Nikon D90

I bought one about a year ago - delighted with it.

Mine didn't work at first, but after a stiffly worded letter to Japan copying in Nikon France I got it sorted free (there was a design fault which they have subsequently corrected). Now, I love it.

I recommend getting the remote control and a gorilla-pod, the D90 can take excellent pictures at night.

I picked up a mint D1X for not too much last year replacing my very light (damn, these pro cameras are heavy!) D70 - would the D90 be another step up?

Royleblue;

Hi there. I'm not familiar with the D70 or the D1x so I can't comment.

Rodwsmith;
One of the reasons I had to ditch the D40x is its high noise level and poor performance with higher ISO settings. I'm looking forward to lots of night time photograhpy. Also planning to buy a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor to shoot some damn good portraits.

Regards...

I have the D80 which is my favourite camera, /I looked at the D90 but I don't think I have any use for the video facility.
I think that my future upgrade would be the D3000s.........

quote:

Originally posted by Bluetorric:
I have the D80 which is my favourite camera, /I looked at the D90 but I don't think I have any use for the video facility.
I think that my future upgrade would be the D3000s.........

In most situations the D90 and D300s will give similar results. The D300s is much better however for "action shooting" : sports, birds, wild animals, air shows. It has a much better autofocus, and can shoot up to 7 frames per seconds. It is also heavier and more expensive than the D90.

The D90 is likely to be replaced by a new model within a few months.

quote:

Originally posted by alainbil:

quote:

Originally posted by Bluetorric:
I have the D80 which is my favourite camera, /I looked at the D90 but I don't think I have any use for the video facility.
I think that my future upgrade would be the D3000s.........

In most situations the D90 and D300s will give similar results. The D300s is much better however for "action shooting" : sports, birds, wild animals, air shows. It has a much better autofocus, and can shoot up to 7 frames per seconds. It is also heavier and more expensive than the D90.

The D90 is likely to be replaced by a new model within a few months.

The weight and size of the D300 is what made me stop at the D90 as a "sweet point" in the Nikon DSLR range. As cameras get better they add the hassle of bulk in order to reward with improved performance. A diminishing returns sort of thing...

Regards.

quote:

Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
I picked up a mint D1X for not too much last year replacing my very light (damn, these pro cameras are heavy!) D70 - would the D90 be another step up?

D90 would be a huge upgrade over the D1X. Sensor technology has advanced a lot since the D1X was made, and the D90 will easily give you a few extra stops of performance compared to the D1X all at a higher resolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan-o:

quote:

Originally posted by RoyleBlue:
I picked up a mint D1X for not too much last year replacing my very light (damn, these pro cameras are heavy!) D70 - would the D90 be another step up?

D90 would be a huge upgrade over the D1X. Sensor technology has advanced a lot since the D1X was made, and the D90 will easily give you a few extra stops of performance compared to the D1X all at a higher resolution.

The only reason I could think of to stick with the D1X is if you need something bomb-proof for use in wet/dusty/cold/rough extreme conditions. When I went from an F5 to the D300, thus stepping down from the "pro" range bodies, the drop-off in robustness was noticeable. Not that the D300 has given me any grief, but I really abused that F5 over the years, and it was remarkable. The Nikon pro-level stuff really does take a beating.

Since we are talking about camera robustness, I want to ask a question. How much beating can DSLRs take? I have treated my D40x and now my D90 as if it was a turntable's tonearm or cartridge. After 5 years of use my D40x did not have a single scratch on it and was never dropped. I also refuse to hold it and pull it out of the bag from the lens to avoid stressing the mount. Am I being too careful? How much does your camera take?

Regards...

quote:

Originally posted by Flame:
Since we are talking about camera robustness, I want to ask a question. How much beating can DSLRs take? I have treated my D40x and now my D90 as if it was a turntable's tonearm or cartridge. After 5 years of use my D40x did not have a single scratch on it and was never dropped. I also refuse to hold it and pull it out of the bag from the lens to avoid stressing the mount. Am I being too careful? How much does your camera take?

Regards...

My D300 is pretty robust, but not bomb-proof like the F5. The D1/2/3 range feel like an F5 to handle, but I've not owned one . I don't think digital SLRs are any less strong than the equivalent film cameras. The risk of dust on the sensor when changing lenses is an issue in certain circumstances that film cameras don't suffer from. But on the other hand, changing film in extreme weather is an issue you don't have with digital.

My D300 was dropped out of the bottom of a broken motorcycle pannier onto a dirt road at speed, and lived to tell the tale. It was in a camera bag. My 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor was damaged in the same incident, however. I am a bit more careful with my D300 than I am with my F5....

My F5 was completely coated in frozen condensation in a tent in the Andes once. It had about 2mm of ice all over it. It thawed out without issue. It has been rained on regularly. No problems. It has also been spilt onto the road from a fast-moving vehicle (it was in a back-pack). No problems. It survived a trip through the desert in Morocco without problems while a mates mid-priced point-and-shoot died from dust exposure. I'd almost wager that it would survive a quick dunking. But it is strong because it was their pro-level body, not because it is a film camera.

My attitude is not to "baby" my cameras (I'm actually pretty hard on them), but remember strength and sealing quality increase with price. There is some justification for the price of pro gear. As an aside, I've typically found that the Nikons seem more solid than the similarly-priced Canons.

quote:

Originally posted by Flame:
I also refuse to hold it and pull it out of the bag from the lens to avoid stressing the mount. Am I being too careful? How much does your camera take?

Regards...

If the lens is really little, then holding the body seems the best option. But for bigger/heavier lenses, then it is the opposite. Lens mounts are easily strong enough to hold the camera weight. They are not strong enough to hold the weight of large lenses. The best habit to get into is to support the lens weight. The camera body can take care of itself.