Seemingly official Nikon D90 pics, specs surface

Nikon's much-anticipated D90 has been popping up all over the place lately, but it hasn't actually shown its face -- in any non-Photoshop fashion, that is. That now looks to have changed, however, as the all-but-official picture above (and a few more) recently made an appearance on Target's website only to be unceremoniously yanked, but not before being grabbed by a helpful member of the dpreview.com forums. Nikon Rumors also claims to have some "100% legit" specs for the camera, including word that it clocks in at 12.3 megapixels, and that it'll sport a 3-inch LCD, ISO 200 to 3,200, 11 AF points, and video recording with "real movie-like" quality. Be sure to head on past the break for another pic, and dig into the links below if you still want some more.

[Via Neutral Day, Nikon Rumors, thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Evan @ Aug 25th 2008 4:34PM]

Plastic body - do not want.

[csnoke @ Aug 25th 2008 4:37PM]

Ah yes... "real movie like" that has quality smeared all over it!

[Temple @ Aug 25th 2008 6:09PM]

Actually, I'm incredibly interested in a APS-C sized sensor's movie capability using Nikkor glass. The video quality may be "movie-like" in terms of the film like shallow depth-of-field that only a Red One can get.

As many know, Red is planning the $4,000 Scarlet camcorder, with the main attraction being the relatively large 2/3" sensor (most high-end prosumer camcorders use 1/3" inch sensors). A 2/3" sensor is 58.1mm^2 in area, this D90's movie capability would have a sensor with a massive 370mm^2. Basically, a camera/camcorder with adjustable DOF (like the Red) and interchangeable lenses.

[csnoke @ Aug 25th 2008 9:44PM]

If Nikon was capable of producing a Red Scarlet rival at the sub-$1000 price point.. why would they do it in a DSLR body?

I imagined a teenage girl looking at the video on her cell phone and saying "Wow.. that's real movie like!"

[Temple @ Aug 25th 2008 11:28PM]

@ csnoke
obviously, it won't be a Red rival in reality. They are different markets and different products, however, if this rumor is true, a HD camcorder with an APS-C bayesian CMOS sensor is more like a Red One then anything else on the market. Obviously, if they put video recording in the D700 or D3 it would be more closer to the Red, but this D90 should still give the film-like "bokeh"/blur effects that just aren't possible with camcorders with small sensors and a large depth-of-field (everything in focus).

You can also imagine the possibilities with interchangeable lenses. Perhaps using long telephoto lenses to capture scenes far away or even a fish-eye lens to get interesting results.

Also, video recording capability in this is obviously going to be secondary to the its main purpose as a still-photography camera. Adding video capability isn't a hindrance since its using the same sensor and really doesn't add any major parts, but its a nice feature to have should give unique results compared to anything else on the market.

[Film_geek @ Aug 25th 2008 4:50PM]

You know for the longest time I was opposed to the idea of using video recording on traditionally still shoot cameras. But my girlfriend's Canon has saved me on so many great videos which I need to capture since I have a video blog on my website that garners most of my traffic.

[wickedpheonix @ Aug 25th 2008 4:51PM]

meh... no real reason to upgrade from my D80 then.

[halogenrep @ Aug 25th 2008 4:57PM]

A little too late, Canon has also rumored to release Canon 50D with 15mp.

[elijahdesign @ Aug 25th 2008 5:12PM]

the rumored Canon 50D is more of a competitor to the Nikon D300 not this rumored D90. Canon has no competition for this, except for maybe the XSi (12MP). which I would not call much of a competition except for megapixels?

[Temple @ Aug 25th 2008 6:13PM]

The problem is Nikon and Canon DSLRs don't always match up directly in price/features. The D80/D90 are cheaper then the 40D/50D, and D300 is more expensive. Spec-wise the 50D and D90 will be more closely matched, since the D90 will have the same 12MP CMOS sensor as the D300, the main difference is the 51-point AF and high-speed(8fps with MB-D10)grip) that the D300 offers versus the 11-point AF that the D90 has (the 50D is going to have a 9-point AF).

[Matt @ Aug 25th 2008 6:14PM]

Why do people care so much about megapixels? 12 is a bunch. And does the rumored 50D have video recording? I'm sure both are fine cameras but I think there is plenty to differentiate them from each other.

Canon fanboi alert! so voted down

[Topmounter @ Aug 25th 2008 5:01PM]

Word is the next Harry Potter movie will be shot on a D90.

[zfurie @ Aug 26th 2008 2:15AM]

Yep, the already did, the Indian version: Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors.

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/hari-puttar-is-indian-harry-potter/

[Jim @ Aug 25th 2008 5:11PM]

I would assume the movie 'quality' would be based upon some preview sensor rather than just the 12.3 MP sensor. I thought that there was specific technical reason why a DSLR could not record video - I thought it was mainly due to the sensitivity of the large sensor and high probability that could be damaged due to excessive exposure to high light sources.
I figure if you had the live-view option on the back of the camera via the LCD why the hell could you not record it (just like the small point and shoot cameras).

[Johan S @ Aug 25th 2008 5:12PM]

Sweet ..unlike Canon, Nikon should be able to allow their cameras do high quality HD video recording without worrying about it cannibalizing their video camera market.

I was thinking it would only become possible via a firmware hack of some sort.

[Gravy @ Aug 25th 2008 5:31PM]

How do you prevent charge build up on the sensor when you are recording movies? If you take a long-exposure photograph, the corners of the image start to look purple unless you take a second, equally-long exposure with the shutter closed, and then subtract the second exposure from the first (Nikon cleverly calls this "long exposure noise reduction").

On another note, I like the idea of recording video with different lenses.

[Johan S @ Aug 25th 2008 6:31PM]

I think a solution to that would be, umm, refreshing.

[cppguy @ Aug 25th 2008 11:52PM]

Long exposure is completely different. There you have very little light, which you're accumulating for over 10 seconds. Motion picture is quite the opposite, the frames get refreshed at a high rate. Live View proves that you can keep the mirror locked up for extended periods of time without too many problems.

There is something else that worries me a bit. The way the latest Nikons work is that when the temperature is too high, they may shut down the Live View feature after about an hour or so, because the sensor becomes noisy when it heats up. But that's probably OK in a consumer level camera, and people have reportedly been using Live View for several hours at a time.

The really exciting feature, of course, is the ability to use ultra wide angle or prime lenses while shooting HD video. And this comes at almost no extra cost, as the camera would be prices about the same without the video feature too.

[Tim @ Aug 25th 2008 5:39PM]

It's not all about the megapixels. There are still professionals that shoot with the Nikon D2H that is around 4 MP. What I'm hoping the D90 has is a CMOS sensor and not CCD like the current D80, a dust reduction system, and a VR stabilized 18-135 lens.

[elloh7 @ Aug 25th 2008 5:42PM]

Am I the only one who thinks its a stupid idea to have video recording capabilities on a digital still camera? When time and energy is spent adding secondary functionality, the primary functionality of the device suffers. I've never like the "jack of all trades" school of gadget design. A DSLR camera should be a camera. A video camera should be a video camera.

DSLR + video recording = bad

Of course, this comes from one who thinks live view is sacrilegious, and a camera on a cell phone was the dumbest idea ever. If you want to use the giant LCD on the back to frame your shot, get a point and shoot. Its probably all you can handle anyway.

[Johan S @ Aug 25th 2008 6:23PM]

It's because some of us might actually want to save money and don't want to push around a wheelbarrow of gadgets. Not everyone wants the high end quality you're asking for.

I don't need a high quality camera or video camera with me all the time .. however I do suddenly need a camera from time to time ... that's why I appreciate that an OK quality camera is in my phone -- without having to carry around a camera everywhere on the off chance I may need to take a photo..

Unlike in a cell phone, the video camera capability in this camera doesn't even come from adding a lot of bulky additional hardware.

Furthermore .. the video camera functionality was not added at the expense of camera features. The "video camera" ability is inbuilt to the sensors thanks to the readout capability that is needed for it to function as a camera. So why not add the software to make it do higher FPS low resolution shots? You don't have to use it if you don't need it. If you think the sensors get degraded somehow then don't use the feature. If you are photographing a sports event .. there's a chance something extraordinary may happen suddenly and the need to take video arises .. and in those times fumbling around for a video camera is plain inconvenient and even worse you may miss the moment.

[Temple @ Aug 25th 2008 6:36PM]

video-recording using a large DSLR sensor has a lot of unique benefits (look at my post above).

And video-recording isn't necessarily a bad thing, its technology that has been branched-off from Live-view. Essentially, its the DSLR in live-view mode with the mirror locked up, the CMOS then just records at HD resolution (little less then 2MP) at high-speed (likely 24-30fps). It has no sacrifice or negative effects on any main functionality of the the still-photography capabilities of the D90, and you'll get worlds better HD videos then with a regular old 1/3" sensor camcorder, and with the added benefit of a camcorder with interchangeable lenses and shallow DOF.

[kadajawi @ Aug 25th 2008 8:07PM]

Actually, while I consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to DSLRs (I still think the perfect DSLR would be a Nikon FM2 or something similar, but with a sensor), I can understand the use of LiveView. I mean... there are angles you can shoot from with LiveView you just can't with an ordinary DSLR... or at least not with knowing what you will actually shoot.

And movie like videos definately sound interesting. The Nikon should be able to shoot in extremely low light situations, and with a good DoF (although not as good as with full frame sensors, but what the heck...). That would make it (more or _less_) a cheap Red One... as if the Red One isn't already extremely cheap.

[dcoaster @ Aug 25th 2008 5:50PM]

This even looks Photoshopped. Not saying it's not coming, but this pic sure looks fake. The 9 overlaps the D in the logo.

[Matt @ Aug 25th 2008 5:55PM]

DSLR+Camcorder

[ ] Fail
[x] Epic Win

[Conrad @ Aug 25th 2008 6:04PM]

amen to that.

It drives me crazy when I see mindless folks using slr cameras set on auto and just snapping away as if it's a really big p&s. shutter? aperture? manual? what's that?

[kadajawi @ Aug 25th 2008 8:14PM]

Don't forget that the Auto mode can be useful. For example if you don't have the time to bother with all the settings...

Likewise, a camcorder mode... yeah, why not? It wasn't built for that, but why not, really? This gives people a depth of field that only extremely expensive video cameras can achieve, giving it a nice film look. This might be a camera that film students/indie filmmakers might want to use, if the video functionally is well done. And yes, surely some photographer who has a baby might want to take a video of his babies first steps. As long as the primary intention of the camera isn't hurt I see no problem with it (with hurt I mean for example the mode dial DSLRs nowadays have... selecting the modes (especially the automatical ones) shouldn't have such a prominent spot on the camera, that spot should belong to the shutter speed). And LiveView is a feature useful for extreme camera angles where you normally can't reach. Useful. I'd like to have that on my Pentax, as I e.g. like to take photos from very low angles, like a cm over the ground. There is no way you can frame that with an unmodified DSLR.

[Conrad @ Aug 25th 2008 6:06PM]

*correction not amen to DSLR+camcoder, but amen to DSLR + video recording = bad

[Matt @ Aug 25th 2008 6:31PM]

If you're a world traveler or parent simplifying things and having the quality images of a DSLR with the ability to capture video in the same device is awesome.

I can't help it that you're too much of a pretentious photo snob to realize that.

[elloh7 @ Aug 25th 2008 7:36PM]

If you're a world traveler or a parent "simplifying things" then you don't need a DSLR. A decent little P&S will work just fine, and most of them can shoot a low-res youtube quality video, for much less money than a DSLR. If video capture must take precedence, get a decent video camera, record your video, and get still captures from that. For that matter, alot of low-mid range digicams have a snapshot mode built in.

I wasn't suggesting the physical attributes of the camera would be compromised due to added functionality, I'm suggesting the added functionality will hardly be worth the effort in the end, nowhere near the quality a decent video camera will get you because you're cramming extra software (and hardware? Since its somewhat vague as to exactly how it works anyway) into something that already functions well as it is. I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't need it.

If the only thing the D90 has going for it over the D80 is video capture and live view, screw it.

"if it isn't broken...."

[groggle @ Aug 25th 2008 9:29PM]

I am all about having that built in video capability. For one: using the tele lenses will likely make my kids sporting events turn out better than my Canon p&s, and I won't have to juggle two cameras to have both vid and still. I'm not after perfection, just good casual video. I think there is a market, and sales will reflect it. Purists will pooh pooh, but this is NOT aimed at photobug purists. It's casual users like me who like nice high quality shots in auto, and manual control when we feel a bit more creative and a wide selection of lenses for different needs. Real serious photographers are going for the higher level cameras that Nikon sells. I can afford those cameras, but I don't NEED them

[yokken @ Aug 25th 2008 11:12PM]

so you're saying a middle-end nikon dslr is for the average world traveler who uses auto settings and would like to capture video every now and then? and "real serious" photographers will only purchase a d200 or d300? a lot of professionals use the d40, d60, and d80 as their primary cameras. as someone said, some professionals even use the d2h. you say this camera is aimed at casual photographers, not "photobug purists"? if you're looking for a casual camera, get a p&s or a d40. d80 and (soon) d90 aren't aimed at casual users. i'm a casual user and i can say i wouldn't throw down a grand just to take pictures on auto every now and then. i'd step it up and make some money off my photography, and that's if i felt my d40 wasn't good enough.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to casual users and "photobug purists". this is a middle-to-high-end camera. video capability should be put into a lower model (if at all), such as the d40. that is a casual model.

personally, i don't care if they put it in, but i'm not going to throw down a grand for this camera. i can use my p&s for video. i don't think there's ever going to be a situation where i have my d40 with me and i suddenly see something i want to capture on video. if i have my d40 with me, i mean business.

[groggle @ Aug 25th 2008 9:32PM]

I am all about having that built in video capability. For one: using
the tele lenses will likely make my kids sporting events turn out
better than my Canon p&s, and I won't have to juggle two cameras to
have both vid and still. I'm not after perfection, just good casual
video. I think there is a market, and sales will reflect it. Purists
will pooh pooh, but this is NOT aimed at photobug purists. It's
casual users like me who like nice high quality shots in auto, and
manual control when we feel a bit more creative and a wide selection
of lenses for different needs. Real serious photographers are going
for the higher level cameras that Nikon sells. I can afford those
cameras, but I don't NEED them

[thefultonhow @ Aug 25th 2008 11:34PM]

Everyone conveniently missed something in their rush to talk about video recording: 12.3 MP. That spec should look familiar to anyone who uses the D300 or Sony Alpha A700. If they are going to put that particular Sony CMOS sensor in the D90, possibly with the same Nikon image processor as the D300, I might have to switch to Nikon, finally.

[elloh7 @ Aug 26th 2008 12:00AM]

Give me the D3/D700 sensor in a body the size of a D60, no frills, and I'll be forever happy.

[Dan @ Aug 26th 2008 4:16AM]

Megapixel Myth!!! Come on, don't try to sell us a 12MP camera using the same size sensor as the older ones! This thing will take worse pics than the D40!

[Etnier @ Aug 27th 2008 6:36AM]

Dan- " Megapixel Myth!!! Come on, don't try to sell us a 12MP camera using the same size sensor as the older ones! This thing will take worse pics than the D40!"

Consider, for a second, the picture quality of the D300.

[groggle @ Aug 26th 2008 6:21AM]

I am all about having that built in video capability. For one: using
the tele lenses will likely make my kids sporting events turn out
better than my Canon p&s, and I won't have to juggle two cameras to
have both vid and still. I'm not after perfection, just good casual
video. I think there is a market, and sales will reflect it. Purists
will pooh pooh, but this is NOT aimed at photobug purists. It's
casual users like me who like nice high quality shots in auto, and
manual control when we feel a bit more creative and a wide selection
of lenses for different needs. Real serious photographers are going
for the higher level cameras that Nikon sells. I can afford those
cameras, but I don't NEED them

[groggle @ Aug 26th 2008 7:15AM]

Sorry about my triple comment... It really does not show you when you have posted your comment, and I was not sure it had gone up... Had I noticed the Returning tab, all this would have been avoided. Yokken probably sees this as my ignorance of everything exemplified. I really don't understand the hostility, but I will say that if you don't like the idea of this camera, just don't buy it. But perhaps the point of the comment section is to vent hostility on ones fellow man? Anyway, I am intrigued to see how Nikon gets around some of the obvious problems of adding video to a DSLR. If the early reviews are good, I just might buy it. Since my video camera is on its last legs, it would be nice if I did not have to buy two devices. If that makes me a heretic to anyone who truly cares about photography, well... I really don't give a damn. It looks to me like the D80 is still going to be available for anyone who does not want video in their DSLR. And if you want to buy a D40 and take nice pictures cheaply, you can do that. Hell, if you REALLY and truly love photography - build a pinhole camera and take pictures with that. The depth of field is most excellent with a pinhole camera due to the tiny aperture and long exposure...

[Anotherfaceinthecrowd @ Aug 26th 2008 11:21AM]

If the menu system of this "rumored" D90, in terms of photography settings are changed, it would be a HUGE FAIL. First and foremost a D-SLR is a still frame camera. I've used the D40, D50, D200 but currently use the D80. I'm accustomed to the settings & the buttons, and I've become really proficient with everything the way it is. Not to sound like I'm old dog who can't learn new tricks, but for the D90 to make major changes to the photographic functions and button locations, would be step in the wrong direction. BUT, the addition of video capabilities using my fast lenses (f/2.8 & f/1.8) would be really dope.

I recently went to NY City and of course everything in NY is worth capturing. But I often found that a still image might not be the best medium to capture a certain scene. For example... capturing the density of pedestrian traffic in the NYC Subway system definitely has a greater visual impact as a video rather than a still shot. For this reason I traveled with my Canon G9, being a light & fast video recorder. But as with most things, new solutions bring about new problems.

I put myself in the position of having to choose which moments were to be captured as a still and which were to be captured using video. This really hindered my ability to create a seamless work flow and was detrimental to the overall experience of the trip. In the end I came away with insufficient video to edit into a documentary, and insufficient photographs to present the narrative of the trip.

I think overall the concept of having the ability to shoot quality video (not talking about mega pixels) is great. But the one thing that people everywhere are going to have to adapt to is the ability to quickly identify which medium is best suited for various situations. If you decide that you want to shoot both stills & video you'll find yourself playing with the settings/lenses and you'll miss many of the details that make any experience a memorable one.

[SJ @ Aug 26th 2008 2:43PM]

I know of a few video professionals who go to great lengths to mount their hi-def video cameras to regular 35mm lenses to get a video quality they want that exceeds that of their regular lenses that came with the camera. A D90 may be able to do this easily. Check out this link:

http://www.dv.com/reviews/reviews_item.php?articleId=196603236

[Brady @ Aug 26th 2008 3:45PM]

If added vid doesn't compromise still image capture, then it is a winner for me. I am a semi-pro who has never even tried "auto" on my DSLR. Still, I don't understand telling people who want "auto" that they should be using a point and shoot. Many P&S's have just as much manual controls as a SLR. And strangely, in my experience the quick shutter response of a an SLR is most needed in situations like snap shots of kids and pets. (Conversely, professional portraits and landscapes are easy with manual settings on a P&S because speed isn't an issue -- pro-only medium formats are even slower.)

Anyway, my opinion of what other people need or should use isn't particularly important unless a friend asks me for buying advice. I've been interested in the D90 for many reasons, but video is just a great value add -- I can leave my camcorder home (which I do now anyway). Most important though: my wife will be excited with the thought that I will take some video and thus she will actually let me to purchase a D90, which she might otherwise block. If there are other people like me, then I say Nikon is smart.

[Rick @ Aug 27th 2008 8:36PM]

It's a small segment of the market, but underwater folks can get excited about both live view and the video option. Live view can mean avoiding the problem of looking through a viewfinder with a mask, at least in some settings, and the video in the same housing could be a lot of fun with a powerful focus light mounted.

I've got a D200 with underwater housing and strobes, and I *like* how this one looks. Could be a great second body (lighter, smaller), while offering some real new features, to use the same lenses I already own.

[Thebes @ Aug 30th 2008 7:37PM]

Man, some people here have so little clue. I just got off the phone canceling a video camera order because I heard it was confirmed that the D90 WOULD have video. I paid little attention to the rumors, and didn't know specs had been leaked. In addition to a second HV20 I was going to purchase a $1200 adapter, called a depth of field adapter, to let me have control over dof and use nikon glass.

Instead I will save almost a grand, have a good backup to my D300, and get at least 2 stops of light sensitivity (a dof adapter takes a stop and the second lens takes a stop, that on a 1/3rd inch sensor). I might, just maybe, even have full exposure control? Seriously, OMFG, do people not realize how huge this is? There is a whole small industry built up of expensive products which do a rather poor job of restoring DOF to a budget "film"-makers toolset.

[Peter Schick @ Sep 16th 2008 5:43AM]

Has anybody an idea about the colour quality on the D90 (in the 24p mode)? How do they crop down the information-how is the picture quality if you try to make a 35mm copy for cinema release?