My current camera (a Konica Minolta 5D) is starting to have some issues and so when I have an income again I'm going to be looking for a new camera. I want to go with a Nikon, but most of them I've had in my hand felt too small to hold comfortably. The exception to this is the D90, and I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this model and how they like it..
I don't own a D90, but do have a D80 and it's a lovely camera to hold. The two have roughly the same dimensions, although the D90 is slightly heavier. Quite a bit smaller than my 5D and with less bulk too. It's getting a bit long in the tooth, but I still really enjoy taking photos with it.
Why not just go all out and get the D7000? With the D7000 one of the nice plus's is that you get metering with ai-s manual focuses older lenses. So you could score some fast cheap mf lenses on ebay, and save the money you'd have spent on getting af lenses of a slower aperture.
The D7000 body only costs the same as the D90 with an 18-270 lens. Resolution isn't that much different. Thanks for the suggestion though
The D7000 is a much better camera if you can afford it. It's not about the resolution. It's got much better low light capability (ISO), much more hard wearing (alloy body), safer with your images (dual SD cards), and plenty more little features. That said, there's nothing wrong with a D90 (I shoot a D5000 which has the same sensor), but if I was buying a camera today, I'd try to stretch do the D7000.
It depends on the price difference TBH. Like you I find anything smaller than the D90 to be too small, so that leaves out a lot of the cheaper options for Nikon. I would say if the price difference was around $300 or less then stretching to the D7000 would be a good idea. It won't necessarily make your pictures any better (unless you happen to shoot in low light with a fast shutter speed a lot), but it will last a bit longer before it needs to be replaced/upgraded. Over here you can get a used D90 for nearly half the price of a new D7000 (body only), and as much as I would like one I don't feel that the large price gap is justified by the relatively small performance difference. One more thing: if that 18-270 lens is the Tamron that I am thinking it is, then I would suggest you reconsider and opt for something else (if you really want a superzoom lens then saving a bit more for a used Nikon 18-200 VR would probably be your best bet).
I've been using the Tamron super-zooms for over a decade now and I love them. I started with a 28-300 on my Minolta film body and then after that got broken (dropped on a concrete floor, and it still worked for another year!) I got an 18-250 which is my current lens. I figure when I upgrade I'll go ahead and get the 18-270. Looks like the price difference between the bodies is about $600, which is a bit steep. Maybe by the time I have some cash in hand and am ready to buy the D7000s will have dropped some.
I've heard nothing but good things about the D90. I'd consider it myself but I think I'd like my next upgrade to go a bit further up Nikon's line (if I can get the readies together!) I'd say go to a shop have a play and if you like it go for it!
ive had d90 for over a year now and i'm very happy with it (still drooling over the reviews of d7000 though- could really use that video auto-focus feature and high iso :/) otherwise, the body is still rock solid... perhaps a bit "handled" look on the finish. Lcd has some scratches since i broke the protector and couldnt find a new one. Image quality cant even be compared to d40 that i migrated from (d90's faster, sharper, cleaner) top lcd is super useful and it all fits like a glove (thats why i got nikon over canon in the first place) all models from d80 and up should be big enough and pretty comfy for some serious use... the little entry cameras are meant mostly for soccer moms who need to fit it in their purse (or ppl on budget) if you want som image samples then most stuff on my blog is taken with one: http://blog.koivistik.com/
