Nikon D90

amadeus

Anybody know the straight skinny on the D90 Ashton Kutcher's been doing commercials for?

When I see those "bigger" DSLR's they look bigger than my D40, as in the lens's look bigger than mine.

I'm thinking I need 2 camera's when I shoot MX, one for close, one with the long lens.

thank you :lust

ziggy53

amadeus wrote:

Anybody know the straight skinny on the D90 Ashton Kutcher's been doing commercials for?

When I see those "bigger" DSLR's they look bigger than my D40, as in the lens's look bigger than mine.

I'm thinking I need 2 camera's when I shoot MX, one for close, one with the long lens.

thank you

I'm sure Ashton uses whatever they put in his hands for the commercial.

You can get a copy of the video here:

http://press.nikonusa.com/videos/packing.wmv

As far as which long lens he might be packing near the end of the video, it looks to me like the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED.

I often use 2 cameras to cover an event, especially if there just is not time for changing lenses. I'll use a camera "holster" to hold the lesser used camera/lens until the shooting gets fast.

If Nikon gets a sale from this, I want the commission.

amadeus

I'm still looking to upgrade from my D40 to a D90.

a few questions. B&H sells the D90 with a 200 zoom VR2 for the same price almost as a D90 with a 70-300 VR.

is there a big difference in the VR-VR2 lens's?

also, how does anyone think the D90 would stack up against the D80 and D300. I'm only asking cos they're in the same price range.

I'm assuming the D80 been on the market for awhile.

I pretty much shoot outdoor dirt bikes/mx exclusively.

thanks in advance for any input on the D90.

ziggy53

amadeus wrote:

I'm still looking to upgrade from my D40 to a D90.

a few questions. B&H sells the D90 with a 200 zoom VR2 for the same price almost as a D90 with a 70-300 VR.

is there a big difference in the VR-VR2 lens's?

...

What is a "200 zoom VR2"?

amadeus wrote:

...

also, how does anyone think the D90 would stack up against the D80 and D300. I'm only asking cos they're in the same price range.

I'm assuming the D80 been on the market for awhile.

I pretty much shoot outdoor dirt bikes/mx exclusively.

thanks in advance for any input on the D90.

If you can find a Nikon D300 in the same price range as the D80 and D90, buy it. I have never seen that myself.

The D90 has an imager with better high ISO performance than the D80, and closer in image quality to the D300. In a choice beteen the D80and the D90, I would choose the D90. The D300 will beat both in functions, features and performance.

Take a quick look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d80%2Cnikon_d90%2Cnikon_d300&show=all

bandgeekndb

I can't speak for the differences of VR vs. VR2, but ziggy, here is what he's referring to:

With 18-105mm and 70-300mm VR: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/588977-REG/Nikon__D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

With 18-200mm VR II: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/595841-REG/Nikon__D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

As for D80 vs. D90, I can't imagine why you'd want to get the older D80 unless you found a GREAT deal on a used one. That's the only reason I'm considering a D80, because I can't afford a D90, and I can't justify saving for that right now. I'd rather save to upgrade my glass.

Tiziano

First off, I am not a pro in the normal sense of the term. Yes, I've sold a few pix and do a shoot now and then but I do not market my skills (at least as a photographer).

That said, I love my D90! I sometimes use a D60 (which is much like the D40) and feel that the D90 is a far better camera. I come from film land via a Canon AT-1 and digitally a Sony F707 so the jump to the Nikons was quite startling. The D90 has more heft and feels like it means business whereas when I use the D60 (even with my bulky Sigmas) it feels more, well, toy-like. When I was making my decision I went into Best Buy and held the D300 as well (this was before the D90 was in stores). It seemed bigger than I was after. The D60 is too small, the D90 is just right.:D

Somewhere on dgrin I read another question between the choice of a D90 or a D300. One of the answers was related to the weatherproofing on the D300 and lacking on the D90. Given your intended uses, this might be a concern for you.

ziggy53

bandgeekndb wrote:

I can't speak for the differences of VR vs. VR2, but ziggy, here is what he's referring to:

With 18-105mm and 70-300mm VR: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/588977-REG/Nikon__D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

With 18-200mm VR II: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/595841-REG/Nikon__D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

As for D80 vs. D90, I can't imagine why you'd want to get the older D80 unless you found a GREAT deal on a used one. That's the only reason I'm considering a D80, because I can't afford a D90, and I can't justify saving for that right now. I'd rather save to upgrade my glass.

Thanks Bandgeekndb, that's much better information to go against.

Amadeus,

If indeed those are the choices you wish to make, we need to know more about how you would use the camera and if you still think you might need 2 bodies?

I suppose that the singular Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-f5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR could handle much of what you need for focal lengths, but I'm not sure that the AF speed is enough to consistantly track your quarry.

If you use manual focus and pre-focus on a particular "mark" that the subjects will hit, that might give better results than AF if you can time the moment of exposure properly.

If you want more consistant results from AF then you might need to invest in much better sports type equipment like the Nikon D300, with the better AF section, and faster focussing lenses as well.

The Nikon D300 also has better body seals which might allow it to hold up better if you need to shoot in dusty conditions, versus the D80 or D90 (like Tiziano just mentioned).

amadeus

ziggy53 wrote:

Thanks Bandgeekndb, that's much better information to go against.

Amadeus,

If indeed those are the choices you wish to make, we need to know more about how you would use the camera and if you still think you might need 2 bodies?

I suppose that the singular Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-f5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR could handle much of what you need for focal lengths, but I'm not sure that the AF speed is enough to consistantly track your quarry.

If you use manual focus and pre-focus on a particular "mark" that the subjects will hit, that might give better results than AF if you can time the moment of exposure properly.

If you want more consistant results from AF then you might need to invest in much better sports type equipment like the Nikon D300, with the better AF section, and faster focussing lenses as well.

The Nikon D300 also has better body seals which might allow it to hold up better if you need to shoot in dusty conditions, versus the D80 or D90 (like Tiziano just mentioned).

thanks for all the responses.

I see the D300 is "dust and water resistant" where the D90 isn't.

I also see the D300 is a bit higher in price. I've had good results with the D40 using autofocus mostly, with shots presentable enough that I've had some decent sales. the waterproof isn't a big deal, if its wet, I'm either under an umbrella or home watching TV.

When I see a D40 or D60 and then see the D90 I see a lens about the width of a tangerine compared to the width of a navel orange.

not the best analogy, but I'm thinking I'm ready to get more lens on the subject. not to brag but I've got shooting MX down pretty good now and I know (think) with the "fatter" lens I'll get more clarity and depth.

I've been surprised that a few sales were failry large size (smugmug) 20x30 and maybe even a tad larger and nobody complained so the Nikon D40 6 mpx seems to be able to blow up fairly well. But at this point I'm pretty committed to shooting MX long term and figure I might as well up the ante.

thanks again for all the responses. I'm not stuck on Nikon so any other thoughts appreciated. I guess I can go as high as $2,000 but..would rather go less.

thanks.

vintagemxr

I bought my D90 last year when they came out and got the 18-105 lens with it and then ordered the Nikon 70-300 also. I'm delighted with the camera and both lenses. I'd love to have a fast 400 - 600 but that will have to wait until I win the lottery.

Doug

Tim Kamppinen

I'd just like to point out that the size of the lens has nothing to do with the camera it's on. Those huge, expensive f/2.8 VR zooms are all AF-S for the most part, meaning that they have a built-in focusing motor and are 100% useable on your D40.

That said, I just upgraded from the D40 to the D90. I got my D90 yesterday and shot a high school basketball game with it last night. I love it. While the D40 autofocused correctly with my AF-S lenses, the D90 just has a much better autofocus system overall with 11 points instead of the mere 3 of the D40. Of course the D300 is better still with 51 points. I saw a big improvement in focusing because of this, however for static subjects it doesn't matter much at all. Sports is where you'll see a huge difference, or any situation where you subject is moving quite a bit. The D90 also is giving me cleaner results at high ISO's, has a higher frame rate at 4.5 fps, a much nicer rear LCD, and a lot of other great things. One huge feature for me was the ability to autofocus with non af-s lenses. Again, however, most of the lenses being discussed in this thread WILL work with a D40.

Icebear

I just want to clarify something. The Nikon 70-300 VR lens does use the VRII system. It is the same VR technology as in the 18-200. For some reason B&H refers to the 70-300 as VR and the 18-200 as VRII, but the 70-300 IS VRII. It's just a less expensive lens than the 18-200, not that it has a less capable VR system.

amadeus

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

I'd just like to point out that the size of the lens has nothing to do with the camera it's on. Those huge, expensive f/2.8 VR zooms are all AF-S for the most part, meaning that they have a built-in focusing motor and are 100% useable on your D40.

Again, however, most of the lenses being discussed in this thread WILL work with a D40.

thats great advice and I just wanted to say thanks. I never really thought of just getting a new lens as easy as that sounds. I just figured it was time for an upgrade but I can always get the lens now and camera later.

thanks!

jrbechthold

D90 is a workhorse...
I upgraded from a D40 to a D90 in November of last year and couldn't be happier. The majority of my pals shoot with D300, D700, D3's etc and the D90 is no slouch. The ISO performance at 1600 and 3200 on the D90 is better, IMO, than the D300. If you are looking to bump up from a D40 or D60 - the D90 is a great choice... and saves you some $$$ to spend on glass.