Upgrading from a D3000

[Dr Horrible]

So I bought a D3000 last January on a whim. I had always wanted to try photography, but was kept away by the high price of the cameras. That's why I bought a D3000. I figured that if I hated it and ended up being terrible that at least I was not out a load of money and I still had something small enough that I could use as a point and shoot.

I have really taken to photography and rarely leave the house with my camera. Well I did before I sold my D3000 in anticipation of buying a new one this month.

My problem is that I am now torn between 3 different cameras and (like many others) don't know which one to buy.

I originally had my sights on a D90, but now everyone is saying that it is pretty much obsolete. That it is out gunned by both the D5000 and D7000 (true?). The other two are the D7000 and the canon 60D.

The D90 seemed like a great buy at $930 (before I started reading) and the D7000 is at the very high end of what I am currently willing to spend on a DSLR. The Canon falls right in the middle.

I shoot a lot of different stuff. family members (gatherings), street photography, Night/low light and portrait/glamour type things in my makeshift studio. My sister started doing modeling and started bringing over her model friends. I have not tried real high speed stuff, but I would really like to give it a shot when I go to the Rally races.

I used a D90 (and liked it) that a friends mom let me borrow and that was the main reason I had my mind set on that one. I have only held the Canon and d7000 at the store. Both felt pretty good even though I was not used to the layout of the Canon.

Sorry about the novel I just wrote, it's just that $900-$1500 is no small chunk of change for me and I would really like to hear what people that know their stuff have to say.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

First off, false. The D90 is a beefier D5000 (i.e., same sensor, better body). The D7000 is the D90's replacement, but that does NOT mean that the D90 is a bad camera; its a great camera.

Consider the Canon 60D only if you don't have any Nikon lenses you'd like to continue using after getting it; switching platforms isn't like switching your body- everything changes: lenses, remotes, flashes, etc.

If you thought the D90 was good for your purposes before people started telling you it was 'obsolete', get it. Put the extra money towards some solid glass.

[Shokinen]

Camera goes by categories. The market they are targeting is a good indication for what purpose they have been engineered.

The D3000 is the entry level. While this is a very capable camera and powerfull enough for most people, there might be options you want to explore in the upper categories.

The D90 is the serious amateur. And honestly a very good camera and is not outgunned by the D5000. They are using the same sensor, but the D5000 is lacking in the pentaprism viewfinder, commander flash (you cannot use an SB-600 wireless with it), and the ergonomics of the D90 over the D5000 speaks for itself. Top LCD display, ability to change most frequent settings straight on the body, with the D5000 you have to do it through the menu. The D90 also have an internal motor so you can use the autofocus on older lens. Otherwise with the D5000 you have to use to new lenses. If all you do is automatic, go with the lower body. If you want to play with manual settings, try different lighting setup, the serious category may be a better choice.

As for the D7000 and the 60D, they are the latest updates. They are both targeting the serious amateur market. And we want to be picky, the 60D is closer to the entry level while the D7000 try to mimic his older brother hehehe. The D7000 has a magnesium body, 39 focus point system, 2 memory card so you can do JPEG+RAW and separate straight on each card.

Try to focus on what you want to accompligh, what you like to do. Also keep in mind the money you invest in lenses is usualy much better. You will get better result with better glass. They kit lense are usualy not the best for image quality.

[SuperDan]

save up for the D7K and then you wont have to worry that you didnt buy "enough" camera to start

the d7k is being called the d300 killer... and well worth the money

the high iso and all of the dedicated buttons, versus going through menus (already explained above) is one of the big advantages

my 2 cents is the D7K...
I was in the similar boat as you for a while and I saved and waited...
I just upgraded from a D40 to the D7K and wont look back now

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

First off, false. The D90 is a beefier D5000 (i.e., same sensor, better body). The D7000 is the D90's replacement, but that does NOT mean that the D90 is a bad camera; its a great camera.

Slight correction. I believe the D7000 is a new tier. Just from the pricing. It really doesn't look like a D90 replacement, more like Nikon trying to make a 7D-like "upper mid" tier, despite the fact that the 7D was Canon trying to make a D300s. Just my opinion.

I'd actually tell the OP to stick with the D90. If the OP had asked earlier, I'd have said hang onto the D3000 until March and see if a true D90 replacement is out. You definitely don't want to go for the D5000--same focus motor issue as the D3000, and lower-tiered than the D90.

Canons are different and if you're already accustomed to the Nikon interface or have a number of Nikon lenses, it may not be a comfortable move, and since you're mentioning studio shooting, I'd really recommend sticking with Nikon because their speedlight system is fuller-functioned than Canon's, and using AF fast primes won't be an issue with a D90. And for fast-action shooting the D90 and 60D have roughly the same burst rate. The only truly compelling reasons, I think, to swap for a 60D, is if you have to have the flip-out screen because you plan on using the camera for HD filmmaking, or if you would prefer the Canon lens lineup.

The only place where the D90 is weak is that it's simply an older model in the lineup. But that also means it's lower-priced now than when it came out (it initially MSRPed (body only) for $1000, now it's below the $750 mark). The 60D and D7000 look all hot and sexy because they were just announced in October, but they're also the most expensive they will ever be.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

Slight correction. I believe the D7000 is a new tier. Just from the pricing. It really doesn't look like a D90 replacement, more like Nikon trying to make a 7D-like "upper mid" tier, despite the fact that the 7D was Canon trying to make a D300s. Just my opinion.

I've basically compared it to the 50D/D90 thing, only flip-flopped. THe D7000 is now the higher model and the 60D the lower, instead of the other way around. Nikon has said the D7k is not a "replacement" for the D90, but the D90 is conspicuously going out of production soon.

There is also discussion of a "D400" model, likely a DX sensor in what amounts to a D3 body.

[kirbinster]

The D90 is a great camera, I had one and loved it. Why not pick one up on the used market. You can find them without too much use for under $600 if you look.

[Dr Horrible]

Thanks for all of the replies. I appreciate that you all took the time to give me proper answers and not just "buy the newest one".

I have decided to go with the D90 since like AlmondButterscotch said. The D90 was good for what I wanted to do before and I liked using it and liked the setup and ergonomics of the camera.

Now I have one more thing to ask. Have any of you bought a nikon refurbished camera? are they truly good as new?

[kirbinster]

You pay a premium for refurbished, why not just buy a used one on craigslist. You meet the person and test it out before you hand them cash. I bought mine for $600 about two years ago and it only had about 25 shots taken on it.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

25?! for $600?!

wow... that's quite the deal.