Nikon's new D90 in full, gory detail
By Paul Miller 
posted Aug 27th 2008 6:50AM
posted Aug 27th 2008 6:50AM
INT. SUBURBAN HOME - DAYOh, right, the tech specs:
BLOGGER sits at his computer typing. He looks inspired, witty, unkempt. The camera's short depth of field captures the writer in his element.
- New 12.3 megapixel Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor with Integrated Dust Reduction System.
- Low-noise from ISO 200 to 3200, ISO 6400 available.
- D-Movie mode records in 320 x 216, 640 x 424 or 1,280 x 720 in AVI format.
- Scene Recognition System based on 420 pixel RGB sensor for improved autofocus, autofocus and auto white balance, in addition to Face Detection.
- Multi-CAM 1000 autofocus with 11 AF points.
- 3-inch, VGA Live View LCD.
- 4.5 fps continuous shooting, 0.15 second startup, 65ms shutter release lag.
- SD / SDHC storage.
- HDMI output
- 5.2 x 4.1 x 3.0-inches.
- 1 pound 6 ounces without battery.
- $1,299 kit price.
Read - Nikon D90
Read - D90's "D-Movie" samples
Read - D90 tested out by Chase Jarvis
That's it!
Long time EOS user but soon I'm gonna put all up on Ebay if Canon don't get their act together.
psst.... 50D
I'm switching too. Honestly, the 50D doesn't come close to this thing without HD recording. The 50D specs are a yawn.
True, Canon is going to have to figure something out. They have a video camera line to compete with internally. Nikon on the other hand doesn't make video cameras. A long time ago Nikon used to make super 8 movie cameras. Nikon has only ever made one video camera back in the 1980's. I guess they decided they didn't like the quality of video back then. It's almost like they were waiting patiently for the technology to catch up, and then ... BAM!
This thing is going to sell like hotcakes.
Is this still 1.6 crop factor? Give me a full frame version of this camera, at $1700, and you'll really do a number on Canon folks.
Ken,
if they do just that.. you'll buy over 9000 units of this and thus, they'll finally able to "really do a number on Canon"?
Correction: 1.5x. This is the version of APS-C Nikon, Sony, and Pentax/Samsung use. Canon uses the 1.6x APS-C.
Yes, Abib, I'll buy OVER 9000!!!!!!1, THAT'LL SHOW YOU, CANON FOLKS! (I'm a Canon folk.. how about you not read into the comments too much and just catch my general point?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI
Maybe I'm just behind the times, but that little door on the lower side says "GPS". Interesting addition.
Seems you can buy an external GPS to plug into the camera for geotagging.
awesome d-movie website...can't wait to see what Canon can do to one-up them. Bring on the video feature!
now if only a firmware upgrade can do the same thing to my XS....
Movie on a DSLR, that's a 'world's first' not claimed by Samsung!
I'm guessing that this is in direct competition to the 50D, since it's *about* the same price point. The Canon wins in the megapixel race (15 vs 12), frame rate (6.5 vs 4.5), and highest ISO (12800 vs 6400). However, Nikon has the movie mode, and in 720p at that. This should translate into some very interesting videos with great bokeh. Really, they should have included something like this when the first Live View DSLRs came out, it's a no-brainer. If you can see the image in real time and have the processing power (of course you do), then you should be able to record it (just like it's a no-brainer to put video recording on the iPhone). Some people speculated that they didn't because it would cut into camcorder revenues... but then Nikon doesn't make camcorders, so they are the first to implement it? If the D90 can take some decent video, then camcorders would have to watch out. Me, I'd love to take HD video with my DSLR, since carrying a HD camcorder along with my other camera stuff is just too heavy.
BTW, DX format means cropped. FX is the full frame. The D700 is the one you want for Nikon FX format, but it isn't anywhere near the D90's price point.
Is there sound on the video?
I'm a complete noob to this photography thing and never owned a dSLR but I can still tell that this cam is pure sex. I don't know what those swithes by the lens do but I'm sure it's some sophisticated shit. The lens, 720p recording and HDMI output alone makes this thing worth $1000+.
Top switch is to turn on or turn off auto-focus
Middle switch is to turn on of off optical stabilization
Not sure about the bottom one?
Why did I get low ranked? Post your name here I will digitally rape you.
I'm planning on buy my first DSLR but will get something more entry level than this like the D40 or Canon's Rebel. Thanks for the info David W.
Bottom switch controls the VR mode - Normal compensates for random movement (shaky hands), whereas Active compensates for regular vibrations, such as if you're in a car. Note the VR is a feature of the lens and not the camera.
Frickin' A brother. Just a decent lens adapter like Red Rock Micro, Letus or Brevis 35 start at $1400 and that's not including the video camera or the lens. And even though the audio portion of the D90 is barely existent, I'd have no problem buying this camera and an audio field recorder, like a Zoom H2 or H4 and doing "double-system" sound with a clapper. Nikon, you rock!
While the camera may be excellent for regular photography, the lack of Stereo sound with the video recording makes the whole thing pointless. If one is going to shoot great quality video of family, friends, events etc, then one wants to capture the essense of the occasion. May as well buy a camcorder, such as Sanyo Exacti etc.
Not only no stereo mic but no autofocus in movie mode! Unless they've changed the way the image stabilisation works, that won't come close to a Camcorder either. Then there's the matrix metering only. This is no competition for a decent camcorder imho.
Not to mention 720p movie is limited to 5 min length, perhaps it is only writing to the buffer. Motion JPEG also means large file size compared to H.264 videos. Not a general purpose camcorder but decent clip recorder. Next year, I fully expect DSLR movies with 720p H.264 unlimited length with stereo sound from the likes of Sony/Samsung if not Canon.
Where does it say that the video length is limited to 5 minutes? I don't see that in the spec sheet anywhere. And even if it is only 5 minutes you could easily shoot an now budget indie with all your takes 5 minutes or less. I agree that the sound is not up to par, but grab a Zoom H4 for $300 or a Marantz unit for a couple hundred more and you will be shooting indie flicks for next to nothing with an awesome selection of lenses.
The 5min limitation in 720p is due to FAT32's 2GB file size limit since the data rate is 13.3MB/s and its still only recording to SD cards. The movie mode in this is actually VERY impress, controllable depth-of-field, low-light high ISO shooting, large sensor, interchangeable lenses, but its still more for the high amateur photographer. Hopefully future iterations would add 1080p, 30/60fps, and the ability to shoot in RAW.
HD mode is limited to 5 minute clips.
The SD modes can record up to 20 minute clips.
Remember, these are clips... uncut 5 minutes is pretty long, even for Youtube. With editing, which they promise is easy since it uses AVI files, you can edit your masterpiece.
Imagine you're a dad at your child's dance competition. Those dances aren't ever 3 minutes. It would be fine for them. As a dancer, I see more and more parents with DSLRs. This is a natural progression.
The D-80 has SDHC, I'm certain the D-90 does as well, so you can easily have 8GB+ Mem cards on this.
No ISO 100? That's odd. I do most of my daylight outdoor shooting at ISO 100 on my D80.
As far as video goes, isn't that what digital camcorders are for? I'm not trying to be a technophobe, and I see the appeal in consumer end point and shoots, but this worries me. If I buy a professional DSLR, I'm using it for photography. What's next? Day planners? Snake? Skype? Am I going to have to worry about software bloat on my next DSLR? I guess I always have my FM3a. She'll outlast every DSLR on the market.
I'm a little geek, always thinking about a Nikon "manual" digital camera, it's just little fun with an "automatical" one with all the functions never using for the photography. Since these things are toooo consuming oriented and with very unreasonable price for these unusable functionalities. So pity, being bound with my FM2 still ....
Its got 100 ISO, the D80 could operate natively between 100-1600, the D90 can operate between 200-3200. However, its pulled to 100 ISO and extended to 6400ISO. Being that its got the same sensor as the D300, it should perform admirably at low ISO.
Well, after checking out the specs and the video samples and sample images, I'm warming up to this thing already. Now, If bestbuy or somebody just had some sort of way to finance a large purchase..
Watch the video sample on this page, it's pretty sweet with the DOF possibilities:
http://digifotopro.nl/artikelen.php?ACG=1&ID=2474&action=OPEN&page=0
Well, I just got the D300 and gave the D200 to my brother for digiscoping (with a Swarovski ATS 80 HD). Live View and the better screen alone are reasons to "downgrade", but being able to take video clips is a fantastic addition for him, so when this comes out, the D200 is gone for sure.
You can see a video test of the Nikon D90 on http://www.ilogan.info/?p=778
I never cared for the video mode on digicams and this time it is no exception. Especially given that Autofocus does not work with video - ie you have to manually focus all the time especially if you want to get a bit creative with shallow DoF.
Having said that that looks like a fantastic piece of kit and when prices come a little down it is the replacement of my D40 :)
The video recording seems like a bit of a gimmick to me for any dslr over $1k. I think the money would have been better spent on real dslr features, perhaps a larger sensor. Looks great though. Reminds me of the F90 film camera.
Then go buy a full frame camera. To some of us video on this thing is a huge breakthrough we've been waiting decades for.
Well, it would make a *very* good short clip camcorder, at least for video, since it's sensor size is so huge. Think of extremely awesome low light performance and an actual depth of field control that you only get on the ~$20,000+ Red series camcorders. I don't think any camcorder remotely close to the D90's price range will match in terms of pure video quality. It will have its uses, though it will not be as general purpose as a normal camcorder would be.
You're right about all of that. Not for your average joe. But for us low budget indie filmmakers this is golden.
"very nice" - in a borat voice
Although i seldom use the video capability of my P&S, this video capability of the D90 sound interesting. But whats more interesting how they do it, e.g.:
Do they really use the whole sensor? I know that for P&S cameras they nearly always use only a small fraction of the sensor for video output (e.g. they read just every xth line or column), thus failing to take advantage of their bigger sensor. I would think they do something similar with the D90 as well, but maybe they have on chip binning or even more unlikely they read the full scale 12MP image and scale it down.
How fast they can capture a single frame? I know from the 40D that the liveview is distorted while panning. So the single frame capture (without the mechanical shutter) is too slow for proper video.
Video function without AF will be interesting, especially with the nice shallow depth of field :)
Bet many people will buy the d90 because of the video function even if they wont use it very much :) Hey and it has 11-AF points, 2 more than similar Canon cameras so its AF must be better, or? ;)
I liked the unkempt blogger intro :)
I was excited about the possibility of dumping my SLR (D70) and camcorder (Canon HV20) and getting the functionality of both in a single unit. The video sample on Nikon's website, however, was far less than impressive.
Someday we'll get great video and stills from a single device. Apparently that day is not today.
sd or sdhc, please, don't they realize that cf is faster?
Combined with the buffer, and only 4.5fps, a fast SD card will keep up.
Plus, with more laptops sold than desktops, you can shove an SD card right into a laptop.
I know a photographer that uses a SD to CF adapter in his D300. All his computers are laptops and it's just easier for him. CF might be "faster" but he likes the form factor of SD cards.
I was surprised by that too. You notice the speed on a 4Gb SDHC card is so much slower than even a 2Gb SD.
I'm guessing it is likely a push by manufacturers and the fact that so many devices now are stopping CF compatibility because everything must be micro mini sized and SDHC is seen to be better because it's smaller. So in other words, aesthetics. Either that, or they had to free up space to fit more into the camera's body.
Whatever the reason, it is a real shame.
I think that the main thing here is that Nikon's gone and done it, and others will probably follow. It doesn't really matter if you use it or not, or whether it's as good as a separate camcorder. It's there, and you can use it if you want, and it's better than not having this function when you need it. Everything's going multifunction, and if it's purist you want, just stick to film. It's also been said quite a few times, a normal camcorder can't achieve many of the things that this DSLR can do with video (lenses, DOF, etc).
It's the first to have it, so there are bound to be some quirks or limitations. Having no AF for video is probably good, since DSLRs live view AF is slow as hell. The fact that it records in motion jpeg, instead of the smaller/better AVCHD or HDV format is a bummer, since these would save a lot of space.
The verdict is still out on the video quality, at least until some real sample movies are made.
AVCHD or HDV is not better. It might be smaller, yes, and having that option as well would have been nice. But this camera is not geared toward shooting Billy's 5th birthday party. This is clearly Nikon targeting the indie filmmakers out there. They know indie filmmakers want to shoot 24p. They know we want full frame, interchangeable lenses, real mechanical focus and zoom. They know we want a less compressed recording format that we can actually cut without creating and intermediate file. They also know that sound isn't a huge issue for us because most of the time we record that with a separate recorder where an audio guy can ride the levels without getting in the way of the camera operator.
These guys really did their homework.This is camera geared toward indie photographers and filmmakers.
AVCHD (if implemented properly) and HDV are actually better than motion jpeg (lots of ugly jpeg artifacts, since it's based on jpeg). You can get 24p in AVCHD, no problem, as well as 25p, 30p, and 60i. It's going to be a bit hard to focus this thing since you've only got the live view to look at, and hidef means that just being a bit off focus is much more obvious in the final production.
Oh, and HDV doesn't require an intermediate file. I know, I edit it daily, and it's quite easy to edit. AVCHD, well, yes, unless you have a pretty good computer, but since consumers (and marketers) want tapeless media, it's AVCHD or bust. Really, how many pro or semi-pro or even slightly higher-than-consumer hidef camcorders use motion jpeg as opposed to HDV/AVCHD?
Again, the implementation of hi-def movie recording on a DSLR is good, since it allows a lot of things not possible before with a normal video camera. But I still feel that it's half-baked, first-gen, etc (it is, and it can be a lot better). It has possibilities and the potential to mature, especially since the "movie on DSLR" thing has been started.
pretty dern nice, but if i want to shoot films, i'll bring a videocamera.
Good for you.
720p at 24 fps? Isnt 720p supposed to show 60 frames per second? If it doesn't that's not 720p is it? why not 5 fps then?
720p is just the resolution. 1280x720 (p)rogressive scan. The frame rate is independent. typically 24, 25, 30 or 60fps. But some cameras can do anything from 1-120+ frames per second. American 35mm motion pictures are shot at 24fps, European movies are shot at 25fps. Old interlaced video (VHS, TV broadcasts, ect) is 60i (interlaced frames per second, or 60 half frames per second).
Oh and another thing. I'm sick of people claiming 480p is high definition. It's not. It's standard definition. Only 720 and 1080 are HD.
See more Nikon D90 reviews at http://www.dprguru.com/?model=d90&mfg=Nikon
Cheers!
Nikon needs to integrate the D90's video capability in all their higher end cameras - the D300, D700, and D3.
They also need to provide auto-focus capability, as well.
Aimed at indie film makers? Are you high? Ever made a movie? Even with a 8gb SDHC card a film maker would go crazy. After 5+ takes of several scenes it would be time to switch cards. Too time consuming, wrong form factor. Just wrong.
Now, if you mean youtube indie film maker or 5 minute short subject film maker then Its actually overkill.
This is gimmick at its best. Leave the video to true camcorders. Let the masses play around with video on a p/s cam. Keep video out of DSLRs. As a Canon user I hope they dont follow suit and do this with, say, a 60D or XT?
Dude... relax.
When the D80 came out it was the same price. Now we've got the D90 and it added video. Just like Live View, which is shunned by many... YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT! It's still a great DSLR. Video doesn't make it any less of a camera... it's still better than the D80.
If you buy this camera specifically to shoot video, you're dumb. But, if you buy this camera to be a DSLR, you have the option to shoot some clips if you want to.
Think of it this way... you've got your D90 around your neck because, like most DSLR owners, you like to take great photos. Now you don't have to use your crappy camera phone or Flip video to shoot video. Most people don't even carry camcorders anymore anyway. This might actually get people to shoot more video.
I would shoot 99.999% photos with this camera. But being able to shoot HD clips or short Youtube clips would be a bonus.