# Will it be worth upgrading from the Nikon D3100 to the D90 ?



## arian29 (Jul 14, 2012)

Will it be worth upgrading from the Nikon D3100 to the D90 ?


----------



## coastalconn (Jul 14, 2012)

It depends on what you find lacking in the d3100 and what you shoot or plan on shooting?


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jul 14, 2012)

> Will it be worth upgrading from the Nikon D3100 to the D90 ?


Without the shade of a doubt, YES.
You'll find it a lot more convenient to get familiar with manual exposure than with your D3100, plus you get AF with old awesome lenses, plus you can control off-camera flashes wirelessly, plus you get a brighter viewfinder and an additional LCD screen and many additional buttons that make it a lot easier to change settings (exposure comp, AF mode, shutter delay, etc...).
Unless you just use your D3100 in auto mode and want to keep doing so, the D90 will open a world of possibilities for you.

PS: no intention of contradicting coastalconn... It DOES depend on "what you find lacking in the d3100 and what you shoot or plan on shooting" , but the cases in which upgrading the D90 would be helpful are the vast majority.


----------



## coastalconn (Jul 14, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> > Will it be worth upgrading from the Nikon D3100 to the D90 ?
> 
> 
> Unless you just use your D3100 in auto mode and want to keep doing so, the D90 will open a world of possibilities for you.​
> PS: no intention of contradicting coastalconn... It DOES depend on "what you find lacking in the d3100 and what you shoot or plan on shooting" , but the cases in which upgrading the D90 would be helpful are the vast majority.



Your actually not contradicting me at all   I personally can't stand entry level bodies D3k/D5K series.  I have a D90, D300 and IR D200.  But many people assume a better camera will give them better pictures.  When the truth is learning about photography will give you better pictures.  The body can make it easier and faster to better pictures(and much more fun to use).  I think it is only worth upgrading when your camera won't do something you want it to.


----------



## samithphotography (Jul 14, 2012)

If you have the money upgrade to a full frame camera (ie d700), if you just want to get better as a photographer, study photography! buying a better camera will not make you better. I would reccomend the d90 or better yet the d7000 for learning how to use the manual mode and all the other good stuff. Also, the lens is more important than the body by comparison.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 14, 2012)

We have the D90 and totally agree. aside from the extra features the body has, it will open up a lot more lenses that you can use and still AF with. and while that doesn't SOUND like a big deal, the ability to grab any AF Nikon lens and have it work on your camera can be a real plus when lens shopping.  Just an opinion though, so take it for what you will.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 14, 2012)

Glass before body.  Make your investments count.


----------



## arian29 (Jul 14, 2012)

what about upgrading it to D7000 ? currently i have the 16-65mm, 50mm and the 70-300mm vc


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 14, 2012)

arian29 said:
			
		

> what about upgrading it to D7000 ? currently i have the 16-65mm, 50mm and the 70-300mm vc



What isn't the d3100 doing ?
Unless you want more advanced features, I say no. Get glass and lighting. I have a d90 and love it but without lenses, it's pointless.


----------



## arian29 (Jul 14, 2012)

Well i like shooting in low light.. specially landscapes from hilltops where you have the city lights at the back.. etc. i was thinking the 7000 is better off in low light.. what say ? Also id i keep the 3100 which lens should i go for such situations ?


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 14, 2012)

I was having this same inner conflict earlier in the week.  To me, the only advantage of the d90 is being able to use the older lenses and purchasing lenses without built in motor.  That in itself does have some weight when considering.

When you side by side compare them, there is not much else different.  the d3100 is a perfectly capable little camera.  If I were going to buy new...in my opinion, I would personally need to upgrade to a D7000 or better for it to be "worth" it to me.

I even considered buying the one on here for sale for 500 and use my 3100 as a backup.  500 is not a bad price at all for a well cared for d90.


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 14, 2012)

arian29 said:


> Well i like shooting in low light.. specially landscapes from hilltops where you have the city lights at the back.. etc. i was thinking the 7000 is better off in low light.. what say ? Also id i keep the 3100 which lens should i go for such situations ?




the 3100 is perfectly capable of shooting in low light, much of it depends on your glass.  It really all depends on what you are shooting, but you'll want a fast lens to be able to capture the light that is present.

These were taken earlier this week, obviously quite low light.  I'm happy with the D3100's performance...it exceeded my expectations a bit.  I'm sure it could have even done better....anything lacking you might see is most likely me not the camera.  I used an old manual focus 50mm 1.4 lens.


----------

