Justifying the Nikon D90

[ArtandStructure]

You know, someone doesn't have to be shooting feature films to be a professional... You're confusing pro cinema and pro video

...

Also keep in mind that when you're using a pro cinema camera, you've also using thousands upon thousands of dollars in supporting gear, audio recording, and lighting equipment, and a multi-person crew to run it all, which your D90 user will never have. Trying to say that the D90 is comparable to a pro cinema camera because it lacks the same functions is stupid.

I suppose it's a good thing no where in my post does it say the D90 compares to a pro camera.

You may have also misread the part where I started out dismissing the D90 for regular serious work and said "For the sake of playing devil's advocate though..."

..then proceeded to respond in a devil's advocate way to the remarks that lack of autofocus, takes longer than 5 minutes, etc. are "amateurish" when in fact they are staples of what is considered the highest high-end work. You are picking at the semantics of my post without regard to the meaning of it. It isn't what you perceived it to be.


All the best

Jesse Widener
Art and Structure design studio

 

[fiercetiger224]

You think the D90 can't create quality videos? Then just go to Vimeo.com and look at the D90 tag, heck even the commercials for the popular Kata bags was shot with a D90! Once again it is a case of not blaming the machine for your own shortcomings! Yes the jello effect is more noticeable in the D90 than it is in the Canon 5DMKII but I believe the latter is also much more expensive!

It's much more expensive? I beg to differ, since it's about twice the price of the D90, not to mention that it's full-frame vs 1.5 crop factor. Also, you've got 21 megapixels as well. For those alone, warrants the price increase. They're not in the same league obviously.

And don't bring the BS about "megapixels don't matter". It's just FUD. Yes, 8MP is more than enough for most pros, but you know, if you have even more resolution, you have more room to crop with if needed. I've been able to take pictures with something VERY tiny (like a tiny food crumb) and been able to blow it up only to find out that the picture is SO dense with clear quality, assuming you have a decent quality lens. It's amazing how Canon was able to keep the noise level so low with such a high megapixel sensor. If you need full-frame, it's the best you can get at this price range, along with full 1080p video (the rolling shutter isn't bad either!).

Anyway, the D90 is more than worth it for $1300! I'd say go for it. My friend let me shoot with his the other day, and I love it. Yes the 720p video is kinda cooky with the crappy rolling shutter, but the pictures look amazing, which is all that matters!

 

[103734]

I'm considering a purchase decision similar to what you had to; I have to ask, what was the main deciding factor in getting the D90 over the others? Video aside, would you still have purchased it?

Well I like the feel and layout of Nikons more than canons, but when deciding between Nikons I would have to say I went with the D90 for these reasons, great high ISO performance, built in AF motor (i know the D200 has this but this kept me from going with lower end nikons), live view (great for zooming in on a tiny spot of a picture to make sure its focused perfectly), man I can't really think of what else there was, I just really loved the camera when I played around with it and had to buy it.

 

[Nordichund]

I bought the D90 a couple of weeks ago and absolutely love it. Here in Norway the price has dropped by about 30% since it was first introduced, so I really think it is excellent value for money, considering that a D80 was more expensive when it was first released.

Would I upgrade from a D80 to a D90? No I would not, the next stage is the D300 or D700. I honestly thought about buying a D300. Cost and the larger, heavier(but better quality) build is far more than I want for my photographic needs. As are probably some of the features on the D90

I doubt if I will use the video feature much, but it feels good to know it is there, should I find myself in a situation that would warrent taking some video footage. You just never know.

As for the pro and cons and all the features of the D90 compared to its competitors, the reason I finally opted for the D90, instead of the Canon 40d or 50 is the wide range of Nikon quality lenses avialable to the D90.

On a negative point, I was upset to read in the instructions AFTER i bought the camera that it is not advised to use it in temperatures of less than -1C (30,2F). Living in Norway, with all the wonderul frozen fjords and snow covered mountains in the wintertime, that is a real disadvantage. Not that it's going to stop me.

Another thing I would do. would be to pay the extra cost and buy the 18-200 lens rather than the 18-105 lens that came with mine.

Regarding the megapixel question, as an avid user of Photoshop, the more the merrier.

I have no problems in recommending this camera to any serious amateur photographer, even without the video option. Saying that there are a lot of excellent, high-quality, competitive camera products out there on the market.

 

[MacJenn]

I bought the D90 a couple of weeks ago and absolutely love it. Here in Norway the price has dropped by about 30% since it was first introduced, so I really think it is excellent value for money, considering that a D80 was more expensive when it was first released.

Would I upgrade from a D80 to a D90? No I would not, the next stage is the D300 or D700. I honestly thought about buying a D300. Cost and the larger, heavier(but better quality) build is far more than I want for my photographic needs. As are probably some of the features on the D90

I doubt if I will use the video feature much, but it feels good to know it is there, should I find myself in a situation that would warrent taking some video footage. You just never know.

As for the pro and cons and all the features of the D90 compared to its competitors, the reason I finally opted for the D90, instead of the Canon 40d or 50 is the wide range of Nikon quality lenses avialable to the D90.

On a negative point, I was upset to read in the instructions AFTER i bought the camera that it is not advised to use it in temperatures of less than -1C (30,2F). Living in Norway, with all the wonderul frozen fjords and snow covered mountains in the wintertime, that is a real disadvantage. Not that it's going to stop me.

Another thing I would do. would be to pay the extra cost and buy the 18-200 lens rather than the 18-105 lens that came with mine.

Regarding the megapixel question, as an avid user of Photoshop, the more the merrier.

I have no problems in recommending this camera to any serious amateur photographer, even without the video option. Saying that there are a lot of excellent, high-quality, competitive camera products out there on the market.

You were doing so well well until the end. I agreed with your post until one of your last statements about mp's. Unless you print pictures the size of billboards or larger anything more than the 12 the D90 got won't make a real difference. It is the biggest BS put out there by the makers.

 

[Cliff3]

Unless you print pictures the size of billboards or larger anything more than the 12 the D90 got won't make a real difference. It is the biggest BS put out there by the makers.

There was a recent thread over on dpreview talking about billboards. I guess their minimum requirement is 8 mpx, and anything over that is gravy. The poster there was worried he would have to secure a medium format camera to handle the assignment, but the advertising agency assured him that his D3 was more than adequate. 12 mpx is more than ample for my needs, and the images are about the limit of what my current computers can comfortably process.

 

[MacJenn]

There was a recent thread over on dpreview talking about billboards. I guess their minimum requirement is 8 mpx, and anything over that is gravy. The poster there was worried he would have to secure a medium format camera to handle the assignment, but the advertising agency assured him that his D3 was more than adequate. 12 mpx is more than ample for my needs, and the images are about the limit of what my current computers can comfortably process.

I knew it was something like that. I think I read about it at dpreview also (I love that site). I will never have a need to have something as big as a billboard anyways. Heck 99% of my pictures are smaller than 8x10.

 

[Nordichund]

You were doing so well well until the end. I agreed with your post until one of your last statements about mp's. Unless you print pictures the size of billboards or larger anything more than the 12 the D90 got won't make a real difference. It is the biggest BS put out there by the makers.

Lol, for a normal picture I totally agree with you, however when it comes to taking small bits of pictures, blowing them up and then and putting them together with other bits and pieces, then the more mega pixels, the better. But that is just from my own experience.

 

[THX1139]

As a graphic designer, the D90 and video is a great tool to have. I primarily use the camera for photography, but it's nice to have the video feature when I need a quick bit of video to go along with one of my designs. It just opens up so many other options if you're a designer doing new media for the web, or creating animated textural elements. It's nice to have that option all rolled together in a single package. It won't replace my regular video camera, but I can now leave home with one camera and know my bases are covered if I find the need for some video. For that, it's worth paying a bit more. However, if you have no need for video, then you are paying a premium for a really nice DSLR that happens to have video capabilities.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

You were doing so well well until the end. I agreed with your post until one of your last statements about mp's. Unless you print pictures the size of billboards or larger anything more than the 12 the D90 got won't make a real difference. It is the biggest BS put out there by the makers.

I agree mostly here too, but I don't think you can completely discount megapixel count. It's not nearly as important as the manufacturers make it out to be, but extra resolution can be useful when cropping or doing other things. (Just for the record, I've got two 8 megapixel, ISO 800 12x18 prints that look great. I haven't tried a 20x30 though.) MP count isn't on the top of the priority list, but it's not worth totally throwing out the window. When added with caution (the 50D is an example of what isn't cautious resolution adding), more resolution is fine. As long as it doesn't ruin the noise control, I'm a happy camper.