D3100 v D90

[aliceat41]

So I have about £550 to spend and I'm trying to decide between a D3100 twin lens kit (18-55 VR + 55-200 VR) and a D90 single lens 18-105 VR.

I could live with the shorter lens for a while as I've only had the D40 kit lens to 55mm so anything will give me plenty to experiment with until I can afford a longer one, also the D90 means I could spend less on lenses as it's compatable with the older AF lenses.

But I've read a few reviews preferring the D3100 due to its increase in resolution and wider ISO range.

I'm confused.... I don't take movies, so am not bothered for those features on the D3100, just want to take really good stills. Am wondering if I'm really going to use a very high ISO given that I mostly want to take street photos in the daytime....

So what do you think? Is the D90 a better choice or not? And what about the extra weight? I have a D40 at mo which is so light it's great being able to have it in the crook of one hand all the time, am I going to find the D90 too heavy for several hours of use?

Any and all advice welcome! Thanks.

[aliceat41]

Bit more info for you on what my options are. I have a choice of:

New D3100 18-55 VR kit and Used 55-200 VR lens
or
Used D90 and used 18-105 VR lens

Prices checked on MPB photographic, which I gather is a recommended place to buy used equipment?

If I go for the D3100 and the 2 lenses, I probably wont need to buy anything more for a while, if I go for the D90 plus shorter lens, il probably be wanting a longer lens soon but at least I can buy cheaper AF lenses. However - will I end up always wanting the VR feature? I dont have this at mo and am wondering how good it is? If it's brilliant, I will probably go for the D3100 to get both lenses with this feature.

HELP!!

[aliceat41]

In the absence of quick replies (I'm not critisising, I know that repetitive forum posts can be boring to reply to) I've been doing some more research.

So I'm leaning towards the D90, mainly because I'm discovered that it has twin dials for easier access to the aperture settings. I find it irritating that on my D40 I have to faff about pressing and holding a button whilst turning the dial to change the aperture, all the while missing the shots I want. However I am still very worried about the weight. I'm going to a camera shop to try them both in my hand.

Has anyone anything to say about the twin dials? Very useful? Or just as faffy as the single dial?

Although I'm leaning towards the D90, the spectre of new v old keeps coming back, I bought my D40 used and although I've been mostly happy with it, I do often wonder if there's something wrong with the autofocus. I feel deeply uneasy about getting a camera that someone might have dropped and thinking how will I know if there's something wrong with it being such a beginner? Aargh...... this decision is making my brain ache....

[TheMoons678]

Originally Posted by aliceat41

I feel deeply uneasy about getting a camera that someone might have dropped and thinking how will I know if there's something wrong with it being such a beginner? Aargh...... this decision is making my brain ache....

Ive purchased all of my gear used, mostly off craigslist. Just give it a thorough inspection and test all the features. Test the flash, playback, AF, all the buttons... but you should be fine. If you dont feel comfortable doing it, ask them to show you.

Yes get the D90 over D3100. The convenience of the dual command dials, dedicated buttons for ISO/WB, bracketing, +/-, metering,... make it very worth it to me.

[kirbinster]

I don't know how much better the image sensor is in the 3100 or the high ISO capability - but I would probably go that route. You buy a camera for the image it can capture, everything else in my mind is secondary. If the 3100 which is much newer technology gives you a better image I would go that route. The two dials are nice, but its not that big a deal to hold a button while you turn the dial if you only have one dial. I have had a D90 and you can see in my sig line what I have now. The D90 is a nice camera, but it is dated at this point and has already been replaced with the D7000. I like to get the neweset best body, lenses are another story - lens don't get dated very quickly at all.

[DanielLane]

I've shot with both many many times. While the 3100 has a higher megapixel number and all that, it has far fewer options. The screen on the back is smaller. The lack of dual knobs. And even with those few extra megapixels, the D90 still takes better photos. Much better. Better resolution. Better color dynamics. better dynamic range over all really.

Even though the D90 is a little older, it was still released originally as a low end pro camera, while the 3100 was released as a consumer level DSLR. I still own a D90 and love it. I have other camera, but still use the D90 quite often. You won't regret it.

Also, that 18-105 that comes with the D90 is a fantastic lens. The body may be plastic, but the glass in there is great. A nice 67mm opening you will MUCH prefer over those 52 or 58mm openings on the end of those other lenses. Also, the way that 18-55 lens zooms and focuses is a joke. The photo tour company I work for has a few there as rentals. We have to replace the lenses all the time because they are such cheap junk. The focus on them is terrible. Breaks a lot.

[katia]

D90 all the way. the dual command dials are a MUST for me.

[Shokinen]

Don't forget you are also able to trigger an external flash wirelessly with the D90.

[inkista]

I'm a Canon shooter, and I say D90. Dual wheel controls, focus motor, and flash commander in the pop-up are all good reasons to go with it even though it has an older sensor. You can always fake higher ISO settings by shooting RAW, underexposing, and then pushing in post. Also, wait another week or so before deciding. We're right in the middle of the fall product announcements. While Nikon may not have anything more than the 1 system to announce, you never know.

[ravncat]

And that "older" d90 sensor is still very very nice.