# Shopping for an upgrade to a D90



## DaveAndHolly219 (Mar 6, 2017)

Hi everyone,

I'm in the market for a Nikon DSLR body to serve as an upgrade to my wife's D90.  The plan is do get a better body to replace it and move the D90 to backup/second camera duty.  She shoots mostly weddings, family portraits, and concerts.   Low light performance and AF speed are very important, especially for concerts.

I'm looking to spend up to $750, and with that in mind, I want to buy used to maximize return for the dollar.

Hit me with your suggestions!!!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2017)

Used Nikon D600. Keep in mind, MOST any newer Nikon body will be an ISO improvement over the D90, and an overall dynamic range improvement, and in general, a REALLY significant step up in poor light from what the older D90 could do. Body-wise, if she wants a two-button camera, then the D7100 used would be a good DX-Nikon choice. I would skip the D7000, at any price.
I might consider a low-cost $750 D700 FX camera, but worry about its age now.

I dunno...other people might have more specific ideas, like a D3xxx or D5xxx series camera. But I think the D7100 and D600 are actual "upgrades" from the D90. The D600 is not without some issues however.


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Mar 6, 2017)

Looks like Adorama has a really good selection on used Nikon bodies.  Any other sites I should be checking out?

Nikon D600 24.3 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera Body


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2017)

For used, KEH.com is a big, well-known dealer.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 7, 2017)

For the price D600 cant be beaten, if you cant get one then another option will be used Nikon D7100
Or if you want new then Maybe Nikon D5300 or Nikon D5500


----------



## greybeard (Mar 7, 2017)

DaveAndHolly219 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm in the market for a Nikon DSLR body to serve as an upgrade to my wife's D90.  The plan is do get a better body to replace it and move the D90 to backup/second camera duty.  She shoots mostly weddings, family portraits, and concerts.   Low light performance and AF speed are very important, especially for concerts.
> 
> ...



My suggestion.

Amazon.com: refurbished d7100


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Mar 7, 2017)

greybeard said:


> DaveAndHolly219 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> ...



I was pretty much sold on a used D600.  Any reason in particular you like the D7100 over it?


----------



## greybeard (Mar 7, 2017)

It has the same size, all be it much improved, sensor as your D90 and will work with any of your DX lenses.  The D600 is a FF sensor and will require FX lenses which you may or may not already have.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2017)

The D600 can actually use DX lenses, in DX mode. It can shoot DX or FX sized images.

What lenses do you have on hand?


----------



## Mashburn (Mar 8, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Used Nikon D600. Keep in mind, MOST any newer Nikon body will be an ISO improvement over the D90, and an overall dynamic range improvement, and in general, a REALLY significant step up in poor light from what the older D90 could do. Body-wise, if she wants a two-button camera, then the D7100 used would be a good DX-Nikon choice. I would skip the D7000, at any price.
> I might consider a low-cost $750 D700 FX camera, but worry about its age now.
> 
> I dunno...other people might have more specific ideas, like a D3xxx or D5xxx series camera. But I think the D7100 and D600 are actual "upgrades" from the D90. The D600 is not without some issues however.


My first camera 8 years ago was a d7000. And just last year I took it to a d7200 only because of the low pass filter being removed. 

My d7000 I use it as a backup on any day. 

And only reason to get a FX to me is to get that nice "close" shot within ten feet. Or for astrophotography. After that I just don't really see a point in them. Unless you really consider another stop of ISO to be that important (but then in the case I would go d500 and call me set for another ten years). 

So if I was to go FX it would be to get the d600. But the d3s is tempting. D3s is hands down better to me in ISO, shutter speed, continuous shooting, fucus points, and etc. Only down side is the MP of 12. But I actually like that if you are budding it a lot of **** that you are not cropping in a lot on. But that is just right outside of the ops buying. But sometimes on a rainy day, I've seen them go for 1100$.

Sent from my XT1650 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## nerwin (Mar 8, 2017)

Honestly, any newer camera than D90 will yield better image quality because of the improvement of the technology. The Nikon D90 came out in 2008! Nearly 10 years old at this point.

Heck, even the D3400 will have better image quality and better high ISO performance. But I wouldn't go from a D90 to a D3400, because you will miss out on dual control dials and other features only found in those higher end models. 

So I'm going to recommend the D7100 because it fits in your budget and since you are using the D90, I'm assuming you primarily have DX glass.  If you can push the budget further you may be able to obtain a D7200 or D600.


----------



## DaveAndHolly219 (Mar 8, 2017)

Derrel said:


> The D600 can actually use DX lenses, in DX mode. It can shoot DX or FX sized images.
> 
> What lenses do you have on hand?



50mm 1.8
18-105mm 3.5-5.6
55-200mm 4-5.6


----------



## shadowlands (Mar 8, 2017)

D600, I agree.... sell the 18-105 & 55-200 and keep that 50mm!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2017)

I dunno...I shot with 24x36mm film format cameras from the mid-1970's until 2001, and built up Nikon lenses for that format: 24,28,35,50,85,105,180,300mm primes, extension tubes, flashes, a 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E zoom. That was my main kit from 1985 to 2001. I went to DX wqith the D1 in early 2001, and shot nothing but DX format until 2006 with a Canon 5D, and then in 2012 with a FX Nikon D3x; to me, personally, I never liked what DX does to every full-frame-capable lens mounted on it: it changes the way the lenses work.

To people who learned photography ON DX...they seem to be happy with how it shoots, how it works with various lenses. You mentioned weddings,portraits, and so on. I personally think the larger sensor of FX gives better quality than the smaller sensor of DX, at the same MP count. So, D600 versus the concvurrent D7100 camera: I think the bigger "negative" makes the better portrait, wedding, event camera, with I think, better crop-ability for closer-range shooting of events, people, and so on.

I think that for people, what the FX format brings to the 24-70, 24-85, and the 80-200 and 70-200 lenses, as well as what it does for the 24,35,50,85 lens lengths makes the D600 the better choice. The D7100 has a very small buffer in RAW mode, which is probably its Achilles heel.

I think that 24MP on Nikon FX is a sweet, sweet spot in terms of how GREAT it shoots with a 24mm, a 35mm, a 50mm, and an 85mm. For weddings: want to shoot a bridal full length couple shot with the SPECTACULAR 85/1.8 AF-S G lens? And need 8.45 feet of picture height to frame the couple within? On a D600, you need to be 20 feet away with the camera in tall mode. With a DX Nikon, you need to be 34 feet back with the same lens. Indoors on DX, the 50mm becomes a short tele, and is too long much of the time, and the 85mm indoors is a *very* narrow-angle telephoto.


----------

