# Worth upgrading from a d90 to a d7000



## ThornleyGroves (Sep 27, 2010)

Title says it all, but i really like the idea of this new sensor and also the 16.whatever MP. just don't know if it's worth upgrading to the d7000 from my current d90, and using the d90 as a secondary body, or even selling the d90 and buying a nice new lens.... From what i've read and hear the d7000 is similar to the d700 jsut alot less bulkier and an even 'better' sensor. Also should i sell the d90 and get a good bit of glass, or keep it and use it as a second body which would come in handy for my general shooting and sports especially basketball... 

Cheers for the help guys


----------



## rpm (Sep 27, 2010)

the D7000 is a D90 replacement, DX camera, not a FF unit. 

the sensor should be better, given the advances in technology but whether its worth it depends on what the D90 isnt giving you and what you feel the D7000 will give you.

but honestly no one will really be able to tell you much as its still simply on paper and there hasnt been anything concrete yet. but on a theoretical level, if that is the D90 replacement, the D300/D700 replacements are going to be beasts...

random thought: Nikon's naming convention is all over the place, we will soon see them running out of numbers to use in terms of their realistic marketability lol they should really follow Canon's naming system


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Sep 27, 2010)

rpm said:


> the D7000 is a D90 replacement, DX camera, not a FF unit.
> 
> the sensor should be better, given the advances in technology but whether its worth it depends on what the D90 isnt giving you and what you feel the D7000 will give you.
> 
> ...



haha i understand that, i'm jsut wondering if my logic is correct  I know maybe it might be worth waiting for the d300/d700 replacements and see what they have to offer.... And with nikons naming system it is all one big mess!! should use more letters in with the numbers and might be a bit better


----------



## sam_justice (Sep 27, 2010)

Depends on how much you use it, the D90 is widely considered a cult camera now, it really is a fantastic camera. I'd wait for the D7000 to be out for a bit so others can really road test it.


----------



## ghache (Sep 27, 2010)

if you allready own a d90 i wouldnt upgrade but for a new owner who want to spend the money, the d7000 will be a GREAT buy.


----------



## KmH (Sep 27, 2010)

ThornleyGroves said:


> ....From what i've read and hear the d7000 is similar to the d700.....
> Cheers for the help guys


Similar, in so far as they are both cameras. 

The D7000 is still an entry-level camera, while the D700 is a prosumer camera.

At this point the D7000 is not a replacement for the D90, rather it is a new offering slotted between the D90 and the D300s, from both a cost and performance perspective.

Only after reviewing the specs relative to your needs, can you determine if upgrading is best for you.


----------



## Whootsinator (Sep 27, 2010)

KmH said:


> ThornleyGroves said:
> 
> 
> > ....From what i've read and hear the d7000 is similar to the d700.....
> ...




I'd venture to say that it beats out the D300s (though not in all areas), and instead is exactly what the D90 is to the D300s. So, I'd place it between the D300s and the D400 (or whatever they'll name it, I assume D400).


----------



## sobolik (Sep 27, 2010)

ThornleyGroves said:


> Title says it all, but i really like the idea of this new sensor and also the 16.whatever MP. just don't know if it's worth upgrading to the d7000 from my current d90, and using the d90 as a secondary body, or even selling the d90 and buying a nice new lens.... From what i've read and hear the d7000 is similar to the d700 jsut alot less bulkier and an even 'better' sensor. Also should i sell the d90 and get a good bit of glass, or keep it and use it as a second body which would come in handy for my general shooting and sports especially basketball...
> 
> Cheers for the help guys



Depends what you do with your photos:
I have a D90 and am eyeballing the D7000 because I crop several photos  from one original.  The extra 4 megapixels would help that technique.   For example I will take a wide angle shot at a wedding/reception. I will  crop out the 3 people on the left. The couple in the middle and the  couple with a facial expression of a person on the right. That equals 4  photos from one. They all get cropped 4x6 unless otherwise requested.   The higher megapixels allows this and still have plenty of resolution to  make 4x6 prints.  So yes I would take a D7000 over a D90 Unless I get  one in my hand and don't like it.  But I read they are very similar.  Nikon D7000 Hands-on Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


----------



## shaunly (Sep 27, 2010)

It's definitely worth upgrading. That's exactly what the model was meant to do. I think it comes down to budget. If you can afford to spend the few extra hundred, why not do it. If not, it's ok too because the D90 is still a great camera. 

I personally think if you are serious about photography, use your D90 and save your money for the D300 or D700 replacement next year.


----------



## Whootsinator (Sep 27, 2010)

shaunly said:


> I personally think if you are serious about photography, use your D90 and save your money for the D300 or D700 replacement next year.




I would agree with this. The D90 is still awesome, though the D7000 is better. I assume the D400 will blow the D90 out of the water, as frightening as THAT is! :mrgreen:


----------



## brianT (Sep 27, 2010)

It depends on the type of photography you do.  I mostly do landscapes and I have a D90, so the features of the D7000 that I would benefit from are: 14-bit NEF's, and weather sealed body.

Of course I do all kinds of photography and high ISO would be really useful too, but since I've already budgeted to upgrade to the D700 replacement I'm not going to bother with the D7000 -- even though I think it's a great camera.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 27, 2010)

KmH said:


> At this point the D7000 is not a replacement for the D90, rather it is a new offering slotted between the D90 and the D300s, from both a cost and performance perspective.


 
I agree with this.

The similar comparison for Canon is that the 7D was not a replacement for the 50D. It fit in between the 50D and the and the 5D mk II when it was released.


----------



## ghpham (Sep 27, 2010)

The camera is not even out yet???


----------



## texas2wheeler (Sep 27, 2010)

shaunly said:


> I personally think if you are serious about photography, use your D90 and save your money for the D300 or D700 replacement next year.



I have to agree with this statement.  Unless you have a sizeable investment in DX lenses, hold off and pickup a used D300s in a year...


----------

