Anybody know about the Nikon D90?

[mommytoe]

My dh asked me about this camera, but I know nothing.

 

[handicap18]

What about it would you like to know? First off its a dSLR and the price for the body only starts at $999, with a lens it is $1300.

 

[YesDear]

It is considered a midrange Nikon. The newest feature on it is video which is unique for a DSLR. It has gotten very strong reviews from the digital community and Nikon users. It will handle 90% of what a normal amateur photographer will want to do. It might be a little advance for someone who knows nothing about photography, but depending on your interest level it can be a great camera.

We can go into the specifics if you like, but from your post this is the level I think you were asking about.

 

[wenrob]

What all do you want to know? I own the D90 and as pointed out it's a mid level camera. I think if I hadn't owned and used the D40 first I would be lost. It's a whole lot of camera in comparison. I'm still working out specifics but we're getting along just fine. (mostly!) I would not jump right into getting one. Do your homework first and see if it's (or any DSLR for that matter) is what you're looking for.

 

[ALittleDisneyFan]

I love mine... It takes nice video as well... From what I have read, you can't record longer then 5 minutes or you will burn something (forget what) out.

 

[rossb]

I love mine... It takes nice video as well... From what I have read, you can't record longer then 5 minutes or you will burn something (forget what) out.

I have a D50 and a D90. You will not burn out anything if you attempt to shoot longer than 5 minutes. The camera will exit video mode before any damage occurs.

 

[handicap18]

I love mine... It takes nice video as well... From what I have read, you can't record longer then 5 minutes or you will burn something (forget what) out.

The put the 5 minute limit when shooting in the highest resolution video (HD 1280x700) mostly because of the file size (a 24-second clip recorded in 1280 x 720 HD mode at 176 kbps was 42.7MB in size). The talk about "burning" something is a false rumor. This was an early speculation when the specs of the D90 were first released. Nikon said that this is NOT the reason. I don't recall them saying the exact reason, but there is more of an argument that it has more to do with "classification" of the camera (video vs still or something more like that and relating it to tax/tariff costs) and also the size of the final 5 minute file (which can be 600MB in size) and how it relates to the limits of the FAT32 format.

In standard definition you can record up to 20 minutes (the file size is much smaller).

 

[rutgers1]

I have a D90. I got it the week it came out, which I believe was in early September. So far, I have loved it. I haven't even tried the video mode, and I don't plan to, but the rest of the camera still justifies the cost. The major benefit of this camera over my previous D70 is its ability to take quality shots in low light situations.

If you are someone who takes a lot of indoor shots, especially if you have a child and take photos at school shows (plays, talent shows, etc.) or indoor sporting events (basketball, wrestling), then this is a great camera for you.

I am now so addicted to low light filming that I just spent an extra $150 to get a 1.8 aperature lens. I am going to test it out at a basketball game today.

As for ease of use, it has automatic settings just like any other camera. Plus, unlike my D70, the auto settings actually take very good photos. I don't think the camera has a learning curve any greater than any other SLR camera....and if you just use the auto settings while you get accustomed to the camera, you are golden.

 

[wenrob]

As for ease of use, it has automatic settings just like any other camera. Plus, unlike my D70, the auto settings actually take very good photos. I don't think the camera has a learning curve any greater than any other SLR camera....and if you just use the auto settings while you get accustomed to the camera, you are golden.

I've never used a D70 so I wouldn't know the differences but compared to an entry level DSLR like the D40 there are many, many more options, buttons, settings etc and therefore much more to learn in comparison. I was fairly confident learning these things but I think it's because I had a base knowledge of what I was doing by then. I don't think it's bad to start off with the D90 at all but I think it could be overwhelming for someone who may never have operated a DSLR before. But then again, that could happen with a D40 or it's equivalent too, lol. And I will add that I felt I grew out of the D40 fairly quickly.
I personally do not like the auto settings on the D90 compared to the ones on the D40 but that's just me. I find myself shooting aperture priority 90% of the time.

 

[spinetnglr]

But then again, that could happen with a D40 or it's equivalent too, lol. And I will add that I felt I grew out of the D40 fairly quickly.

I agree with wenrob on this one. I have had my D40 for a little over a year and am ready to move on. I have been looking at upgrading since summer and now I have a small coin collection going to auction very soon and the proceeds are going for either the D90 or D300. If the coins bring in enough I will be getting a 50mm 1.8 and/or SB600 flash with it also.

 

[rossb]

As for ease of use, it has automatic settings just like any other camera. Plus, unlike my D70, the auto settings actually take very good photos. I don't think the camera has a learning curve any greater than any other SLR camera....and if you just use the auto settings while you get accustomed to the camera, you are golden.

This is not meant as a flame to anyone, but if someone is going to use any SLR in full auto mode then he/she probably does not want or need an SLR. You really need to take the camera out of auto to realize the benefits of an SLR.

 

[handicap18]

This is not meant as a flame to anyone, but if someone is going to use any SLR in full auto mode then he/she probably does not want or need an SLR. You really need to take the camera out of auto to realize the benefits of an SLR.

With all of the D40's D40x's D60's D50's XT's XTi'S XS' XSi's and so on that are out there, I would say there are probably more people using Full AUTO and/or the Icon modes than are using just PSAM.

I know of 4 people that aren't "into" photography, but want nice pics and have a D40 (2), XT and an XTi because they were frustrated with their PnS camera's. They also only have the kit lens and don't frequent or even go to any photo boards on the net like this place.

I used my N6006 and N70 mostly as PnS camera's for 10+ years. During that time I only used 2 lenses. The pictures I took with those camera's were much better than my friends or families took with their little PnS film camera's. I mostly kept it in auto. I took some great photo's with those camera's.

 

[annnewjerz]

With all of the D40's D40x's D60's D50's XT's XTi'S XS' XSi's and so on that are out there, I would say there are probably more people using Full AUTO and/or the Icon modes than are using just PSAM.

I know of 4 people that aren't "into" photography, but want nice pics and have a D40 (2), XT and an XTi because they were frustrated with their PnS camera's. They also only have the kit lens and don't frequent or even go to any photo boards on the net like this place.

I used my N6006 and N70 mostly as PnS camera's for 10+ years. During that time I only used 2 lenses. The pictures I took with those camera's were much better than my friends or families took with their little PnS film camera's. I mostly kept it in auto. I took some great photo's with those camera's.

I completely agree. While I am learning to LOVE semi-manual modes like A and S, and sometimes I'll even venture into M...if I don't feel like taking the time to set up a shot, figure out the settings or take the picture twice if I don't get it right...full auto works MUCH better than my old p&s. With my Canon SD300 Elph, I would sometimes fall into a really great picture. I would get some great "macro" shots and some that had a little DOF, but with my D60 90% of my photos if I am using full-auto are much much nicer than I used to get.

I also think having full-auto on my dSLR helps keep me from getting too frustrated in the beginning phases of learning all of the functions. If I get fed up while I am out shooting because something doesn't look right...instead of stopping all together, I can switch to auto and still be happy enough with what I get to feel like I haven't wasted my time.

Some people like baby steps when making a change, and some people like to take the plunge and jump right in...having full auto to use makes it possible for everyone to enjoy their dSLR at their own pace.

 

[wenrob]

With all of the D40's D40x's D60's D50's XT's XTi'S XS' XSi's and so on that are out there, I would say there are probably more people using Full AUTO and/or the Icon modes than are using just PSAM.

I know of 4 people that aren't "into" photography, but want nice pics and have a D40 (2), XT and an XTi because they were frustrated with their PnS camera's. They also only have the kit lens and don't frequent or even go to any photo boards on the net like this place.

I used my N6006 and N70 mostly as PnS camera's for 10+ years. During that time I only used 2 lenses. The pictures I took with those camera's were much better than my friends or families took with their little PnS film camera's. I mostly kept it in auto. I took some great photo's with those camera's.

I completely agree. While I am learning to LOVE semi-manual modes like A and S, and sometimes I'll even venture into M...if I don't feel like taking the time to set up a shot, figure out the settings or take the picture twice if I don't get it right...full auto works MUCH better than my old p&s. With my Canon SD300 Elph, I would sometimes fall into a really great picture. I would get some great "macro" shots and some that had a little DOF, but with my D60 90% of my photos if I am using full-auto are much much nicer than I used to get.

I also think having full-auto on my dSLR helps keep me from getting too frustrated in the beginning phases of learning all of the functions. If I get fed up while I am out shooting because something doesn't look right...instead of stopping all together, I can switch to auto and still be happy enough with what I get to feel like I haven't wasted my time.

Some people like baby steps when making a change, and some people like to take the plunge and jump right in...having full auto to use makes it possible for everyone to enjoy their dSLR at their own pace.

Agreed with both statements as I used to be a full auto shooter. But....If someone is going to drop 1200 bucks on a camera they should learn how to use it IMHO. If the intention is to never shoot anything but auto they may as well save themselves some cash. The D90 is set up with all sorts of nifty buttons to make shooting manual and semi manual easier. It may bigger but it's not necessarily better as far a picture quality goes.
A side note: I've used the video exactly one time just to try it out. I'm more a picture person though.

 

[drcandon]

Well, one of these days when the economic crisis is over I will have a couple of cameras..a really decent P&S for DW and maybe the next iteration of a Nikon Dxx for me..but until that time I am glad that most camera makers have full auto settings on their DSLR's..yes my DW is very intelligent but she is not into messing about with AP or SP or even full manual just to get a picture..especially when I actually take the time to pose with a Disney character...so my point..one camera with auto settings does it all...these days the camera manufacturers (at least Sony and Nikon) are taking more care with their fully auto settings and in a lot of the cases the results are quite good...

And in a few cases full auto has saved a photo from my own enthusiasm..

Oh and back to topic..the D90 despite it outward complexity is an excellent camera..combining just the right amoutn of advanced features with decent auto settings

 

[mommytoe]

Thank you for all your help. I told dh to not buy the camera. I told him I am not ready for an dslr just yet. I only started classes in Aug. I am still scared of the more advanced cameras.

 

[rossb]

If someone is going to drop 1200 bucks on a camera they should learn how to use it IMHO. If the intention is to never shoot anything but auto they may as well save themselves some cash. The D90 is set up with all sorts of nifty buttons to make shooting manual and semi manual easier. It may bigger but it's not necessarily better as far a picture quality goes.

That is pretty much what I meant to say. A D40/50/60/80/90/300/etc.. will offer definite advantages over a P/S even if it remains in full auto (speed, low light perfomance, better flash options, etc.) but to realize the full potential you have to take it out of Auto. An SLR like a D90 with a low cost lens is about $1250 and a good P/S can be had for about $125. That is a big difference in price and for just general snapshots of the family (on Auto) the SLR pics are not going to be that much better.

One thing to keep in mind is that any SLR will have a lot of DOF control while the typical P/S shot will pretty much always have everything in the frame in focus (because of the small sensor and small lens). My wife (a non-photographer type) has asked me many times "why isn't everything in focus in this picture". If you can see yourself saying the same thing you will need to take the SLR out of full auto and keep an eye on f-stops. A DOF preview option on the body will help with this.

 

[scrappinmom]

to the OP sorry, don't mean to hijack.....but....

dh asked me the same question about the d90....I currently have the Rebel2000! YES it's THAT old.....& would love to move up a level or two and get some better action shots of soccer/ice skating...& low light parade shots...I've used every possible mode on my Canon, although probably 50% if my shots are in auto or sports mode.

so here's my question.....would I be better off moving up to the D40? than the d90??? would that be too much camera for me too?

 

[wenrob]

Having owned the D40 and D90 I would say if you have experience with shooting semi-manual and manual then the D90 will not be hard to pick up. I don't think of it as more advanced but more technical if that makes any sense. And like was mentioned some people are happy to shoot auto only and there's nothing wrong with that at all. I was just trying to say that if it's likely you'll only ever shoot in Auto then you could spend half the money and get the D40 or D60 and still be pretty happy.

 

[annnewjerz]

Having owned the D40 and D90 I would say if you have experience with shooting semi-manual and manual then the D90 will not be hard to pick up. I don't think of it as more advanced but more technical if that makes any sense. And like was mentioned some people are happy to shoot auto only and there's nothing wrong with that at all. I was just trying to say that if it's likely you'll only ever shoot in Auto then you could spend half the money and get the D40 or D60 and still be pretty happy.

Agreed, if you are going to be shooting alot of in auto or some of the program/icon modes and don't plan on using many of the extra features, the D90 might be a little bit of a waste of money (although the internal focus motor is a feature I wish my D60 had). For shooting in auto I have been 100% content with the D60, but since it doesn't have many more features than the D40, you may want to look for one of those, I have seen alot of good Black Friday ads for the D40, some with a kit lens for under $500. That being said, if you do plan to shoot in manual or semi-manual, the D90 while more expensive now, might be a better investment in the long run. A few months ago I got what I could afford, the D60...and while I am happy with it, I can tell I will probably want something a little more advanced in the near future (within the next year or so).

Good luck and enjoy, whichever decision you make!
Ann