Wouldn't it be an upgrade? The sensor is larger, thus the pixel size is larger, thus less noise?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is a good upgrade from the D90?
- Thread starter Neophyte1200
- Start date
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
D7k is a strong update of the D90 more than expected. But the price went up a lot as well so that kind of counter balances it a bit.
Some of the stuff is very decent improvements wise, on the other hand I did not care much for the metering of the D7k I felt it was not as good as the D90 despite having many more zones. That's subjective of course
Dual cards, part mag alloy build, more % VF coverage, nicer sensor..these are all solid updated. On the other hand if you don't need them it's maybe not a big deal to some.
Crushes is a bit OTT for my own tastes. Reality is right now if the D7k worth the extra price over a D90..that is down to each person to decide.
nfpotter
Senior Member
All very true. The D90 is still a VERY good camera, overall.
qmiddleton
Member
All these cameras are a 'good upgrade' EXCEPT the D3200. The D3200 is actually quite a downgrade from the D90; they both have the same LCD screen, but the D90 has a top LCD screen which come quite handy, it has a better prism system (pentaprism rather than a pentamirror which is in the D3200 (the pentaprism is 0.96x rather than a 0.8x which means it's a brighter viewfinder which allows better AF)), it has a better built-in flash (17m at 100 ISO rather than 12m at 100 ISO), and a 4.5fps drive rate which will be a lot faster than 4fps in the D3200. You also get 5 WB settings in the D90 instead of just 1 in the D3200, and you get bracketing and WB bracketing, which is really useful.
The D7000 is yes the newer model of the D90, but the D90 is still an excellent camera. If you're wanting to go for a better upgrade rather than a newer model, I would go for any of the bodies listed in the quote above EXCEPT the D3200, especially if you're wanting to have more manual control and not be restricted to your control. The only things it offers that's better than the D90 is better video, and more MP. But the pixel count does not make the camera better, usually.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d90&products=nikon_d3200
nfpotter
Senior Member
Sort of. Usually a bigger sensor means less noise, but not always. However, that's not what I'm talking about.
A 300mm lens on a FF camera is 300mm. A 300mm lens APS-C (Nikon DX 1.5x crop factor) is equivalent to 450mm on FF. So if you're shooting stuff that's far away, like wildlife, a DX format camera gives you about 1/3 more reach.
That's true, and it's the reason I have a D7000 and a D700. BUT, if I had to choose one body to keep, it would hands down be the D700. If you are shooting good glass, a $450 1.7x teleconverter will give you more reach than your DX camera did. A 2x will get even closer for about the same investment. And high ISO is at least 1.5 stops better than the D7000.That is why I will never use it over the D700 for paid dance recital photos. I routinely shoot ISO 4000 to get 1/400 to 1/500 shutter speeds I need for low-light action with the D700. The D7000 is no where near clean enough for that kind of shooting. Respectable, yes, but still not good enough. DX is better for a few things for sure, but FX has the edge in far more areas...period.
--
K.B.
Of course it would be. There's a reason FF cameras cost more - they deliver more. Not even counting the superior high ISO capability, FX images have a richness that I have never seen from any DX camera, not even the D7000 (and it's arguably about the best out there). You cannot deny physics, and a larger sensor has a big advantage in quality (and quantity) of light captured...
--
K.B.
Stuart001
Leading Member
The silliness of taking this argument to its logical conclusion can't be lost on your, surely? You seem to be saying that the D7000 is better at a distance simply because the sensor is smaller, then surely it holds that the smaller the sensor the better? That's ridiculous.
I know that this is a 'gear' forum, but what is the gear for? For taking photographs. That's it. The fact is that 'image quality' has a lot more to do with the eye of the photographer than the equipment used. Others on other threads have made the point too. I don't deny that using the best gear makes a good photograph easier to pull off, but a boring photograph is a boring photograph, no matter if it's at 6MP and fuzzy or 60MP and pin-sharp.
TFergus
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,188
- Reaction score
- 118
Way better with noise, better IQ, better DR, better body, way faster performance, working AF...etc, etc, etc.
Of course it's an upgrade.
(His anger management therapist hasn't gotten to the part about allowing others to have a differing opinion yet).
Stuart001
Leading Member
Couldn't agree more. If FF wasn't better at just about everything, professionals wouldn't use them. You can use a D7000 with a 400mm for wildlife photos or a FF with a 600mm. Pro wildlife shooters use MF with the right lenses. More expensive, sure, but the result is better.
The arguments nfpotter keeps making reminds me of the old tailor's saying, 'Never mind the quality, feel the width!'.
nfpotter
Senior Member
Oh, yeah, I forgot - better noise (the D7K and D700 and VERY VERY CLOSE, and the difference between DX and FX gets closer with every new generation), "better IQ" which is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE, better body - eh, D700 and D300 pretty damn close, and what about the whiners that complain about weight (not me), and faster - yeah I should hope so, duh. My D7K's AF work VERY well.
Strap that 600mm on DX and you've got 900mm through quality glass.
That is hilarious. SOMETIMES pros shoot FF for wildlife. Quite commonly, though, they use a crop factor camera for the extra reach. Thom Hogan, for example. Check it out. Many, many others. They'll take a D3-something, and a D300, etc. I'm not making it up, read or ask some pros.
Stuart001
Leading Member
Ah me. Some people just don't get it, and go about their lives with blinkers on and fingers in their ears squealing 'I'm not listening! I'm not listening'. You suggest that a D300 is great because Thom Hogan uses one for wildlife--fantastic. It's an older camera than the D90, with which it shares a sensor, focusing and screen... The difference was largely build quality, with the D300 being designed for pro use. Apart from that they are pretty much the same. ('No they're not! No they're not!' I can hear the squeals already.)
I like Thom Hogan's gear reviews, but he is not really a 'pro' photographer in the true sense--he wouldn't claim he was, I'm sure. He makes money from photography, but that's a different thing. I know many photography teachers who aren't professional photographers. Read his CV: http://bythom.com/thom.htm
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good harangue!
nfpotter
Senior Member
Eh. Trust me, I get it, and well more than you could throw at me.
I won't disagree that the D90 and D300 and largely the same camera. I've always said the same thing. BTW, I have owned a D300 for a couple years...
You're not reading between the lines, at all. Sure, I'd love a a D3-whatever, or a D4, and a 600mm f/4 VR, and a bunch of other top-end glass. However, that's not realistic, for most of us.
SO....
When a bunch of people say something general like "full frame is always better", they're encouraging beginners, and even non-beginners to think they "need" a FF camera to be a good photo. Horse crap, as I'm sure you'll agree.
How many people do you see on these kind of forums that come on board as a newbie, then quite shortly thereafter are posting "I'm thinking about 'upgrading' to FF". Lots, and you know it.
Perhaps you see my point better now?
Sorry, but the D7000 is not "very, very close" in high ISO performance. I regularly shoot both bodies, and the only reason I even take the D7000 with me on dance and sports shoots, is for emergency use (if the D700 were to take a crap in the middle of something important, which it hasn't). The ISO 4000-5000, even 6400 that I must shoot with the D700, with very impressive results, looks like garbage if shot that high using the D7k, when compared side-by-side). ISO 2000, maybe 2500, is the absolute limit for anything I'd feel comfortable selling with the D7k. It really goes to pot any higher than that. Don't get me wrong, it's impressive for a crop sensor, but don't try to equate it with a D700. I personally put the IQ at high ISO at about 1.5 stops better for the D700, and I've looked at hundreds of comparison shots.
Like I said before, the D7000 is a great camera. I love mine for certain things. It's a nice enthusiast camera, approaching pro capability...but it does not hold a candle to the D700. And it is obliterated by the likes of D3s and D4. Sorry to burst your bubble, but someone has to wake you up to reality. As a user of both cameras, I feel like a qualified deliverer of the wake-up-call...
--
K.B.
Like I said before, the D7000 is a great camera. I love mine for certain things. It's a nice enthusiast camera, approaching pro capability...but it does not hold a candle to the D700. And it is obliterated by the likes of D3s and D4. Sorry to burst your bubble, but someone has to wake you up to reality. As a user of both cameras, I feel like a qualified deliverer of the wake-up-call...
--
K.B.
nfpotter
Senior Member
My point stills stands, even if you were right.
Sammy Yousef
Senior Member
That makes no sense. What kind of camera user can operate a D90 just fine but struggles with a D7000? These 2 cameras have very similar controls. If it's so much harder to get good results out of it, it's a worse camera. Period. A good camera shouldn't be getting in the way.
If I hear one more person scream "user error" because someone doesn't get along with a particualr camera I'm going to tear my hair out.
--
Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.
Sammy Yousef
Senior Member
Truely I don't understand it. I would hope the D7000 does not give you Parkinsons or Dementure when you pick one up, so insulting people by telling them it is their basic skill focusing a camera - something any healthy person can learn or be taught quickly if they have a keen interest in photograph - is unhelpful. The difference is not the shooter, it is the camera.
What kind of fool feels the need to feel superior to others on an Internet board by claiming superior skills at holding a camera steady and not moving it between prefocus and shoot? I could teach that to a sufficiently interested 8 year old. Go find a real skill to be proud of. There are much tougher things in and out of photgraphy to master.
Letting a camera company get away with selling advanced models with defects , then blaming the user instead of pulling them up for it, ensures quality goes down over time. Why should a camera company bother to make working cameras and improve their quality control if people are just going to buy whatever garbage they put out then put down others if they're lucky enough to have a good copy?
Look a general message to those happy with their D7000: if you got a copy of a D7000 that focuses well, doesn't splatter oil all over the sensor, and performs acceptably for your application in terms of dead pixels, that's great for you. It's not because you're some superior photographer. You got lucky. Stop being obnoxious.
I'm just tired of the nonsense.
By the way I don't own a D7000 and I have a long list of reasons. No cheap clone batteries. Price (bang for buck vs D90). Love the features but most of them won't improve my photography. Owned a lot of cards and cameras and never had a camera card die and take out my photos yet, and I'm not a pro who regularly shoots things that can't be repeated. Already consider the D90's focusing to be one of it's weaknesses, would hate to downgrade on that. HATED cleaning sensor on the D70, don't need to on a couple of D90s yet, and I'm not going to buy any camera that requires me to go back to doing that with the wrong tools (because the right ones cost a mint in Australia).
If I could justify a D7000 and could guarantee a good one the things that would matter would be the slight improvement to DR and ISO performance (Yes I said slight), and there would be certain shots where the increased resolution or frame rate would matter. There are occasional events where the second card slot for backup would be handy. I can live without all these things for now, and I WILL NOT buy an expensive camera from a company who's quality control has gone down while wasting its' time on protectionist chipping of batteries to prevent cheap clones.
--
Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.
Stuart001
Leading Member
Sorry, but I don't think that you do. I have no issue with the D7000 being a fine camera, as is the D90 and the D5100. No one is saying that anyone HAS to have anything--that's the point. One buys what one needs, wants or can afford. But that doesn't mean that a D7000 is the best thing since sliced bread. You said earlier "Get a D7000. Crushes the D90 in every single aspect." It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. And it sounds to me as though it is YOU telling people what they must have, and if they don't have a D7000 their cameras are crap.
You say that a DX is better for wildlife--it isn't. It may give you better 'crop factor' which is just saying that the sensor isn't as big. Thanks for that, but isn't it obvious?
That today's DX sensors are getting better is a fact--but so are the FX sensors. Look at the D800. But just because people can't afford an FX or feel that they don't need one--and most people don't need one--it doesn't change what is fact.
"What is better" is a meaningless statement. It must be "what is better for a given situation". If I'm taking the stuff I usually take, I use a D700. If I'm heading to a party, I take my D90. If I want quality, I'll break out my 4x5. The lens cost me close to what I paid for my D700. I don't use it much any more, but a well scanned transparency gives me a file around 300Mb. It has limitations though, and while it has better IQ than any digital camera (including MF) it's cumbersome. It isn't "better" for most of what I shoot.
And I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone buys one over a point&shoot, if that is what they need.
activator
Leading Member
Its horses for courses...........for me there are not enough real world advantages over the D90 for me to upgrade to a 7000.........and I dont need a FX camera.
For the upgrade I could buy myself a great second hand 105 micro which will be worth the same in 5 years time.
But thats my choice ..............I also drive an old car
barry
For the upgrade I could buy myself a great second hand 105 micro which will be worth the same in 5 years time.
But thats my choice ..............I also drive an old car
barry
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum