Ping: Nikon experts

No question. Unless price is an issue, go with the newer design. I've had my D7000 for about 3 1/2 months now and I am continually impressed by the quality if its build and imaging. Also, the D7000 is compatible with older AI and AIS lenses, which was big for me as I have a bunch of those.

D7000 set on auto with Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and SB-600 flash (bounced).
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here is a photo taken using the D7000's in-camera Active D-Lighting, which is wonderful for low-light situations. (Although the D90 might have this feature as well.)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I am not an expert...but IMO

Nikon Deliberatly placed the 7000 between the D90 and the 300s.

Probably to introduce the already owners of the d90 to a percievably better camera

Does either of these 3 take a better pic....not really

put a slow lens on a 300 s and a fast lens on a D90...the 90 will win..

Case in point 12 mega pix is all anyones eye can percieve perfection..

The Mega pix wars have slowed but not stopped..mainly because 12 is enough...

For low light mega pix dont help...a 1.4 f stop does...or an expensive iso processor

think about what you want it for..indoors or out
if indoors invest in a great flash

a d90 with an f 1.4 or 2.8 will shoot a majority of shots better than a d7000 or 300s with a 3.5 or 5.6 for sure...

Then again there is the human ability factor


if budget is issue a cheaper body and a better lens is always way to go.

BTW...I would imagine Nikon is about to upgrade 700 and 300s as we speak....unless an earthquake gets in the way

 

I was tossing around the same two bodies (not literally...). Problem was I couldn't find a D7000 body only for under $1100 so I went with a mint D90 for $640 and used the extra dough for another lens and flash. Worked well for me

 

the D7000 is the replacement for the D90, it's better in every way....period. no sense in even discussing it!


the D300s only bests the D7000 in sheer speed and focus ability(51 focus points vs 39 )
the D300s replacement should be out later this year.


and all f-mount Nikon cameras are compatible with Ai/Ai-S lenses..........the D7000/300/300s/700/3/3s will meter with them, and you can shoot in Aperture priority mode or Manual............all the other consumer cameras D3100/5100/90 etc....only work in manual mode and don't meter.


best thing your friend can do is join a photography forum and do some research.........I'd recommend nikoncafe or fredmiranda.

 

quite a lot of hype surrounding the d7k. it's a very capable cam, don't get me wrong, but the image quality "iq" isn't significantly better than earlier and more basic dx cams e.g. the d5k. and it's miles off the iq of fx cams like the d700 and d3s... i have all four of these toys

so get a dirt cheap used d90, play around with it a little and see whether one might want to jump to fx next... could save a few dollars along the way. learn to use tripod (where possible) for low light

here's a shot taken on the d7k with minor post processing for web. f6.3 1/200s iso4500 cropped

ps. i am not a nikon expert

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have a friend that wants a fast car. Which is the best, Lotus Elise or a Pro Stock Dragster?

Well, that depends HOW he wants to go fast now doesn't it. The Elise isn't actually that incredibly fast but DAMN it can corner. A Pro stock Dragster will blow it away. For 1320 feet.

Which leads me to my point...

He likes to take pictures in low light. We all do. But does that mean he wants a good flash or does he want to do available light photography? Looking up the stats (pasted below) the 7000 beats the 90 in many measures BUT the D90 has a much more powerful flash. So which is better for low light?

It's like picking the better car by which one has more horsepower. It's more complicated than that.

--- THE most important aspect of low light photography is the lens PERIOD. ---

Even if you're doing flash photography using a faster lens will make you focus faster (if at all) and meter better. And if you're doing available light, the difference in the cameras is so small it is not worth discussing if you slap a 3.5-5.6 zoom on the front.

My 'walking around' camera is a Canon Rebel of some sort (XT I think) with a 90 dollar special 50mm f1.8 lens on the front. I can take pictures with typical indoor lighting with no flash. (and only set the sensor at 400ISO because my sensor the noise jump at 800 ISO is noticeable)

This is a very cheap rig that I carry everywhere. The pictures are amazing. Not because of the body but because that lens (in the capable hands) is simply magic.

The bottom line to my rant is that you're asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be asking which body to buy, you should be asking which lens.

thus ends my rant. ;-)




=================== D7000 Specs ============================
Shutter Speeds: 1/8,000 to 30 s in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, bulb, time (requires optional Remote Control ML-L3), X250

Flash Sync: X = 1/250 s; synchronizes with shutter at 1/320 s or slower (flash range drops at speeds between 1/250 and 1/320 s)

Metering: Matrix or center-weighted metering: 0 to 20 EV

Shutter speed: ISO 100 to 6400 in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV; can also be set to approx. 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1 or 2 EV (ISO 25600 equivalent) above ISO 6400; auto ISO sensitivity control available

Auto Focus: -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)

Flash Guide Approx. 12/39 , 12/39 with manual flash (m/ft, ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)


=== D90 Specs===

1/4000 30 seconds no bulb or time

Flash sync 1/200

0 to 20 EV (3D color matrix or center-weighted metering)

ISO 200 to 3200 in steps of 1/3 EV, can also be set to approx. 0.3, 0.7 or 1 EV (ISO 100 equivalent) below ISO 200, or to approx. 0.3, 0.7 or 1 EV (ISO 6400 equivalent) over ISO 3200, ISO sensitivity auto control available

Auto Focus: Could not find

Flash guide = 17meters

 

You're talking about the built-in flash? Who uses that? I actually doubt the the tiny pop-up flash on the D90 is that much more powerful, but I suppose that you could be right due to the fact that Nikon wanted to reduce the power consumption of such a relatively unimportant component. Most significantly, built-in flashes cannot be bounced, which, under most circumstances, means that they per se degrade image quality. I certainly would not use that criterion for judging a camera.

 

um.... that's my point Dan. Focusing on the body as the be all end all of low light photography is meaningless. Read the whole thing in context.

 

The only time I'll ever use a flash is when I can bounce it off a ceiling (e.g. the cat photo), or occasionally a wall. Direct flash, as you say, does more harm than good.

Cats are not very good at holding poses for long exposures.

 

Can't comment on either of those cameras, but I wouldnt imagine any would be good at that high of a speed, short of perhaps professional ones.

Has he considered going with a faster lens? I know nikon has several f 1.4 lenses available, and make a 50 1.2 non-AIS lens.

Also, with a little practice, you can get good shots with handholding up to 1/16 even 1/8th on wider lenses. One little trick I use a lot, is, when taking a pic, use the self timer, instead of just using the shutter. It allows you to hold the camera, better and cuts down on any movements from shutter.

Sorry, if this isn't a direct answer to your question, perhaps someone with a little more experience with the specific camera in question, but I bet they'll probably confirm what I'm guessing about the higher ISOs

 

Former D3000 owner here. Yes it's good for the money in good light, and yes it's terrible in low light. Picked up the 35mm 1.8 for myself and while it helps, it's no replacement for high ISO capabilities.

When I sold the D3000 for the D90 I managed to shoot this photo at 3200 ISO with no flash. You be the judge.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

[preface, dude I went into rant mode sorry but read it though... the advice is sound.]

Lemme be the contrarian here (as I am on most photo threads) This is probably the worst way to ask for advice I can imagine. (sorry man just sayin')

First you need to find someone who has extensive experience with both cameras. Second you have to count on that person being an accurate judge of each camera's ability. Third you need to trust they will give you an unbiased report free of any spin. (intentional or even unintentional)

Asking for advice like this 10 years ago made sense....

Now you can go to pbase.com and see HUNDREDS of examples from each camera.

The D7000 is a $1400 body. Are you REALLY going to buy that body based not on looking at images for yourself but cuz some guy on fchat said it was the bomb?

Don't ask people's opinions of images they have seen... LOOK AT REAL IMAGES!

I can't imagine buying a piece of imaging equipment without seeing the images it produces!

And if your friend does not have the skill look at a few dozen images and tell which sensor is better, than he does not have the skill to drive these cameras!

Quit wasting yer time and go to pbase and look at a few dozen images from each camera.... I promise you the winner will be clear.

(ahem rant mode off... sorry again, but really man, take my advice)

 

I'll be pulling a complete 180 and picking up a D7000 as soon as my 5D sells. It seems to be a fantastic all around camera and just what I'm looking for.

 

One problem is that you may see noise for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a poorly exposed image.


http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D7000-vs-Nikon_D90

Apples to apples, the 7000 is only marginally better than the 90 at producing quality boosted ISO images. If that's your friend's only requirement, it's not worth the cost of the 7000.

However, the 7000 can resolve significantly more DR. For shooting indoors, that will be appreciable.

 

I just found that site and love it, it also seems like the D7000 is better in almost every regard to every other camera even near it. I was comparing it to the Canon 7D and while they are different systems the D7000 has it beat in almost everything.