D-90 to D-7000 Upgrade? Is it Worth Doing

[johnny_kleso]

<p>I Own a D-90 and three manual focus lens 28mm 135mm and a 70-200mm as well as a F-3<br>

I like the idea of being able to use those lens but I really don't need to as I own several AF zooms and a 50mm prime AF<br>

I'm trying to be logical and I'm wondering what those how have think about this upgrade?<br>

Is it worth $500-$600 it will cost for the upgrade??</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

If you need to ask, I would say you don't need to upgrade.

 

Can the D90 get the job done?

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>as Shun says, can the D90 get the job done? I have the D90 and was thinking of upgrading to the D7000 but decided against it as the D90 does everything I need.<br /> You have to think about the kind of pictures you like to take, if/where the D90 falls short of your requirements, and if the D7000 can meet those additional requirements. <br /> Once you have determined that, you will be in a much better position to decide if it's worth it to upgrade.<br /> I'll be interested in hearing what you decide!</p>

<p>regards, cb :-)</p>

[munim]

D7000 is only incrementally better than D90.

I'd wait for the D7000 replacement before ditching my D90.

$500-$600 is a lot of money for a minor upgrade.

[howard_owens]

<p>I like my D90. I like my D7000 much more. It has greater dynamic range, better sensor quality and faster FPS, all of which is important to me.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I'm with Charles. I also have a D90 and I know the D7000 is better, but I think I'll skip at least a generation. The D90 does well for most things I shoot and I haven't really maxed out its capability yet (and I have had the camera over a year). I spend most of my time trying to figure out where I am going artistically and the camera has only a little to do with that.</p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>I had a similar experience with a decision to sell my D90 and go to the D7000. My D90 was doing a fine job for what I needed. And then it happened...went to a camera club shoot with D3's, D90's, and D7000's going at it. All pretty much using similar lenses in close catagory. My buddy's D7000 (untouched standard profile) raw conversion shots (dynamic range, colors, etc.) were simply stunning over my D90's similar conversions which were not slouchy either. The bug bit me, I went with the D7000 a week later and never looked back.</p>

[Two23]

<p>It depends on what you shoot, and how. And, what you think the D90 isn't doing for you now.<br>

My thinking is you need a lens upgrade more than a new camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>as shun says, if you have to ask, you don't really "need" to upgrade. the D90 is still as good as it was when you bought it</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I did. I didn't "need" to, but after spending a weekend with a D7000 and seeing the difference it made in tough situations - pulling color out of landscapes shot in fog, shooting in low light - and the difference AF fine tune made with a couple of my lenses, it made sense to me. Metering with MF lenses and the better AF system also helped - but manual focusing on a DX camera is still a pain.</p>

<p>But... your needs may not be the same as mine. The D90 remains a darn good camera.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>You may find this information to help you with your logical side:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2010/09/nikon-d90-vs-d7000-should-i-upgrade.html">http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2010/09/nikon-d90-vs-d7000-should-i-upgrade.html</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

Elliot, just curious, did you write the "should I upgrade" article you recommended above? No author is specified.

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>A bit off topic, but I have a D90 and needed to buy a second camera for my shooting needs, so I ordered a D7000 and a D300s a week ago. I knew I wanted a D300s (even though there is a bit of a possibility it could be replaced soon since it's older) because of its pro features, but either camera (or even another D90 body) could have served my immediate purposes. I shoot portraits, land/cityscapes, parties, and do some portfolio building for aspiring models...all things that a D90 can do without too much trouble. I tinkered around with all three today and I'm going to keep the D300s because this camera will give me some capabilities I don't have now that I can grow into. With the fall coming up, a lot of families for which I've done portraits are going to want some shots of their kids playing sports, and the D300s can help me build in this area with its better focusing and higher fps. In the end, that was important to me when buying that second camera that I needed: the ability to grow in that particular area.</p>

<p>I found the D7000 to be a fantastic camera, and you may too, but you have understand what you need it for. Compared to you, my opinion is a little off because I was thinking of D300s versus D7000, but the same thought process applies. I think the D7000 is head and shoulders above the D90 in certain areas, but for what I do right now I found it only incrementally better. But that's for what I do, and you have to ask yourself what do you do that makes the D7000 a worthwhile upgrade.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I don't know if it's worth it for you, but I know I'm stickin' with my D90, even if I end up able to afford the 7000. I plan to skip every other generation. D50 -> D80 was NOT a good upgrade, but D50 -> D90 was for sure. I imagine I'll feel similarly when the next gen of this camera comes out.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>No, Shun, I assure you I did not. After looking to see if I could find a side-by-side comparison of the D90 and D7000 feature wise for the OP, I found that article at the top of a Google search. After reading it (and pretty much agreeing with what was written), I thought the OP and others might find it of interest as it seems to cover pretty much all the differences between the two with good detail.</p>

<p>Peter, I agree with your comments but have to tell you that the D7000 is a' two generation upgrade' in one generation. Nikon has raised the bar.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>The D7000 is anything but an incremental improvement. It is a quantum leap across the board. From the basic construction (metal frame) to high ISO, to faster processing, to improved CCD. I have used Nikons since my first F back in the '60s and I can't think of another time that there has been as big a leap in improvement. <br>

However, that doesn't address your basic question of what you should do. Have you found deficiencies in your D90 that you think the D7000 could address? If the D90 meets your needs, why would you spend the money? I bought my D7000 not so much for the technology as I had worn out my previous camera with about 300,000 cycles on the shutter, etc. I looked very seriously at the D700, D300, D90 as well as the D7000. I owned a range of lenses that would have worked on both DX and FX format. I opted for the D7000 because it was newer technology, looked like a very durable platform that I would own for some time. The final decision point was that it was far more capability for the price than any other platform. The D7000 may be the best bargain to ever come down the road.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>No offense, Elliot, I skimmed through that article and only found description of the features on the D7000, which you can read from Nikon's specifications. And then it has this conclusion about whether one should upgrade from the D90 to D7000:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Whether you should upgrade to the Nikon D7000 from the D90</strong>, it is all up to you. You should carefully consider the advantages by going through the specs. If you find that there is an important feature that you find on the Nikon D7000 and not on the D90, maybe it will worth the upgrade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why one needs to read an article to figure that out? You can substitute the model numbers with those from any other two cameras and make exactly the same comment.</p>

<p>And then I realized that article was written on 19th September, 2010, four days after Nikon announced the D7000. The author obviously wrote the whole article solely based on D7000 specs, which it recites, without ever using one. In fact, he/she admits in the article that they had not seen a D7000.</p>

[DawsonPointers]

<p>I contemplated the D90>D7000 move and decided it was wiser to go for fast glass that will be around longer than either of these bodies and could be used on an FX body if I ever wanted to go that way.<br>

The fast glass (Sigma 50mm & 85mm, both f/1.4) partially compensates for the higher ISO of the D7000 and gives excellent bokeh as a bonus. I also have the MD-D80 which gives more fps on the D90 and has a much better battery arrangement than the grip on a D7000 (have to remove grip to get at the second battery on the D7000). <br>

What is lacking on the D90 is the number of focus points. That's important for action but less so for normal photography. The D300s beats the D7000 in that regard plus it has better weather sealing.<br>

I also have a D80 and still love it. Having 2 bodies is very handy. I usually have either a 35mm f/1.8 <em>or</em> 50mm f.14 <em>or</em> 12-24 f/4 on the D80 and a 70-300mm <em>or</em> 85mm f/1.4 on the D90 w/MB-D80 grip. The grip helps with balance with the heavier lenses too.<br>

Regards, John</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, the D7000 is somewhat a higher-class DSLR than the D90 so that it is not a direct replacement. Nikon made that very clear to me since originally, I incorrectly pointed out that the D7000 was the D90's replacement.</p>

<p>The D7000 has these main advantages over the D90:</p>

<ul>

<li>Much better AF</li>

<li>Much better construction with weather sealing</li>

<li>Close to one extra stop high-ISO capability</li>

<li>Considerably improved video capture capability with 1080p and maxmimum 20 minutes</li>

<li>Metering with AI/AI-S lenses that have no CPU</li>

<li>Dual memory cards</li>

<li>100% viewfinder</li>

</ul>

<p>And then there are a bunch of small improvements such as slightly faster frame rate, silent mode, faster flash sync, new battery ....</p>

<p>If, for example, the OP finds the D90's AF insufficient, perhaps it makes sense to upgrade to the D7000. But having metering with three manual-focus lenses, which obviously cannot take advantage of the D7000's AF capability and the OP admits that those lenses are not necessary, seems to be a very weak argument to upgrade.</p>

<p>That was why I asked in which ways the D90 cannot get the job done.</p>

 

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Take a look at the Thom Hogan review, http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm, or at least the end of it with the <em>Should You Get a D7000?</em> section which discusses D90 owners.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Shun-re your post on the D7000 article referred to by Elliot, my thoughts exactly! regards, cb</p>

[johnny_kleso]

<p>Here is my thoughts after reading all of your posts..<br>

I'm on a fixed income and happen to have the extra money now..<br>

My D90 I bought used and has about 9,000 shots on it now..<br>

I was thinking it maybe time to sell it and buy a new D7000 while the D90 still has good value..<br>

At what shutter count is a camera starting to get tired?<br />I know about 150,000 - 200,000 is about max life..<br />At what count does shutter count effect the resale value???</p>

<p>Thank You all so much for your helpful answers</p>

[johnny_kleso]

<p>OPPS just check how many images I shot since owning and I see the count is 12,759<br>

I thought count as 80,000 but it was 8,000<br>

Not a reason to upgrade guess I'll try to find a 70-200 /2.8</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hi Johnny,</p>

<p>The upgrade was worth it to me. The D7000 is the first next generation camera that I have actually felt represented a substantial upgrade since the Nikon D70. The D80 and D90 were not significant improvements in my opinion. The Nikon D7000 truly meets the needs of an advanced amateur, and represents a milestone advancement in Nikon DX technology.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I did not write the article. I have no affiliation with the author or the site hosts it. I read the article and found it to be informative and factual. I missed the publish date and that they had not tested a body. But, I re-read it and still find it to be accurate, and accurate enough that had it been published yesterday, it would be factual. Summarizing what it states, the improvements listed in that article over the D90 include a higher resolution sensor, better high ISO performance, SDXC Support, Dual Memory Cards Slots, 1080p HD Videos, full time AF while shooting videos. faster shutter speeds, 6fps, 9-point AF system and a new 2,016 pixel RGB 3D Matrix Metering System, 100% viewfinder, Magnesium alloy body, and a shutter rated at 150K shots. Is anything listed here that is not accurate?</p>

<p>The author’s conclusion: <em>“If you find that there is an important feature that you find on the Nikon D7000 and not on the D90, maybe it will worth the upgrade.” </em> I think that is good advise. Isn't that the reason a photographer upgrades his/her body? As it turns out, the OP did not find any important reasons to upgrade.<br /> <br /><em>“It seems like Nikon has improved almost every feature”</em> Based on my limited use of the D90 and moderate use of the D7000, I would tend to agree.</p>