Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 2, 2011, 6:58 AM   #1
Dig
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 98
Default Is D90 Worth it Update

Well I found a Nikon Refurb D90 for a little over $600 and bought it. I just received it a couple of days ago and have only had time to do some initial picture taking.

I took the lens off my D80 and put it on my D90 and set the camera to auto and took maybe a dozen pictures of people, plants, landscape in different lighting, inside and out. All is RAW mode.

Maybe I am crazy (some say definately) but there seems to be a dramatic difference in the pictures compared to my D80.

The pictures are more vivid, realistic, colorful, natural, contrasty all in a good way.

I have a lot to do yet but it sure seems like the D90 is a great camera. Now the problem is I just came across a D7000 for a really great price so I am wondering if I should get one....hmmmm.
Dig is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 2, 2011, 9:41 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dig View Post
Now the problem is I just came across a D7000 for a really great price so I am wondering if I should get one....hmmmm.
If you think that kind of thing will stop eventually, think again.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2011, 6:17 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dig View Post
Well I found a Nikon Refurb D90 for a little over $600 and bought it. I just received it a couple of days ago and have only had time to do some initial picture taking.

I took the lens off my D80 and put it on my D90 and set the camera to auto and took maybe a dozen pictures of people, plants, landscape in different lighting, inside and out. All is RAW mode.

Maybe I am crazy (some say definately) but there seems to be a dramatic difference in the pictures compared to my D80.

The pictures are more vivid, realistic, colorful, natural, contrasty all in a good way.

I have a lot to do yet but it sure seems like the D90 is a great camera. Now the problem is I just came across a D7000 for a really great price so I am wondering if I should get one....hmmmm.


Hi,

Congrats on upgrading to the D90. After a lengthy process of evaluating camera bodies from both Canon and Nikon, I recently picked up a refurb-ished D90. And, like you, was having some second thoughts about perhaps going further up the Nikon ladder and getting the D7000.

In the end, I decided, rather than spend more money on a body, invest the money properly by putting it towards something that will really make a difference-some good glass.

Yesterday, I pulled the trigger on a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 ED AFS VR
lens. The reality is lenses, aside from the person holding the camera, make the biggest difference.

I've always liked TCav's moniker, "the lens is the thing"

It really is the truth.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2011, 7:34 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Wizzard0003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085
Default

I agree, lenses will make more of a difference than bodies...

Concentrate on good glass first, if you want to upgrade the body at a later
time then you've got good glass to go with it...
__________________
William

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 8:00 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
I've always liked TCav's moniker, "the lens is the thing"

It really is the truth.
But it isn't the truth. The lens is certainly an important thing. But sensor sensitivity is also huge. Up to a point, sensor resolution is also an important thing that cannot be replaced by a lens. A lens won't help you track moving objects like a body can. No lens is going to prevent you from taking flash photos at above 1/200s. The list goes on and on.

Yes, lenses are important parts of a good kit. But it is only folks who have a capable camera body who think that the body doesn't matter. Or so ISTM.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 8:14 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tclune View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
I've always liked TCav's moniker, "the lens is the thing"

It really is the truth.
But it isn't the truth.
First, there are no bad cameras.

Second, there is no bigger bottleneck for image quality than a poorly performing lens. (EDIT: ... with the single exception of a poorly performing photographer. See the third line of my signature.)

Third, money is always better spent on lenses than on cameras. Cameras get better faster than lenses do, so spending money on incremental camera improvements when you could be spending it on lenses, is a mistake.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 10:06 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Third, money is always better spent on lenses than on cameras. Cameras get better faster than lenses do, so spending money on incremental camera improvements when you could be spending it on lenses, is a mistake.
This point makes absolutely no sense -- the thing that has improved the most is the thing that you shouldn't spend money on (because it will improve again, presumably.)

Upgrading from a D90 to a D7000 may or may not be a big enough step to bother with. Certainly, if the choice is between buying a lens that you would use a lot but currently have no equivalent for or buying essentially an equivalent camera with a few more megapixels, it would appear to make more sense to buy the lens. But that was not the assertion to which I was responding.

I was responding to the notion that the lens is the thing that is important, not the camera body. If I can get a body that gives me 3EV more range out of the same lenses that I have (a very plausible increase), buying a lens that is one stop brighter in order to be able to take photos in dimmer light is very possibly not the right answer. Concentrating on any one part of the system and saying that it is the one that matters is just misleading. Or so ISTM.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 10:41 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

There are certainly valid points on both sides of the argument. If you are looking to meet a specific need or specific improvement then you need to define your requirements and identify product features that meet those requirements. The solution may be a new body, a new lens, or a tripod or a flash or whatever.

However, I do agree with TCAV that, in general, you are much better off spending money on lenses rather than bodies. I say this having owned entry level bodies and professional level bodies and entry level lenses and pro grade lenses.
For example, I shoot with a 1dIII and 24-105l, 100-400L,17-40L, 70-200 2.8L and 85mm 1.8. If I give the 1dIII body to a person currently using 450d and kit lens and they use my 1diii with their consumer lenses very few of their photos will improve based upon the capabilities of the 1dIII. A few will, but not greatly. If however, they use the L lenses on their current body they'll see improvements in many of their photos immediately (assuming the photographer is competent).

Again, this is just "in general". For specific requirements you have to identify the proper solution and it might be a flash. or it might be a body (because they need video or some other feature). But for lots of photography a better lens is often more beneficial than a higher end camera.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 3:01 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Well, I just got home from work and decided to see what was going on at Steve's.

It appears I may have started a ruckus. And, I was going to defend my statement, as written. But, I really can't state it any better than what TCav and John G. have already written.

So, I'll leave it at that.........

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2011, 10:09 AM   #10
Dig
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Hello Everyone:

Thanks for all the feedback. After reading everything here I decidede to send the D90 back. It was all the comments that were made here that hepled me make the decision.

So based on what was said and what I understand your suggestions to be I called this morning and ordered the D7000. Very excited and can't wait for it too arrive.

I will be back with more after I receive it.

Thanks all for helping me make this important decision.
Dig is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:08 PM.