Is moving from a Nikon D3100 to a D90 an upgrade or a downgrade?
Asked 8/8/2012
2 views
2 answers
0
I currently use a Nikon D3100 and want to upgrade while staying with Nikon because I already own Nikon lenses. One thing that frustrates me about the D3100 is the lack of a built-in autofocus motor.
I considered the D5100, but it also lacks an in-body AF motor. The D90 appeals to me because it does have the AF motor and some higher-end features, and I could likely find a used one for less than a newer body. My other option is to save longer for a D7000, but that would cost more.
Would switching from a D3100 to a D90 actually be an upgrade, or would it be more of a downgrade overall?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
6
Despite the D90 being a full two years older than the D3100 I think it still holds up against the newer model.
The D90 does exposure and white balance bracketing, not achievable with the D3100. Also the screen on the D90 is superior, with 920,000 dot resolution vs the 230,000 of the D3100.
One area the D90 falls down is in video - if you want to use that. The D3100 offers full 1080 HD in motion MPEG-4 format, vs the D90 which offers 720p in motion JPEG format which isn't as good. Also the D3100 appears to support AF tracking which the D90 doesn't. The D90 also has a max ISO of 3200 vs the D3100's max ISO of 12,800.
Overall for the price, and being that the D90 is an older camera - but still perfectly adequate for most tasks, I'd recommend it, but not if you want to do video. You can take the money you save on the body and put it towards either the D7000 at some point in the future, or invest in some good glass.
See this comparison site for more details...
Originally by user7566. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7566
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It depends on what you need. A D90 is not a clear overall upgrade from a D3100.
The D90 does add some useful enthusiast features: a built-in AF motor for older Nikon AF lenses, a higher-resolution rear screen, and features like exposure and white-balance bracketing. If those are important to you, the D90 can make sense.
But in several technical areas, the D3100 is newer and stronger: newer sensor/processor technology, higher resolution, better video (1080p vs 720p Motion JPEG), AF tracking in video, and a higher maximum ISO setting. So for image tech and video, the D3100 is generally ahead.
In short: if your main reason is using older screw-drive AF lenses and gaining extra body controls/features, the D90 can be worthwhile. If you do not specifically need the in-body AF motor, it’s more of a sidegrade or downgrade than a true upgrade. If possible, waiting and saving for a higher-tier body like the D7000 would be the more straightforward upgrade path.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Upgrading from a Nikon D40: D5100 vs D90 vs D7000 for travel and video
Will future Nikon F-mount lenses all have built-in autofocus motors?
Which used Nikon body is the best second camera alongside a D40: D80, D100, or D1X?
Nikon D90: should I start with a 35mm or 50mm prime, and does AF-S or f/1.4 matter?
Will Nikon AF-S lenses autofocus on a body that also has a built-in focus motor?