Foo - Nikon D90

Anyone have thoughts about the merits of this camera? Mr. East Hill is thinking about getting me this for a present.

I would like to start working on my studies of plants again, and it seems that this would be a good starter camera for that type of work.

It has a 18-105mm IS lens.

East Hill

When I was seriously thinking of a D-SLR camera, my eye was on the D-80. I decided to hold off for the time being. Nikon website now shows this D-90 (new) and it appears to pretty much have everything the D-80 had and more.

See Nikon D-SLR product comparison.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/DSLR_Compare.pdf

I say, go for it! Great camera!

I have a D80 and am very happy! The D90 has video and at first I was excited, but reports are video is week. I guess I'll hold out for second generation video. Otherwise the D90 looks great!

^

never buy a digital camera for a its video features.

^
I'm actually agreeing with botto.

Anyhoo, the D90 looks like a really good camera. If you are studying plants maybe you should check out the macro lenses Nikon has?

I still shoot film (F100/MB-15; N70 x 2) and have a few lenses (AF 24mm f/2.8D, AF 50mm f/1.8, AF 105mm f/2.8D Micro, 28mm f/3.5 PC; AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF; AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED) and have been wanting to go digital for some time now, but $$$$ just isn't there. I've been tempted by the D300 and the D700.

With the release of the D90, I'm seriously considering this body. It has everything that an amateur photographer needs and has room to grow. It is fully compatible with DX (digital only) lenses and Nikon's 35mm film / FX lenses. The built in speedlight will work in a pinch but I prefer an accessory speedlight (with a nod going to the SB-800 then the SB-900 (not film compatible :( ) then the SB-600).

"Kit" lenses tend to be okay and I don't know enough about the 18-105 Vibration Reduction lens to know how well it performs but I'd assume they would not add VR unless the image quality was there.

For flowers, I'd prefer a Macro lens with a good working distance, 90-105mm would be the shortest focal length I would consider (and that's currently my macro lens) but the 200mm micro really increases working distance and narrows the field of view ...great for backgrounds.

As far as the video goes, I agree, its not what you should base buying a DSLR for but, I did see the D90 commercial which was supposedly shot entirely with the D90 and I was impressed.

check out the Nikonians.org D70/80/90 User Group (http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=150).
D90 Brochure (http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d90/pdf/d90_16p.pdf) (PDF)

Disclosure: I moderate at www.nikonians.org (user ID avm247).

I think I would go for the d80 w/18-105 vr. B&H has it for $750. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/541241-REG/Nikon_9483_D80_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

Take the extra cash and get the tamron 90mm macro lens?

root.

The D90 is an excellent camera. It is basically Nikon's latest camera with that sensor size, and is their best in that regards. It is a "second generation" camera in terms of the picture control electronics and the low noise sensor, equalled (or nearly equalled) only by their D300 that costs almost twice as much. The D90 can stand up against any non-full frame DSLR made by anyone.

Now all that said, the D40 is a good camera for a lot less. Compared with the D90 there are a lot of things to say about the D90 that are better than the D40, but the image quality from the D40 is very good and don't let anybody tell you that it is inferior because it is only 6megapixel. A properly processed image from a D40 can be printed to 12"x18" or bigger with very good quality. The D40 will save you a lot of money over the D90, and you can use that savings to buy better lenses. After all a good lens will help your photos more than an expensive body. Also there is a lot less to learn with the D40 to get good photos, and it is smaller and lighter than the D90.

I have used a D70s for 3 years now. I decided I would upgrade and did a lot of research. I've ordered a D300 and it should be here tomorrow!

Anyone have thoughts about the merits of this camera? Mr. East Hill is thinking about getting me this for a present.

I would like to start working on my studies of plants again, and it seems that this would be a good starter camera for that type of work.

It has a 18-105mm IS lens.

East Hill

The 18-105 looks like a very capable kit lens despite the limited aperture, as all the recent zooms Nikon has made have been.

However, if you want to get really sharp, vibrant pictures at close to medium ranges (like for plants), a fixed zoom macro somewhere in the range of 90 to 105 mm is perfect. These run about $400-800, and the Tamron and Sigma versions both get very good reviews (for much cheaper than the Nikon).

The only things holding me back from getting a D90 are the $$ (I'm supposed to be saving for a house) and size. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really a big camera, but the times I've taken my D40 backpacking, even that was a bit much at times.

As one who knows nothing about Nikon cameras, I've heard great accolades about the D90.

Recommended.

Well, it sounds as if this is quite an acceptable camera. I will advise Mr. East Hill that a fixed lens as described by iamlucky13 would be better for my planned usage.

Thanks everyone!

East Hill

I will advise Mr. East Hill that a fixed lens as described by iamlucky13 would be better for my planned usage.

Thanks everyone!

East Hill

You might consider having a Prime/fixed lens for your plant macro work and the 18-105 zoom.

With only the prime, you would be very limited in what you could do with the Camera.

I use a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens with my Pentax K20D for plant and insect work along with the usual array of zoom lens.

JMO

You might consider having a Prime/fixed lens for your plant macro work and the 18-105 zoom.

With only the prime, you would be very limited in what you could do with the Camera.

I use a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens with my Pentax K20D for plant and insect work along with the usual array of zoom lens.

JMO

+1. I was just about to reply to add exactly that. Plus, I'm seeing places selling the body+kit for only $250 more than the body only...for a $400 lens.

Also, depending exactly how close you want to get, the 18-105 might be sufficient near term, and you can save up more for a macro prime later. The prime will be a bit sharper, have a wider aperture, and really nice bokeh, but if you can only afford one or the other and don't need to get ultra close, the 18-105 will be more versatile. A 1:1 macro will get about 1/5 the distance as the 18-105, so the subject will appear 5 times as big.

A surprise was waiting for me when I got home today :) .

I now have a Nikon D90.

However, it came with two lenses, not one. One lens is an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR, and the other is a VR Zoom 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 G IF-ED.

I am excited :D .

East Hill

Luckyyyyyy

Very nice. With that range of f/l, you'll now be able to take photos and decide what's for you when it comes time for the prime lens.

If you're new to DSLR/SLR photography, pick up a copy of "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson.

Very nice. With that range of f/l, you'll now be able to take photos and decide what's for you when it comes time for the prime lens.

If you're new to DSLR/SLR photography, pick up a copy of "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson.


I dabbled briefly with an SLR many years ago, so I will do as you suggest. Mr. East Hill thinks I should think about taking a couple of classes to get familiar with all the goodies.

It seems that Art Wolfe is branching out into photography classes, so I may sign myself up :) .

East Hill