D7000 from D90?

[originalkk]

I have a dilemma.

I currently have a Nikon D90 and am trying to decide if it makes sense to upgrade to a D7000. The improved video capability of the D7000 would be nice, but the main reason for doing so would be improved low light performance, especially for dark rides.

I have the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 lens, so I'm trying to work out if it is worth spending $$$$s for a D7000, or better to spend $$s for an F/1.4 lens. Unfortunately I don't think I can afford both. Even the D7000 would be a bit of a stretch. Or maybe I carry on saving and wait for the D700 replacement and move up to full frame??!!!

Any thoughts from anyone who has used both cameras (and lenses)? Thanks very much for your help.

 

[VVFF]

Both options will net you just about a stop better ISO performance. Personally I wouldn't let this be the sole reason for upgrading. Have you looked into better NR programs like LR3? That can net you a stop or more "better" ISO.

Personally I'd stick with your D90 and buy lenses that are significantly different than those you have now until something really holds you up.

 

[mrcricket]

I'm in the same boat as you. I have a D90 that I really like, but the D7000 has a lot of nice features that you mentioned, plus a better focusing mechanism too. But I've decided to wait and do what VVFF said to do. I'm buying lenses and lighting equipment. I get great shots from my D90. I really don't think the D7000 will make my shots that much better and as VVFF stated, good NR software helps a lot.

 

[annnewjerz]

I've owned the D90 for two years and had the chance to use a D7000 for two weeks recently and I can say that I won't be upgrading to the D7000, or at least I don't plan to. Having the extra focus points was nice, the dual memory card slots was nice and if you are into using the video, I'm sure that would be an added bonus. I find that my D90 does really well with high-ISO shooting on the dark rides and I didn't notice any significant difference using the D7000.

If it were me, I'd probably do neither of the things you mentioned. I wouldn't upgrade to the D7000 for the higher ISO capabilities because I don't think it's that much of a difference. I wouldn't buy a f/1.4 lens if low-light shooting in Disney is the only reason. Now, if you go to WDW a lot, or really have ambitions to get the best indoor ride shots of any WDW photographer---go ahead and buy it. If you want a shallower DOF, go for it. If you just like the reviews of something like the Sigma 30, go for it...but spending $$$ on an upgrade to a new f/1.4 lens if the main reason is indoor ride shooting at Disney, I wouldn't do it.

Considering I spend a week or less at Disney each year, I'd save the money to put towards a lens I really wanted and spend a fraction of the price to rent a 1.4, or just use my 1.8.

 

[LordAthens]

I assume you're talking about the $1800 dollar, 35 1.4G.

If that's the case, I would consider a D7000 + a 50mm 1.4. The optics are great, it's AF is fast and it's incredibly inexpensive, under $300 new. You could pickup the D7000 + 50 1.4 for less than the 35mm 1.4 I personally love the 50mm on a crop body, it get's you to ~75mm, nice bokeh, fast, etc etc. A great portrait lens!

http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/50-1.4

 

[rossb]

I have both the D90 and the D7000. Don't upgrade if you looking for a significant difference in IQ or low light performance. You will not really see a difference until you get to ISO 6400 and how often do you shoot at ISO 6400 and above? I also would not spend big money upgrading an F1.8 lens to an F1.4 lens.

The D700 would be a big upgrade!