How would you change Nikon's D90?

We gave the full-frame consumers (read: the lucky ones) the ability to sound off on the D700 a few weeks back, so we only felt it fair to give the same opportunity to those who've snatched up Nikon's recently released D90. For those who've bit on the kit package, how has your photographic life been? Are you satisfied with the low-light performance? Still struggling to get your settings worked out? Digging the Live View LCD? Oh, and how's that 720p movie mode treating you? History would assert that the D90's successor is already in the works, so make sure you give Nikon some good stuff to work with. And... go!

[Flunky Carter @ Oct 10th 2008 7:24PM]

I'm thoroughly happy with mine :)

[CraigJ @ Oct 10th 2008 7:26PM]

Bad guess, but then again, someone that insists on including a link on every post on Engadget probably doesn't posses generally good judgment anyway...

[Jonathan @ Oct 10th 2008 7:27PM]

I really like mine--I have had a blast with the low-light picture taking; still have to fine-tune it, but really loving it.
I moved from a d40 w/ an 18-200 lens, and really love how much more balanced the 18-200 feels on the d90--I thought I might keep the 18-105 lens for a lightweight-day lens, but I don't think I will. (unless I keep the d40 too, but that might be a bit excessive.. ;-) )

live-view... meh. I suppose it can be handy, but the camera seems slightly more recalcitrant to focus while using the live view than with the viewfinder, but not obnoxiously so.

movies.. dunno, haven't really played with them.

But I really do love the ergonomics of it; it just feels soooo good holding onto!

[bebop @ Oct 10th 2008 10:48PM]

As a D40 owner, is the D90 so much better in low light? (i.e. high ISO)

If ergonomics are the primary concern, wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper and functionally equivalent to get a D80?

I'm just curious, as while the D90 seems a nice camera, it doesn't seem all that much better than the one it replaced, while costing quite a lot more.

[Jonathan @ Oct 10th 2008 11:46PM]

Yes, the D90 is much better than the D40 in low light, both at lower ISOs as well as less noisy higher ISOs.
My first night with it I took it a bar & shot & 1600 ISO & was happy with the pictures, and shot at 800 and was happy with the shutter speed.
My biggest reson for upgrading was the low light shooting. Everything else after that was icing on the cake :-)

[buu700 @ Oct 11th 2008 5:01AM]

"dunno, haven't really played with them.

But I really do love the ergonomics of it; it just feels soooo good holding onto!"

That's what SHE said!

[Lucas @ Oct 10th 2008 7:28PM]

The D90 is an amazing camera. I cannot think of anything I would change as of yet.

[Ayman @ Oct 10th 2008 10:40PM]

Add a shotgun to it...

[Byrdman @ Oct 11th 2008 12:57AM]

i agree, canon FTW!

[Mehul @ Oct 11th 2008 2:42AM]

I can think of a few.

Longer movie mode
Maybe 1080p with 5.1 surround sound
Better Autofocus in live view (Kinda like the Sony)
Sensor based Image Stabilization

[Johan S @ Oct 11th 2008 5:33PM]

High fps movie mode .. a 1000+ fps mode like the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 has would be awesome.

[Paulie @ Oct 10th 2008 7:29PM]

Change the name to canon and replace the guts with canon parts LOL

[CraigJ @ Oct 10th 2008 7:51PM]

All rabid fanboys should drink some bleach.

[jbarron @ Oct 11th 2008 1:58PM]

And then what, retire all the old lenses you have every 8-10 years?

[biff @ Oct 10th 2008 10:14PM]

Put an "I" in front of it and have it be made by Apple.

[kyle allen @ Oct 10th 2008 10:27PM]

dang! now theres camera fanboys?!!!

[luzzio @ Oct 11th 2008 1:27AM]

I think the canon vs nikon fanboyism has been around longer than macs vs pc.

[John @ Oct 10th 2008 7:31PM]

1. Electronic eyelevel viewfinder. Ditch the prism/mirror box. I want to be able to see what my capture is going to look like. And make this image reflect all my settings - dof, white bal, etc.
2. Articulating LCD screen.
3. Really fast Contrast Detect autofocus.

J.

[wickedpheonix @ Oct 10th 2008 7:58PM]

LOL you must be kidding. You see what you shot with a mirror (that's the whole point after all) and electronic screens can NEVER show the same level of quality, sharpness, DOF, etc. as an optical viewfinder.

[Plothole @ Oct 10th 2008 8:41PM]

Oy vey... until they can solve the lag issues (especially in low-light), limited dynamic range, and limited resolution, an electronic viewfinder simply cannot be an effective replacement for an optical one.

[Kenjis9965 @ Oct 10th 2008 10:01PM]

1. Learn to use your camera and you wont need that, besides, White balance is correctable in post processing, Depth of field is experience and the depth of field preview button [And I learned without that second one, I can "feel" what aperture to use for a scene] EVFs frankly suck..

2. I do agree with this, but id imagine theres some technical limitation thats kept Canon and Nikon from doing it on their SLRs...id imagine it might add a bit to complexity, reduce reliability/durability or make it harder to weatherseal

3. Meh, I like phase detect AF to be honest, I've played with contrast detect AF and i cant see why its so much better theoretically..its slow in everything right now however...and it requires an EVF or live view, both of which suck to me

Anyways, my thoughts/opinions having used one in a store for a bit, its a good camera, well sorted in a lot of ways

I cant comment on live view or movie mode cause i didnt try them [They're not selling features to me]

My big complaint is the fact it uses SD cards and not CF cards, Which is sorta dumb in my opinion on a camera in this class...

[jackson Brown @ Oct 11th 2008 12:21AM]

R U stupid? Sorry but why would anyone want an electronic viewfinder? Optical ones have infinitely more detail and real world everything than any electronic image could ever dream of having. Sell your D90 and get a point and shoot. You'll be better off.

[Temple @ Oct 11th 2008 12:41AM]

Actually, you want the Panasonic G1, and the upcoming Olympus micro-four-thirds(m43) if you want an EVF (if you don't mind a 2.0 crop factor).

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-drops-jaws-with-retro-micro-four-thirds-concept/

Thing is, if you use an EVF, the camera no-longer becomes a SLR. The mirror-box is what gives current dSLRs their AF speed (via-phase-detection) and metering. The new G1 basically takes everything in Live-view mode and does away with the mirror-box, it makes it very compact. Panasonic's EVF runs at 180fps (60fps for each RGB) so it manages to have very little lag if any. Beyond that it has a magnification factor larger then optical and is brighter.

[Tony @ Oct 11th 2008 6:42PM]

if you get rid of the mirror, you pretty much have a point and shoot with interchangable lenses. I dont think anyone would EVER make an SLR with an electronic viewfinder.

[ian9outof10 @ Oct 13th 2008 10:26AM]

An EVF! LOL. What you want is a bridge camera. Leave the actual photography to those of us that love the equipment and care about the final shot.

[metaphox @ Oct 10th 2008 7:34PM]

Maybe add autofocusing in movie mode...

[eleazar123 @ Oct 10th 2008 8:57PM]

I couldn't agree more! I love my D90, I really do, but my eyes aren't so good in telling when the video is focused as I zoom in and out. Hopefully it is something they can add in a firmware update. :\

[Temple @ Oct 10th 2008 9:10PM]

They need to fix the severe rolling-shutter problem in D-movie mode before they address AF.

Also, they need to add manual controls in movie mode as well. I can't imagine it being very hard to implement, but currently you can't change basic things like shutter-speed in movie mode.

AF wouldn't work very well anyways for a shallow-DOF camera with only contrast-detection to go by. Most camcorders that have AF have a large-DOF with a small sensor, which make AF easier. Even if AF was available it would be like the jerky AF that is currently in live-view mode. Pros don't use AF for video.

[Ian @ Oct 10th 2008 10:57PM]

That's the only realistic feature to add that I can think of. It may even be a firmware update away.

And EVFs are no good due to the low dynamic range of EVFs. Our eyes show around 16 stops of dynamic range, and even the best DSLRs for DR such like the Fuji S5Pro (12 EV) and Nikon D3 (11 EV, but may make the picture look horrid), so I wouldn't expect them to be able to display more DR on an EVF unless they had a sensor that was capable of doing so.

[V @ Oct 10th 2008 7:38PM]

I'd add gps and wimax if it doesn't already have it.

[Dave @ Oct 10th 2008 7:39PM]

OK. I'll say it. I was and still am drooling over the d90. It is an excellent replacement for the D80. The only problem? I don't own one. Why? 'Cause its $3-400 more than what it ought to be. They should have dropped the price on the D80, and brought the D90 in right where it used to be.

I work for a living, and can't wait to get my hands on this great prosumer camera, but I'm also married, and its that much more difficult to make it through the wife filter at $1400 + tax.

[CraigJ @ Oct 10th 2008 7:59PM]

http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=25446 $995 for the body
http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=25448 $1299 for the camera and the 18-105mm f3.5-5.6G DX VR Lens

Also, I wouldn't really consider this a prosumer camera. The current Nikon prosumer is the D300.

[Dave @ Oct 10th 2008 8:42PM]

The D90 came in at the exact same price that the D80 did when it was released. And yet, it is MUCH more camera.

It is priced right where it should be (in my opinion). And yes, I own one along with a D200 and a D40. No company can afford to price new technologies at the same price as 2 year old stuff. It is not how anything works. Go try and buy a new car for the same price as a 2 year old one.

You really are looking for the D40. It is under $450 with the 18-55 lens and it iss a great little camera. It can take amazing pictures and is priced great. Sure, it will not have all the bells and whistles of a camera costing twice as much, but it shouldn't.

[melo @ Oct 10th 2008 8:54PM]

I love when people say things like 'prosumer'. I have the D80, D40 and three other digital cams and shoot professionally. I dare you to discern between a well-shot photo taken from either. At the end of the day, these 'tier' labels are for marketing, pricing and planned obsolescence.

Buy the camera that feels best in your hand, has the features that fit your shooting needs and that fits your budget.

A good photographer can shoot with a $3 disposable camera.

[Kenjis9965 @ Oct 10th 2008 10:01PM]

er..the D90 is the prosumer model, the D300 is technically a professional camera

The D90 currently competes with the EOS-40D and the Sony Alpha a700

the D300 competes with the 50D and the Olympus E-3 right now

And it is the photographer thats the most important bit, but personally, i like the big beefy cameras to the tiny consumer models [D40, a200/300/350, D60, Rebels] Because they fit better in my hand and put the controls i like right where i want them...also of course, a photographer can become limited as well you realize if their equipment just isnt capable of allowing you to do the sort of shot you precisely want to get [Either due to the fact you lack the proper lens or your camera lacks the resolution to resolve it fully as you want it resolved] Of course a good photographer knows ways to turn flaws into features, but there are times you just cant

To me, for how i work, the a700 has the best control layout i've found actually, and I'm currently contemplating the purchase

The D90 and D300 are a close second however, the xxD Canons are a very far third..

[Temple @ Oct 10th 2008 10:25PM]

"Make it cheaper" are the worst suggestions (especially from people don't see that there are already cameras specifically for their price range). Hell, I want a D700 for a less then a grand. For what its worth, the D90 is a huge bargain, especially compared to its nearest rival the 50D (which is $1400 for body-only, 3 more MP, and sans video-mode). This camera is NOT going to launch for $600-700. That would make it cheaper launch then even a D60, it ain't a bloody point-and-shoot.

If you follow the pricing of the D80, in a year or two the D90 price will likely go down to $700-800 over time. You can buy a D80 with a Kit lens for below $800 now.

[marc @ Oct 11th 2008 12:10AM]

Wait 12 months and it will be at your price level!

[CraigJ @ Oct 11th 2008 10:03AM]

First, let me agree with melo; these terms are basically meaningless, and the most important component for taking a good picture is the user. I've sold photographs I took with my D50 and the cheap kit lens...

However, the D90 is relatively cheap, and has a plastic body, and in my opinion is a consumer grade camera. It's an awesome camera nonetheless.

[Max @ Oct 12th 2008 12:18PM]

Just a heads up, shop around. you can get it for 749 Including lens, with no tax or shipping.
http://shopdigitaldirect.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=8116

[??? @ Oct 10th 2008 7:44PM]

Drop this video BS. Can somebody PLEASE explain to me why it is so necessary to shoot video on an SLR? It's a camera, not a camcorder. That could ease the price quite nicely.

[CraigJ @ Oct 10th 2008 7:54PM]

No, it couldn't.

The ability to record video is basically just software.

[isayx3 @ Oct 10th 2008 8:59PM]

Because you can control the DoF and use different lenses for wide angle shooting or close ups....which you can't on consumer level video cameras that cost more than the d90.

[Worth Baker @ Oct 10th 2008 7:44PM]

definitely auto-focusing in movie mode, and on that note a better microphone, but beyond that, i'm loving it. the screen's gorgeous, and the picture quality is spectacular, and like Jonathan said above, the thing feels so solid holding onto it. definite A.

[SuperQ @ Oct 10th 2008 9:11PM]

Yea, the one thing I noticed was a lack of mic input. I would love it if it could do XLR/48v power, but I guess the crappy mic is good enough to do track syncing so you can replace the audio track with something from a good portable recorder or laptop+usb input box. That way I can use my AKG mics with it.

[saxdrummer @ Oct 10th 2008 7:48PM]

I think it's incredible, but let's get some backwards compatible AF in movie mode. Woohoo!

It's the best camera for your money, period. $1300 gets you 12 MP, 18-105, Movies, Low-Light pics, 5 fps (approx) and a ton of other awesome things. Go buy one now.

But just make it lok less like I'm underwater when I shoot videos and toss in autofocusing in movie mode. While we're at it, let's do an audio line-in and the ability to make notes on pics you've already taken.

[Nikonian @ Oct 10th 2008 7:50PM]

In-Body Stabilizer?

[mayhem85 @ Oct 11th 2008 12:08AM]

ive always heard the stabilizer is better in the lens than in the body....

but i dont know how true that actually is...

anybody else have an opinion or link that i can read up on this?

thanks...

[Plothole @ Oct 11th 2008 1:48AM]

@mayhem85

In theory in lens systems are more reliable since they can be purpose built for that specific focal length or range of focal lengths. In practice this seems to sometimes be true, though not always. There's also the fact that you can see the stabilization in effect while using the optical viewfinder.

Of course proponents of in-body systems will point out that their system works with any lens attached.

[Tony @ Oct 11th 2008 6:42PM]

Heres my opinion. Yes, lens-based systems work better, but you have to pay a LOT extra in most cases to get that image stabilization, where a camera with the in-body system usually costs the same as one without it. If you're picky and want slightly better IS, then lens-based is for you, if you can afford it. Otherwise in-body is perfectly competent and most people most likely wouldnt notice a difference in their photos.

From an engineering standpoint, in-body would be better, because you only have to make a smaller amount of cameras with the system in it , where you'll be making a lot more lenses with stabilizers in them. That means theres more parts that could break , and more under-warranty repairs that your company could be making if any of the lenses stabilizers goes bad. The lens-based system came from the time when the film plane couldnt be moved to stop shakes, so the lens was the only way they could do stabilization without a gyroscope attachment for the camera itself.

I personally have an a700 (sony) and think the stabilization in it works awesome

[mayhem85 @ Oct 19th 2008 3:01AM]

Thanks tony and plothole

Just wasn't sure if it was one of those myths or not...

I mean I've used pretty much all of the major brands and their stabilizers (well ive used the a350, the olympus 510, XSI, and the D60) but never really noticed a difference from the stabilzers... was just a few basic photos of same tree over and over at around 250mm, but still not one that really stood out and made me go "wow this stabilizer stands out!!"...

Once again though I do appreciate the opinions