BeckyW
Forum Enthusiast
I am considering moving from Pentax to Nikon.
I am looking at the D90 or the D3100. Which would you choose and why?
--
Becky
I am looking at the D90 or the D3100. Which would you choose and why?
--
Becky
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Would you buy a D90 or a D3100
- Thread starter BeckyW
- Start date
learnerguy
Leading Member
I had similar options few months back and I went with D3100.
Reasons for going with D3100 are:
Newer
Lighter
Price
Reasons for going with D3100 are:
Newer
Lighter
Price
Enjoihcky247
Leading Member
Well that was sooooooo helpful. My turn... I think I'd choose a Ferrari
Truthful C&C appreciated. No need to sugar-coat things for me!
http://zsarnoldphotography.weebly.com/index.html
--
Truthful C&C appreciated. No need to sugar-coat things for me!
http://zsarnoldphotography.weebly.com/index.html
Enjoihcky247
Leading Member
That depends on what you want to do with the camera.
D90 Pros:
In body motor so you have a wider selection of (cheaper) lenses
Bigger body, maybe better in your hands?
More knobs and switches so you don't have to menu dive.
Release priority
Commander built in so you can use wireless lighting with Nikon's flashes (and some third part flashes)
Larger, brighter view finder
D3100 Pros:
Better in low light
Video
Live View
Smaller, lighter, better for small hands..?
This is just off the top of my head, of course.
Truthful C&C appreciated. No need to sugar-coat things for me!
http://zsarnoldphotography.weebly.com/index.html
D90 Pros:
In body motor so you have a wider selection of (cheaper) lenses
Bigger body, maybe better in your hands?
More knobs and switches so you don't have to menu dive.
Release priority
Commander built in so you can use wireless lighting with Nikon's flashes (and some third part flashes)
Larger, brighter view finder
D3100 Pros:
Better in low light
Video
Live View
Smaller, lighter, better for small hands..?
This is just off the top of my head, of course.
--
Truthful C&C appreciated. No need to sugar-coat things for me!
http://zsarnoldphotography.weebly.com/index.html
The D90 is clearly a better camera for photography, but the D3100 has a better movie mode. If HD movies are an important feature, then the D3100 is one to consider. However, if photographic ability is the deciding factor, then the D90 is better.
According to DxoMark, the D90 scores better than the D3100. So the D90 has a larger dynamic range, better color sensitivity, etc. The 1.9 megapixel difference in resolution is likely not noticeable due to the fact that the D90 likely has a better low-pass filter sitting in front of the sensor (entry level DSLRs usually have the least expensive designs.)
The D90 is larger and nearly 1/2 pound heavier. A lighter body is easier to carry all day, but a larger body is easier to grip and hold steady. The D90 provides many customizable options that let you tune the camera to your way of doing things. For example, I have my meter and command dials reversed. There are also a host of functions that the D90 provides that aren’t available on the D3100. There’s the wireless remote, wireless flash commander, DOF preview, flash modeling light, Flash Value Lock, a top LCD that shows the status of the camera, and a motor drive for lenses that have no built in motor (like the ever popular and inexpensive 50mm f/1.8D lens.)
The D90’s many external controls invite you to play with its settings, such as direct control of ISO and white balance. With the D3100, nearly everything is done through the rear LCD. When you get used to the D90, it basically melts away in your hands as you press buttons and perform functions without thinking about it. With the D3100 you must always stop and manipulate the cursor on the rear LCD when making changes.
.
According to DxoMark, the D90 scores better than the D3100. So the D90 has a larger dynamic range, better color sensitivity, etc. The 1.9 megapixel difference in resolution is likely not noticeable due to the fact that the D90 likely has a better low-pass filter sitting in front of the sensor (entry level DSLRs usually have the least expensive designs.)
The D90 is larger and nearly 1/2 pound heavier. A lighter body is easier to carry all day, but a larger body is easier to grip and hold steady. The D90 provides many customizable options that let you tune the camera to your way of doing things. For example, I have my meter and command dials reversed. There are also a host of functions that the D90 provides that aren’t available on the D3100. There’s the wireless remote, wireless flash commander, DOF preview, flash modeling light, Flash Value Lock, a top LCD that shows the status of the camera, and a motor drive for lenses that have no built in motor (like the ever popular and inexpensive 50mm f/1.8D lens.)
The D90’s many external controls invite you to play with its settings, such as direct control of ISO and white balance. With the D3100, nearly everything is done through the rear LCD. When you get used to the D90, it basically melts away in your hands as you press buttons and perform functions without thinking about it. With the D3100 you must always stop and manipulate the cursor on the rear LCD when making changes.
.
robtec88
Forum Enthusiast
Sorry to say but the D90 has Live View as well and they both perform about the same - sucky because they are both a DSLR!
Enjoihcky247
Leading Member
Hmm didn't realize that. Why you sorry?
I have live view on my D5000. It's actually damn good when manual focussing for macros.
I assume it's similar on the 90 and the 3100, if not better.
--
Truthful C&C appreciated. No need to sugar-coat things for me!
http://zsarnoldphotography.weebly.com/index.html
robtec88
Forum Enthusiast
As always with this line of questioning one must ask what are your intentions with the camera?
Do you take lots of action shots? Then the D90 is your choice as it's continuous shooting speed is 50% faster than the D3100.
If entering into DSLR video capture as your main use then the D3100 is the choice.
Do you want access to a wide variety of Nikon mount lenses? Then the D90 is the choice.
Is multiple flash photography something that interests you? Then the D90 is the choice, again!
These are just some of the questions you need to consider. You should also go to a camera store that will let you hold and take some in-store test shots with both models. Feel of the camera is real important - don't skip this step!
Out of curiosity, which Pentax model do you currently own and why are you looking to "jump ship" toward Nikon?
Cheers
Do you take lots of action shots? Then the D90 is your choice as it's continuous shooting speed is 50% faster than the D3100.
If entering into DSLR video capture as your main use then the D3100 is the choice.
Do you want access to a wide variety of Nikon mount lenses? Then the D90 is the choice.
Is multiple flash photography something that interests you? Then the D90 is the choice, again!
These are just some of the questions you need to consider. You should also go to a camera store that will let you hold and take some in-store test shots with both models. Feel of the camera is real important - don't skip this step!
Out of curiosity, which Pentax model do you currently own and why are you looking to "jump ship" toward Nikon?
Cheers
BeckyW
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks for your reply.
It feels like I am kind of being disloyal. I see photographers having a real love for their brand. Right now I am shooting with a Pentax K100d. It has really served me well and I have captured some wonderful memories with it. I don't have a huge amount invested in lens. I have the kit lens (18-65), a 50mm prime, and a 100-300 zoom lens. My 100-300 lens was bought back in the 90s when I had a Pentax film camera. Being able to use thie older lens that I had invested in was one thing that I liked about the Pentax brand.
I stopped by the only high end photo shop in town the other day to pick up some prints and was looking at what they carried. I've also considered the Pentax k-r. That store no longer carry Pentax cameras. They only carry Nikon and Canon now. I am finding myself in a lot of situations that I really need a lens in the 55-100 range. I have nothing in that range right now. If I am going to invest in more lenses, I thought I might step back and evaluate where I need to be brand wise.
The guy in the store showed me a D3100 and a Tamron 18-270 lens. The D3100 reminded me a lot of my K100d in size and weight. I have small thin hands and really love the feel of it. The 18-270 lens sounds like a dream. One lens that would cover lots of situations would be great. I recently read a thread on these boards that it is a bit too soft for the liking of those that posted. I was also looking at the 18-105 Nikon zoom lens. I would want to add a longer zoom lens as some point soon.
You asked how I use my camera. I am looking for a camera for family photographs. I love to take portraits of the kids. My son does a variety of sports. He plays soccer. The long lens is great for that. I was the team photographer this past year and was able to capture some pretty good shots of the kids with my 100-300 lens. I can only do 3 shots with the K100d before it has to pause and write to the card. That is one reason I am looking to upgrade. I am also hoping that sensors have improved and I can get better image quality. Both my kids do TaeKwonDo and test in a very low light auditorium. I use my 50mm prime and a high ISO to get shots there. I can't use a flash there. Actually, I don't even own an external flash. I find myself more and more in low light situations in gyms and auditoriums. Image quality in low light is a big factor to me.
I think it is kind of neat that cameras can do video now. That is not a main requirement for me. I do have a small Sony Handycam that travels well.
--
Becky
It feels like I am kind of being disloyal. I see photographers having a real love for their brand. Right now I am shooting with a Pentax K100d. It has really served me well and I have captured some wonderful memories with it. I don't have a huge amount invested in lens. I have the kit lens (18-65), a 50mm prime, and a 100-300 zoom lens. My 100-300 lens was bought back in the 90s when I had a Pentax film camera. Being able to use thie older lens that I had invested in was one thing that I liked about the Pentax brand.
I stopped by the only high end photo shop in town the other day to pick up some prints and was looking at what they carried. I've also considered the Pentax k-r. That store no longer carry Pentax cameras. They only carry Nikon and Canon now. I am finding myself in a lot of situations that I really need a lens in the 55-100 range. I have nothing in that range right now. If I am going to invest in more lenses, I thought I might step back and evaluate where I need to be brand wise.
The guy in the store showed me a D3100 and a Tamron 18-270 lens. The D3100 reminded me a lot of my K100d in size and weight. I have small thin hands and really love the feel of it. The 18-270 lens sounds like a dream. One lens that would cover lots of situations would be great. I recently read a thread on these boards that it is a bit too soft for the liking of those that posted. I was also looking at the 18-105 Nikon zoom lens. I would want to add a longer zoom lens as some point soon.
You asked how I use my camera. I am looking for a camera for family photographs. I love to take portraits of the kids. My son does a variety of sports. He plays soccer. The long lens is great for that. I was the team photographer this past year and was able to capture some pretty good shots of the kids with my 100-300 lens. I can only do 3 shots with the K100d before it has to pause and write to the card. That is one reason I am looking to upgrade. I am also hoping that sensors have improved and I can get better image quality. Both my kids do TaeKwonDo and test in a very low light auditorium. I use my 50mm prime and a high ISO to get shots there. I can't use a flash there. Actually, I don't even own an external flash. I find myself more and more in low light situations in gyms and auditoriums. Image quality in low light is a big factor to me.
I think it is kind of neat that cameras can do video now. That is not a main requirement for me. I do have a small Sony Handycam that travels well.
--
Becky
BeckyW
Forum Enthusiast
I think the smaller body would be more comfortable in my hands. I've been shooting with a Pentax k100d. I looked at a D3100 in a local store the other day and found that it reminded me of my k100d size wise. At the time I purchased my k100d, I passed over the k10d due to its size. I felt like I would be more inclined to take the smaller camera with me more and not end up leaving it at home.
I was looking at the Nikon 18-105 zoon lens to be a good walking around lens and looking for a camera to go with it.
I take a lot of photos of sporting events and such in low light auditoriums and am hoping to improve my image quality. Also I take a fair amount of outdoor sports shots and would like to have more continuous shots.
--
Becky
I was looking at the Nikon 18-105 zoon lens to be a good walking around lens and looking for a camera to go with it.
I take a lot of photos of sporting events and such in low light auditoriums and am hoping to improve my image quality. Also I take a fair amount of outdoor sports shots and would like to have more continuous shots.
--
Becky
2005magnum
Senior Member
D90 is a better built camera. The difference in IQ is virtually nil.
Cameras should be comfortable to use. Hold them both and move them around in your hands. Personally, I prefer a larger well built camera to a lighter plastic camera, but that is me.
--
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/
Cameras should be comfortable to use. Hold them both and move them around in your hands. Personally, I prefer a larger well built camera to a lighter plastic camera, but that is me.
--
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/
I read your needs becky and I think the D3100 would be a better camera for you... this is from someone who has both cameras.
IMHO the D3100 is a superior camera to the D90 in almost every way. People say the IQ is a dead heat and that the megapixel difference is negligible, but I beg to differ, the D3100 has better skintone, better high ISO, better WB, and the battery life is just as good or better, even though CIPA may say otherwise.
IMHO the D3100 is a superior camera to the D90 in almost every way. People say the IQ is a dead heat and that the megapixel difference is negligible, but I beg to differ, the D3100 has better skintone, better high ISO, better WB, and the battery life is just as good or better, even though CIPA may say otherwise.
jumpingjack
Leading Member
It is very similar in size to the D3100 but with the same upgraded low light sensor that comes in the D7000 and has a lot more features than the D3100.
It is an excellent small and light body that I think would serve your needs very well.
It is an excellent small and light body that I think would serve your needs very well.
HenryL
Leading Member
Probably a used D90 and a refurbed D3100 are close in price, but the D90 is probably a little bit more. A couple of other items in the D90's favor are the faster fps, 4.5 vs 3 for the D3100. Also has flash commander mode although pointless if you don't have a flash. The screen on the D90 has 920k pixels instead of the 230k pixels on the D3100. And if you ever get any old lenses, the D90 has the motor drive whereas the D3100 doesn't have it. Not a huge limiting factor. I still have the D40 and that just made me get just AF-S type lenses.
BeckyW
Forum Enthusiast
The D5100 sounds like a good option. I like that you say that it has a really good low light sensor. That is were I think I would most like to find improved image quality.
--
Becky
--
Becky
jumpingjack
Leading Member
It has an improved sensor both in resolution and high ISO / low noise over the D3100. Images taken at ISO 1600 and even 3200 are perfectly good and usable. Add in a cheap prime like the 35mm f1.8 and you are as set as you ever need to be for low light.
Add in an articulated screen, in-built HDR, Auto bracketing, selective colour (as well as other effects) a far higher resolution LCD, 30fps HD (if you shoot NSTC) and all these things add up to make it a more compelling option than the D3100. I haven't used a D90 though but it is in comparison, old technology. The D90 is also a larger and heavier body which of course some may see as a benefit.
Add in an articulated screen, in-built HDR, Auto bracketing, selective colour (as well as other effects) a far higher resolution LCD, 30fps HD (if you shoot NSTC) and all these things add up to make it a more compelling option than the D3100. I haven't used a D90 though but it is in comparison, old technology. The D90 is also a larger and heavier body which of course some may see as a benefit.
I went from a K100D Super to the D90 and am very happy with my choice.
--
Joel
My Location:
New Jersey, USA
My On-Line Album: http://home.comcast.net/~joelw135/Joels%20Photos/index.html
--
Joel
My Location:
New Jersey, USA
My On-Line Album: http://home.comcast.net/~joelw135/Joels%20Photos/index.html
jumpingjack
Leading Member
If you are particularly interested in low noise, here is a 1600 ISO sample straight out of the camera with just ambient light indoors of an evening.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum