. I know value for money is important and so you're looking at the complete package but consider buying a body you are happy with and then good quality lenses that works best for your needs.</p>