# Keep D90 and put money into a better lens or purchase a D7000?



## lance70 (Jun 14, 2012)

Hi, what's your opinion, I have a D90 with 2700 on the shutter count. I only have the basic kit lens 18-105, would you put the money into a better lens for this body or upgrade to a D7000? ​


----------



## Geaux (Jun 14, 2012)

Can't go wrong with good glass.  What's your reasoning behind upgrading bodies, besides the want for something newer?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 14, 2012)

I have the exact same question as the OP.  I have the D90 and the D40.  If I sell both of them and perhaps throw in some more $$$, I can upgrade to the D7000 body.  It's newer technology and I understand has better low light capabilities than the D90.

Isn't that reason enough?


----------



## Geaux (Jun 14, 2012)

Depends on you need the lower light capabilities really.  If you shoot in low light situations a lot, then sure its worth it, but if you have a bounce flash or fast glass, then it's not.  But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## lance70 (Jun 14, 2012)

Hmmmm honestly I think that's it LOL, I do like the feel of the D7000 better, but I don't have any technical reason for wanting that body over the D90.


----------



## Geaux (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm a d90 owner and tossed around the idea of a d7000 when it first came out too, but just added some lenses to my arsenal and still happy with my decision of staying.  MAYBE the new d600 full frame, if its 1500, would be a good upgrade for me.  Until that, I'm satisfied.

Hard to justify getting a new body if you only have one lens, a new lens can open up things you didn't realize with your d90.

My lenses: sigma 10-20, nikkor 35mm 1.8, tamron 18-270, sigma 85mm 1.4


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Good glass is very expensive.  It's a faster and cheaper route to low light photos with the D7000 than with the 24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 14, 2012)

Lens


----------



## lance70 (Jun 14, 2012)

I was really interested in a good wide angle lens since my wife and I travel to the mountains a few times a year.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Jun 14, 2012)

New glass. The D90 is a very capable camera. I have a D80 and am still getting the shots I want out of it. The only reason to get a new camera for most hobbiests is if their old one just starts falling apart. For professionals- new features like video and new plug in capabilities and higher resolution all factor in but do you really need any of that? Invest in glass. You will be able to use the same good lenses you buy for your d90 on the d7000 down the road and then you will have a better grasp on what you are doing with your camera.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 14, 2012)

Okay, then is there anything wrong with shooting portraits with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on my D90?


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 14, 2012)

I'd go glass.  I've considered upgrading my D3100 to a D7000 several times, but always come back to either not spending the money, getting new/better glass or in the most recent case, getting a portable that I really loved (Lumix LX5).  New bodies are nice, but if you're even wavering, I think new glass is the better upgrade.  Don't move to a new body until you HAVE to.  I probably won't upgrade my body until I'm ready to have a second body, and then it will probably be to a full frame.  

Also remember that selling camera bodies doesn't get near the return on your investment that selling glass does.  If you buy glass and move on later, you can get a lot of your money back in the resell market.  Not the same for bodies.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 14, 2012)

Glass is an investment, bodies are an expenditure.  About the time you get that d7000, the d7100 will come out.


----------



## ratssass (Jun 14, 2012)

...i'm kinda on the other side of the fence......I "think" i'm looking to buy a D90 as a second body.I have the D7000 and absolutely love it.I shoot mainly drag racing at a few local tracks,and a second body fired from the 7000 would help me tremendously.As far as glass goes,i have the 18-105 which gives great results,the 55-200 that i rarely use,and the 50 1.8,that i use %30-%40 of the time.While I would love faster glass (which i will have,in due time),right now,i think i need more coverage.When I do buy the 90,I have no reservations about another 18-105 in front of it.........


----------



## rgregory1965 (Jun 14, 2012)

Waiting for all these D90 bodies to hit the for sale forum....cash in hand.


----------



## myko5 (Jun 14, 2012)

rgregory1965 said:
			
		

> Waiting for all these D90 bodies to hit the for sale forum....cash in hand.



There are d90's for sale in the buy/sell section.


----------



## wellbeloved747 (Jun 14, 2012)

no point in having an amazing body when you don't have a lens to match


----------



## myko5 (Jun 14, 2012)

I have a D90, and after not having it very long I wanted to get a D7000. I honestly don't have a good reason other then I think it's a better camera and would take me longer to be able to use it to its capabilities. More of an I want than an I need.
Anyways, I ended up buying a couple of better lenses then my kits lens. Am I happy I got them first, yes. Do I still want the d7000, of course. 
Basically it all comes down to your needs or wants and the money your willing to spend to be happy with you gear. There is always something bigger and better as soon as you buy something new.


----------



## ratssass (Jun 14, 2012)

Sigma 24-70 2.8 I Sigma 70-200 2.8 II Macro
myko5........thats exactly the glass i want after another body........


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Jun 14, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Okay, then is there anything wrong with shooting portraits with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on my D90?



I have that lens and love it but would not use it for portraits. There is a lot of distortion and you have to invade peoples space to really fill the frame


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 14, 2012)

Congrats and good choice to up your glass over want of D7000. Yep portrait shooting starts to become problematic under 35mm or so. Due to distortion. And your other lenses Nikkor 50mm 1.8G I Sigma 24-70 2.8 I Sigma 70-200 2.8 II Macro are much better for doing portrait works with the 11-16 for landscape and buildings works.
.


----------



## coastalconn (Jun 15, 2012)

My vote is to upgrade lens for now or wait and see what the next round of nikons will be, but you will still need better glass!


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 15, 2012)

with good technique and skill, upgrading to good glass you'll get a significant improvement, and be better prepared for a better body down the line, not to mention that high end glass holds it's value really well, and will last longer than your lifespan with proper care...upgrading the body will be a marginal improvment, hold it's value worse, and need to be upgraded sooner (I believe the D7000 is on the block to get replaced in the somewhat near future)...

personally, I'd consider the D7000 closer to a lateral move, it is an upgraded newer camera body from the D90, but its not a significant upgrade IMO. once you have some good higher end glass, then I'd start looking at FX bodies, which should be even more plentiful and less expensive in the future. their low light and overall performance will be quite a bit better than the D7000 or D90....but until then IMO the D90 is a very capable body...


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 15, 2012)

> _"I'd consider the D7000 closer to a lateral move, it is an upgraded newer  camera body from the D90, but its not a significant upgrade IMO."_



Yep my D90 pretty much sated any desire for the most part for a D7000. And covers about 90% of my shooting needs. And fast better glass will always breathe new life into a camera making it more usable in more situations.
.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jun 15, 2012)

Yesterday I had a photo I had taken with my D90 at 400 ISO printed 18 x 12 inches (45 x 30 cm) and it was tremendously sharp, no noise, no artifacts at all, etc...

True, I had used the 50 AF-D prime at F/8... but it shows that the sensor is still pretty good, although surpassed by more recent models.

If the only lens you have is the 18-105, I would say LENSES with no hesitation. For portraits, get a prime 50 or 85 F/1.8. For landscapes, get a wide angle. For sports or wildlife get a 70-300 (or better stuff if you have budget). Or you could also put the money towards a Lightroom license 

Ciao!


----------



## PicMaker (Jun 15, 2012)

I have stopped myself getting a D7000 because I need better glass first. The other reason is because I'm behind in terms that I still don't know everything about the camera I've got.

If I could go backwards, I would have got the D3100, good glass, learned how to use it properly, and shot the pants out of it. 

Good glass is the way forward, and I wish I had listened to that advice (which EVERYONE with experience tell you) but I didn't. 

A D90 is an awesome camera and better than top of the range about 10 years years ago. Add good glass to it and you will be amazed.


----------



## lance70 (Jun 15, 2012)

Thanks for all the help, after reading this and thinking about it, putting the money into a lens is the way to go!..... I'm going to start looking around today for a wide angle lens for landscape  thanks again.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 15, 2012)

Glass over an upgrade from a D90 anyday, new lenses can be huge upgrades. The D7000 is only a slight upgrade over the D90, not a huge one. 

Get rid of your kit lenses and get some real glass! I did it recently and I have no regrets.

Just to so you know, I've said it before and I will say it again. Ultra wide angle lenses are hopeless for landscapes IF YOU do not learn how to use them. This is an important point, alot of UWA landscapes I see posted are complete junk because the photographer did not even bother to consider the foreground.


----------



## lance70 (Jun 15, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Glass over an upgrade from a D90 anyday, new lenses can be huge upgrades. The D7000 is only a slight upgrade over the D90, not a huge one.
> 
> Get rid of your kit lenses and get some real glass! I did it recently and I have no regrets.
> 
> Just to so you know, I've said it before and I will say it again. Ultra wide angle lenses are hopeless for landscapes IF YOU do not learn how to use them. This is an important point, alot of UWA landscapes I see posted are complete junk because the photographer did not even bother to consider the foreground.





I read that on the net a few times too, hmmmm not sure what lens to get then, I was looking at the Tokina 11-16mm.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 15, 2012)

lance70 said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > Glass over an upgrade from a D90 anyday, new lenses can be huge upgrades. The D7000 is only a slight upgrade over the D90, not a huge one.
> ...



You have to think of it as a foreground lens really, these lens suit some people and don't suit others. Alot of the people who claim to love ultra wide angle lenses don't use them properly and rarely produce decent images with them, I would say the people who produce great Ultra wide angle images are in the minority. This is because they require true skill to use properly. This is not to say that you would not produce great images with it if you learnt how to use it and they sure are fun lenses to use. If ultra wide inspires you, then why not get one?

But in your position, I would head for a fast lens such as a Sigma 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 or even a macro lens if you like close ups, you really will start to see the value of fast lenses if you get one. Not to mention the BOKEHHH effect.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jun 15, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> The D7000 is only a slight upgrade over the D90, not a huge one.



Lot of people have said that I have read (including in this thread), but I'm wondering how many have used a D7000 over the D90 for a period of time and worked with the RAW files (over 5,000 of them). I thought the same thing until I upgraded. Soon I realized the AF system in the D7000 is on another level compared to the D90. The DR that the D7000 is on a whole 'nother level. The ISO capabilities is at at least 1.5 stops better. I don't mind going up to 1600, and I'll hestitate before 3200 on the D7k, but I would do everything I could to avoid going over 800 on the D90. True, though, that good glass is good no matter what body you put it on. For me as a hobbiest, I didn't need/want to wait until my D90 was broken to upgrade. Fark that. I sold it and bought the D7000. Best move. I already had good glass for what I shoot, so. Not to mention the increase in MP greatly helped.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jun 15, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > The D7000 is only a slight upgrade over the D90, not a huge one.
> ...



I agree with you about DR, the D7000 is superior no doubt about it. Specially in lifting the shadows, its fantastic.

But I certainly do not fear using my D90 above ISO 800, I have used ISO 3200 very happily on my D90 before when it was needed. I have used ISO 1600 for some macro shots of Bees and have hardly any visable noise at the end of it because I exposed properly, the D90 is no slouch when it comes to High ISO shooting in my opinion and have never found it to be.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jun 15, 2012)

Lots of situations in macro (which is the vast majority of my shooting) that it is neccessary to pull that ISO up to get the background not to be pitch black. The D90 was less than pleasing in this regard. I guess for most persons that D90 does just fine, but it wasn't for me.


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 15, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> I already had good glass for what I shoot,



this is why it was a good move for you to upgrade to the D7000....for the OP with only a kit lens, the improvement from a high end lens will be much more significant than a body change...

the D7000 is definitely a better body, but both the 90 and 7000 are on a similar level, with the D7000 being a newer generation with newer technology....now going from a D90 to a full frame I would consider a significant body upgrade, but I'd still say glass first if he was asking about that too.

on a side note, while the D7000 is a great APS-C sensor body, it is a few years old, I wouldn't be suprised if nikon releases a newer version of it this year, and with the crazy increases in sensor and imagehandling that nikon has been putting out, I'm interested in what the successor is...


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 15, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Lots of situations in macro (which is the vast majority of my shooting) that it is neccessary to pull that ISO up to get the background not to be pitch black. The D90 was less than pleasing in this regard. I guess for most persons that D90 does just fine, but it wasn't for me.



I agree, I shoot in many situations in less than ideal lighting, and have no control over it. when I had my D90, it was a great body (my first digital one from when I switched from film in fact), but I'm a bit OCD about noise personally, and the D90 didn't perform as I wanted in those areas, I tried the D7000 but didn't feel it was enough of an improvement for me, and I ended up going to full frame.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 15, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:
			
		

> Lot of people have said that I have read (including in this thread), but I'm wondering how many have used a D7000 over the D90 for a period of time and worked with the RAW files (over 5,000 of them). I thought the same thing until I upgraded. Soon I realized the AF system in the D7000 is on another level compared to the D90. The DR that the D7000 is on a whole 'nother level. The ISO capabilities is at at least 1.5 stops better. I don't mind going up to 1600, and I'll hestitate before 3200 on the D7k, but I would do everything I could to avoid going over 800 on the D90. True, though, that good glass is good no matter what body you put it on. For me as a hobbiest, I didn't need/want to wait until my D90 was broken to upgrade. Fark that. I sold it and bought the D7000. Best move. I already had good glass for what I shoot, so. Not to mention the increase in MP greatly helped.



99% reviews show only 1/3-1/2 stop better low light high iso. The AF and DR is definitely superior.  



			
				Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> I agree with you about DR, the D7000 is superior no doubt about it. Specially in lifting the shadows, its fantastic.
> 
> But I certainly do not fear using my D90 above ISO 800, I have used ISO 3200 very happily on my D90 before when it was needed. I have used ISO 1600 for some macro shots of Bees and have hardly any visable noise at the end of it because I exposed properly, the D90 is no slouch when it comes to High ISO shooting in my opinion and have never found it to be.



Same here. Proper exposure is key. I've shot up to 6400 and was actually surprised it didn't look like shipoopie. Not as good as below 3200 lol but it was ok.


I'm happy with my d90. I don't shoot in places where I need higher than 3200 ISO nor a sick af system . If I did, I would go d700 or better. 

OP. A body upgrade will be nice but only as good as the glass in front.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 15, 2012)

get both!  better body and better lens


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 15, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> get both!  better body and better lens



Hahaha. If money permits, that would be nice. We may have to work a deal out. There isn't any good d700's up my way. I might have to get you a finders fee.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jun 15, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just going off my experience with both cameras not reviews on ISO.

Many times when shooting the macros I need to hold a certain shutter speed and iris size so I have to bump up the ISO to compensate because the flashes I use don't put out enough light more than a foot away from front element when nicely diffused. I guess the D90, in my case, wasn't cutting where as the D7000 does. If the D90 is cutting it for the OP then go for glass. It's that simple.


----------



## abhishekdg (Jun 15, 2012)

Well I have a D90 and even I am planning on an upgrade someday to full frame. But the plan as of now is to slowly make a collection of the full frame lenses and then once the arsenal is more or less according to what you had wanted get the body.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 15, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:
			
		

> Just going off my experience with both cameras not reviews on ISO.
> 
> Many times when shooting the macros I need to hold a certain shutter speed and iris size so I have to bump up the ISO to compensate because the flashes I use don't put out enough light more than a foot away from front element when nicely diffused. I guess the D90, in my case, wasn't cutting where as the D7000 does. If the D90 is cutting it for the OP then go for glass. It's that simple.



IIRC if all the variables are the same, the exposure should be the same.  The quality MAY look different based on the resolution DR, etc. but the exposure should look the same.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, just telling from my real world experience shooting over 30,000 macro frames in the past two or so years with the D90 and D7000.


----------

