D90 outed by inventory screen at $1,300 asking price

As Photokina looms large, D90 rumors have been in abundance -- with a varying range of legitimacy. This here Circuit City inventory screenshot, however, has a ring of truth to it, and even unveils a pricetag in the process: $1299.99. Not bad for rumored specs that include a 12 megapixel Live View sensor, video recording, HDMI out and GPS. The price also includes that new 18-105mm VR lens, but there's no more info to be had at the moment. A little help, Nikon? We won't tell a soul, we swear.

[DooM @ Aug 11th 2008 6:07PM]

iphone is much cheaper

[Josh @ Aug 11th 2008 6:36PM]

Had to be one prick.

I mean how the fuck can you shoehorn an iPhone into you ignorant pillock? This is an SLR. It takes pictures.. not the ones of your genitals that you send to those ladyboys in Thailand but pictures that are fit for professional use. The iPhone is a PHONE get where i'm going with this one? And i bet your ass that if it included GPS it wouldn't be broken by one of Nikon's own updates less than two months down the line.

And before you make stupid comments like "it's cheaper" have you actually considered what you're saying?

No. Of course you haven't.

If you had, then you'd realise that even a basic contract at $60 a month would set you back $1080 over the course of your term. And ON TOP OF THAT you've got to pay $199 or $299 depending on the phone you want.

So what do we conclude? Oops the iPhone is in fact MORE EXPENSIVE.

Fuck you. And get your fucking facts straight before you make comments like that.

[DooM @ Aug 11th 2008 6:42PM]

You fail at recognizing satire.

[ben_j @ Aug 11th 2008 6:45PM]

Josh, buddy, you ok? Take a deep breath... I don't think he was even serious.

[Kris @ Aug 11th 2008 6:45PM]

@Josh, DooM is a troll. Not onlydid you fall into his trap but you did _exactly_ what he wanted you to do.

Good job ace!

[Josh @ Aug 11th 2008 6:47PM]

Hardly.

Satire is funny.

iPhone gags are overused, outdated and are now just plain god damn annoying.

[Josh @ Aug 11th 2008 6:48PM]

And hey, i'm bored =P

[Josh @ Aug 11th 2008 6:52PM]

Oh yeah, and @Kris, looking through your comments reveals you're a tad hypocritical mate =P

[George V. @ Aug 11th 2008 6:10PM]

So that puts the body only @ around 1000-1100. I'm soooo getting one.

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 11th 2008 6:20PM]

I got that $1099 D80 with a 18-135 kit lens for $650 due to a typo in their circulatory a while back - mwahahahahah :D

Anyways a 105 lens with VR? I'm not too sure that even the 18-55 lens needed VR. Granted at the far end of the 135 a little VR would be nice but 105 is not 135 and VR on a lens with an 18mm focus point sounds a little absurd (especially since you're supposed to be using a tripod half the time with these anyways).

[Yem @ Aug 11th 2008 7:33PM]

VR is arguably MORE useful in wide angle than long. The low light indoor scene is a problem more frequently encountered than shooting long outdoors.

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 11th 2008 7:55PM]

@Yem

except indoors, you can counter the effects of high ISO with off-camera flash (unless you're thinking concerts or the like, and for concerts you can usually get away with some kind of tri- or mono- pod solution whether you are sitting or not, classical-type or rock-type).

[RobJ @ Aug 12th 2008 1:38AM]

"VR is arguably MORE useful in wide angle than long."

"Arguably" is the key word there, and I don't know many photographers who would make that argument.

It may be more useful to you, because that's what you shoot, but VR is actually much more effective at longer focal lengths, where camera shake is more of an issue.

[Tyler Willis @ Aug 11th 2008 6:48PM]

For all the added specs, there isn't anything about it that makes me want it over the D80... unless its got the colors of the D300. I just bought the 18-55 VR lens, now I'm wishing I held out and got the 18-105

[bebop @ Aug 11th 2008 8:01PM]

Well, GPS is neat, it'll have a really nice LCD, umm... I imagine you'll find a use for LiveView at some point... and the kit lens is better on features at least than the old 18-70. Lastly there'll be the incremental improvements in sensor and image processing pipeline.

But no you're right, it probably wont be the "whoa" moment we all got when the D300 came out.

"I just bought the 18-55 VR lens, now I'm wishing I held out and got the 18-105."

Yeah, if it can do what it does without serious compromise 18-105 is about the perfect zoom range. Still the 18-55mm VR is a remarkably nice little lens, and you can bet the 18-105 will be at least twice, probably closer to three times the price.
when it comes out, probably closer to 3x more expensive.

[Temple @ Aug 11th 2008 9:26PM]

Sounds to me that there are going to use the 12MP CMOS sensor from the D300; except without the 51-point pro-AF and 100% pentaprism that the D300 comes with, likely a 9-point or 11-point AF instead and probably around 5fps. Which still makes it a great deal and an amazing camera.

[carballo @ Aug 11th 2008 7:09PM]

@josh: get your head out your ass, dude.

everyone else (including engadget) you guys really need to stop drinking the kool-aid. nikon does with SLR's what sony does with everything else: sells you the name on so-so equipment that can easily be matched by cheaper products. nikon DSLRs=overpriced.

[CraigJ @ Aug 11th 2008 7:47PM]

Really? and what would you recommend instead of Nikon? Canon is no cheaper.

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 11th 2008 7:50PM]

have you ever 1) used one 2) used one properly (aka using tripods etc) 3) known what you were doing with one (more often than not, it is the photographer not the camera that is the problem aka PEBKAC) 4) used photoshop appropriately with one.

Nikon glass is usually really, really good glass and you can get very nice pictures with it - just need to know what you're doing. Pay more to get more, and there are a few really good deals with Nikon glass, namely the AF NIKKOR 50mm f1.4D lens which is only $300 and the f1.8 budget version which is only $100 - FAST lenses which work well in all kinds of light.

[jollyllama @ Aug 11th 2008 8:17PM]

[citation needed]

[Lazerface @ Aug 12th 2008 3:20AM]

wickedphoenix is very right. you can have the latest and greatest camera, but until you take it off auto, it will only give you decent results. the biggest factor in any image is the person who created it, both their technical skill and their photographic eye.

Consumers think that newer cameras make batter pictures
Hobbyists think that lenses make better pictures
Semi-pros know that its the 6" behind the camera that counts.
Pros are too busy shooting to talk in forums.

Me, I'm a semi-pro that sells cameras by day, shoots by night. (or sunset/sunrise/days off)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazerface/ if you really want to check

[Hurt @ Aug 11th 2008 7:32PM]

This makes me wonder why review sites always compare the D300 and 40D, when the D80 (D90?) is in the same price range. Any ideas?

[vasilis @ Aug 11th 2008 7:58PM]

I think the main reason is that Canon does not really have anything between the 40D and the full frame 5D. It makes no sense to compare the DX sensor D300 with a full frame sensor camera. So they compare it to the closest that Canon currently has at their line up and that so happens to be the 40D.

Also when the 40D came out it did cost very close to what the D300 costs now, it was regarded mostly as a semi-pro rather than a high end consumer DSLR. However it is now quite old and cannot compete with the D300 in features/performance so its price has dropped dramatically.

Canon currently is being spanked by Nikon left right and centre as I see it. They have to act fast and decisively if they are going to compete seriously.

It has nothing like the uber cheap D40, the new 1000D only barely beats the D60, the 450D is too expensive and competes with the D80 which is a better camera save for the not so brilliant high ISO performance, the 40D will have no place at all once the D90 arrives, there is nothing to compete with the D300, the 5D is too old to even barely come close to the D700 and at the very top the D3 is doing amazingly well.

[Lazerface @ Aug 11th 2008 9:49PM]

Old? its been out for just under a year!
But your very right about Nikon and Canon product lines not lining up side by side. Canon needs to smarten up fast for their low end DSLR sales to be salvaged, Nikon and Olympus are stealing their sales.
Also, Canon's revised 5D should be announced in the next month. Canon just does a better job of hiding things from internet fanboys.

[Foof @ Aug 11th 2008 8:04PM]

Is there an original file for this picture? The position and size of the flash flare (denoting distance of the camera to the screen) and the utter lack of any pincushion effect on the image make it look awfully fake to me.

[bebop @ Aug 11th 2008 8:36PM]

While its a troll, its worth rebutting anyway.

As the maker of the cheapest dSLR currently on the market - the D40 ... and a damn fine dSLR it is too ... I'm trying to see where you are coming from. Some of the others might try to convince you that the long list of "features" are more important than they really are to make it seem like their camera is a better deal. Heck Nikon plays the same game to some extent to try and get you to buy the more expensive models, but "you get what you pay for" seems to shake down pretty consistently regardless of brand.

[Mike Cohen @ Aug 11th 2008 9:14PM]

I have a D40x, which is a slightly improved D40 (10MP vs. 6MP). The one feature I really miss is an internal auto-focus motor. None of Nikon's prime lenses have an internal AF motor, so I can only do manual focus with my 50mm/f1.8. I'd like to upgrade to a D80 (or now D90) for that feature & exposure bracketing alone.

[farfisa @ Aug 11th 2008 9:03PM]

Does any other DSLR have a video recording mode? That has me curious.

[Tyler Willis @ Aug 11th 2008 10:49PM]

The D90 is rumored to have Video... at least the photo seems to have a mic opening. Not sure why a photographer would want one unless you were into recording. Totally different mediums if you ask me. If it is there I doubt its much better than what you get with video with Point & Shoots... With the exception that you can stick a big time zoom on there.

I really wouldn't know though.

[Michael Scrip @ Aug 12th 2008 1:31AM]

> "I doubt its much better than what you get with video with Point & Shoots..."

I bet it would be much better than a point-n-shoot. It's got a huge sensor and a huge lens opening... compared to a tiny sensor and a pinhole in a point-n-shoot.

Point-n-shoots can produce great video already, so I could only imagine it would get better in a DSLR.

HD would be great! Come on... it's only 1920x1080... This sensor can do 4272 x 2848. There's no reason a DSLR can't do video. All digital still cameras can do video. If they can shove a GPS into an SLR, they can put a video processing chip in there.

[gray @ Aug 11th 2008 9:07PM]

those specs are rediculous. video recording, on a dslr? Yea I'll take body only please...

[Knives_Out @ Aug 11th 2008 9:18PM]

Canon? Hello .. anyone there????

[Lazerface @ Aug 12th 2008 3:23AM]

Canon just has tighter lips. Don't worry, they'll come thru, eventually

[Tyler Willis @ Aug 11th 2008 10:43PM]

Agree that GPS is cool, except I don't think its going to be built in like the recently announced high end point and shoot (probably to cut down on battery drain for people that don't care about GPS..

[Tyler Willis @ Aug 11th 2008 11:03PM]

@temple

If you are right, then you are talking about a pretty compelling upgrade to a D40, D60, or D80. To a certain extent, even the D300.

If you could get the D300's viewfinder and CMOS processor, I'd more than happily trade the speed and auto-focus points for the cash savings. I'd keep the $600 or so and grab a DX ultra-wide.

For that matter, it kind of begs the question "Why bother with the D300 at all? If you can get the same picture quality with the D80, and a far superior camera with the D700 (for not very much more), then the only reason to own a D300 is for the speed, durability, and auto focus, (probably not important to consumers, but important for pros). What you give up by upgrading are the consumer friendly features like GPS, HDMI out, Video Capture, and the stupid modes (fully automatic). I don't think a pro would care about any of those, but a pro could probably afford the investment in the D700 unless they had a whole bunch of DX lenses (semi-pro).

I'm sticking with my D40 until I'm not poor.

[Squeamish @ Aug 11th 2008 11:49PM]

The D300 has HDMI-out.

[Tyler Willis @ Aug 12th 2008 12:00AM]

@Squamesh

Fair enough... but is it really worth anything without video? I can't imagine hooking my camera up to a big-screen to view photos with my friends (don't have any :), but then again my camera won't do it so maybe I'm just jealous.

I still don't see any compelling reason, as a consumer, to own a D300 compared to the rumored specs on the D90 if it get's the D300's sensor.

I also don't see any reason, as a pro, to buy a D300 over a D700 other than DX lens compatibility (D700 can only use DX lenses at 5mp), and price (probably trivial if you use your camera to make a living). Unless you are just trying to make an interim transition to FX and need to save money to buy lenses, I'd shell out the extra $'s on the D700.

[Sandy @ Aug 13th 2008 11:20PM]

According to the half pic of the cam, the D90 has HDMI out

[Jeff Kee @ Aug 11th 2008 11:22PM]

@ Josh -

You do realize that when you wrote the first angry post you obviously didn't know it was a satire, considering you knocked the person's knowledge of the camera world instead of telling him to not use iPhone gags.

Now you realize that you've made a stupid misinterpretation, and all you can say is "Hardly. Satire is funny"?

Why don't you admit your stupid moments instead of embarrassing yourself more while trying to play it cool? Too bad you can't delete your past posts eh?

[caramelcoconut @ Aug 12th 2008 12:56AM]

josh's mom is cheaper.

[Valoblk @ Aug 12th 2008 9:48AM]

I worked for Circuit City back during my freshman year of college in 1992, and I can't believe that they are STILL using the same ancient Point of Sale system. We were complaining about how archaic it was 16 years ago. Supposedly, it was state of the art when it was introduced sometime before 1988.

[moshy @ Aug 12th 2008 1:42PM]

Nikon SLRs have had microphones on their pro cameras for a while... you can record memos etc with your photo

[Colin Weick @ Aug 13th 2008 11:06AM]

Woot! I was able to return the D80 I got last week(and without a restocking fee!).

Looks like I will be getting something better next month. And with a VR lens to boot! :)