D90 vs d7000

[Scotttyd 0]

So I am debating between the two. Mainly for topside - but if I save enough $$ then for underwater. I am far from a professional and have always used manual P&S's. What are the main differences? and with the backorders of the d7000 - you cannot find any discounted deals on them. Is worth the extra $$, especially for somone such as myself that is probably a long ways from ever getting everything out of the camera that is has to offer.

[TomR1 5]

D90 is more than enough for underwater.....unless you want very good video

[johnspierce 25]

The D7000 is much, much better than the D90. Better for low light and high ISO, faster, lighter, better focusing, 16mp vs. 12mp. There is actually no comparison. A D5100 will produce a better image than a D90 having the same basic sensor as the D7000, it's only drawback being it cannot use lenses without a focus motor. Video on the D90 is not really usable at all. Video on D7000 is not perfect, but vastly superior.

 

The extra few hundred dollars spent on the D7000 is very much worth it for the high ISO performance if nothing else. It is the best DX camera Nikon produces.

[KirkD 7]

The D7000 is much, much better than the D90. Better for low light and high ISO, faster, lighter, better focusing, 16mp vs. 12mp. There is actually no comparison. A D5100 will produce a better image than a D90 having the same basic sensor as the D7000, it's only drawback being it cannot use lenses without a focus motor. Video on the D90 is not really usable at all. Video on D7000 is not perfect, but vastly superior.

 

The extra few hundred dollars spent on the D7000 is very much worth it for the high ISO performance if nothing else. It is the best DX camera Nikon produces.

 

The video is "USABLE" on the D90. Don't let anyone tell you any different. It is good for wide angle / Fisheye. I shoot video all the time underwater with my D90. The key is to lock the exposure and that it is not changing when you are shooting. I've tried macro without much success. However, having said that, I would get he D7000 if I was getting a new set up right now.

 

Kirk

[TomR1 5]

I recall Richard Perry, co-owner of Reef Photo remarks. There was a D-200, a 40D and an Olympus E-3 on the table. Richard said: " The difference between them [for underwater] is catalogware"

 

The pint is not that the D700 doesn't have better specs than the d-90. It does. The point is that the difference is insignificent underwater. Example: High ISO, really who cares for 99% of shots underwater?

[scubazig 1]

The D7000 also has a faster shutter sync speed (1/320 vs 1/200), which really comes in handy when shooting wide-angle in sunny waters. Also, the dual memory slots is a "nice to have." The reviews for the D7000 have been very good overall. I just moved from a D90 to the D7000. Not to mention, the auto-focus video for topside shooting is a plus.

[Deep6 7]

By the later technology, the D7000. It seems to me that you will keep this camera for some time. A refurbished is less than $300 more than a new D90.

Bob

[Alastair 2]

i have a D90 and i enjoy using it and i get around the shutter sync speed by using the low ISO settings of lo 0.3 and lo 0.7 i find that this helps me get sunballs that look as they should. But the point is i miss the higher sync speed from my D70 - but you get a lot of camera with the D90 and the housing (aquatica) is 800-900 uSD cheaper -so you save on the camera and on the housing which give you cash to buy lenses and ports etc?

 

For AF i have never struggled once i added a good focus light.

 

i don't shoot video so i cannot comment.

 

BUT, if was to buy a new camera today i would try and find a way to get the D7000! but as i have a D90 i don't think the management would view it as a worthwhile investment!

 

hope that helps!!

[johnspierce 25]

The pint is not that the D700 doesn't have better specs than the d-90. It does. The point is that the difference is insignificent underwater. Example: High ISO, really who cares for 99% of shots underwater?

 

If you shoot any existing-light shipwreck photos, high ISO is *very* important. Try getting an existing light shot with a 10-17 fisheye at 90 feet with the D90. You can get good photos, just like I do with my D300 which is essentially the same sensor. But they *will* be noisy and require quite a bit of post processing. The D7000 will get a clean shot in the same circumstance.

 

I am not saying you can't get good photos with the D90 -- you can, just like with my D300. I'm just some guy on the internet, but to say the difference is insignificant between it and the D7000 is simply not true in my opinion. I've seen the photos from the D7000 in low light at high ISO and they are astounding.

 

Of course, none of this has anything to do with getting a great photo, that's the guy behind the viewfinder

 

JP

[TomR1 5]

Please note that this guy has little underwater experience and is moving up from a PC. If you think the D-90 is not a LOT less expensive check ebay. I actually scored a D-300 (for backup) for $600. It just takes time. The D-90 cases are less expensive also and sometimes a used rig is available. Are you really telling this guy to spend an extra grand or two just to take sunballs or shipwrecks in available light?

 

Regards,

 

Tom

[DiverPam 13]

If you are just moving up from P&S and costs is an issue - then really consider the D90. If cost is not - then look hard at that D7000. But as everyone noted - the housing will also be more. Everything else - lens, strobes, ports, extensions, etc. should be the same regardless of which camera body you choose.

 

There are alot of great shots and videos on here and flickr taken with the D90 - it is a very usable camera. I agree with you Tom, but this coming from the girl with a D90.

 

Let us know what you decide - DiverPam

[johnspierce 25]

Tom, it's just my opinion -- I don't claim to know more than anyone else, but yes I'm saying the D7000 is worth the extra money over the D90. If you think sunballs or shipwecks or whatever are not important, fine -- that's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

 

I would say if a person wants to do DSLR, don't cheap out, you'll end up having to sell the stuff you have and spend even more money to get what you should have bought in the first place. The original poster seems to have a genuine interest in learning more and getting better photos. If the objective is to have more "keepers", the D7000 is better, hands down.

 

If I was going to buy used, quite frankly I *still* wouldn't buy the D90, I would buy a D300 or D300s which is a superior camera. I've owned the D90 and D300 both and I can say this from personal experience.

 

But if the original poster wants a rig to grow with and is ready to move up from P&S to DSLR , go D7000. The big expense is not the camera body anyway. It's the twin strobes. The cables. The arms. The flotation devices. The strobes. The lenses. The different ports. The housing. On and on. If cost is a big issue, some of the new ILC systems are much cheaper and deliver great photos.

 

cheers and safe diving,

John

 

P.S. I noticed DiverPam posted right before this and I think she's a perfect example of a person who can get great photos with the D90. I do not argue this. I'm just saying the D7000 really is a lot better body.

Edited January 10, 2012 by johnspierce

[Scotttyd 0]

Thanks all - 1. I do plan on using it topside quite a bit (probably more than underwater), so the features that make it superior in that setting are also important to me.

 

2. I do have a decent experience underwater - just not with a DSLR - but I have been manually shooting a p5100 for 4 years.

[DiverPam 13]

P.S. I noticed DiverPam posted right before this and I think she's a perfect example of a person who can get great photos with the D90. I do not argue this. I'm just saying the D7000 really is a lot better body.

 

 

John - Thanks for the compliment. I really like my D90. But I will have to admit - if I was looking for a new setup and cost was not an issue - the D7000 would be on the top of the list - and then well...there would be no list. I think I would end up divorced if I suggested a new camera and housing any time in the near...never.

 

Happy diving - DiverPam

[JimSwims 31]

So I am debating between the two. Mainly for topside - but if I save enough $ then for underwater. I am far from a professional and have always used manual P&S's. What are the main differences? and with the backorders of the d7000 - you cannot find any discounted deals on them. Is worth the extra $, especially for somone such as myself that is probably a long ways from ever getting everything out of the camera that is has to offer.

 

If it's mainly topside use you will be after, as you save up for a housing etc, then I'd be going for the D7000. I feel the AF improvements alone

are worth it for topside use. Of course as others have mentioned the body is more expensive and it will take a little longer to save up for the

housing. In the long run however the body will stay on par for longer and you will be happy with the D7000 above and below for longer.

 

You can always build your system incrementally. When I switched to DSLR from P&S I started with just a Single strobe and Macro port then

added a 2nd strobe and Dome port nearly a year after.

 

I use a D90 for UW and recently bought a D7000 body for topside use. I won't be housing it for UW any time soon as I have already invested

in the D90 housing.

 

Cheers,

Jim.