Posted by Scott Fricke on September 8, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Stopped by a Wolf Camera store in downtown Denver yesterday and they had a D90 in the store. I'm a Canon shooter, but that is one nice camera. Bright, full frame viewfinder, the LCD screen resolution is amazing, much better than anything Canon has. And the video feature is incredible, very smooth video and very good sound. I just got to play with it for 10 minutes or so, but very impressed!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Video? Seriously? Why would they bog down the camera with that? I have a video camera if I want to shoot video... putting it in a pro SLR seems odd, but I guess there will be that one moment when a still shot won't do a scene or a situation justice, and that option is there. I guess I'm just a purist and like to approach a camera for what it does.
Wonder what Ansel's take on that would be!
Posted by Basil Greber on September 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Well, Paul, I have no idea about video, but the D90 offers HD video, and that combined with interchangeable lenses (does your video camera do that?) and the DOF isolation properties of the system apparently appeals to many... that's what people say. No idea whether it's true.
Basil
Posted by Scott Fricke on September 10, 2008 at 3:47 PM
You make a good point on the interchangable lenses Basil. While I was in the store we attached a fisheye and did a video, pretty cool results, as the salesman said, "this is heaven for the skateboarders/snowboarders doing videos".
Scott, do you have an opinion about how the D90 compares with the D300? (minus the video feature, about which I mostly agree with Paul) I'm looking for a new DSLR and trying to be patient about what Photokina will reveal. From ads I've seen, the D300 can be as little as $100 more than the D90. I'd appreciate your view.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
The video "feature" of the D90 is a waste of circuitry. Sadly, I do think it will continue to be added to other DSLRs in the future. I'm with Paul. If I want to shoot video, I'll use a video camera.
While it captures in HD (that's just a resolution, nothing more), it's actually not video. It uses MJPEG which is a low quality format that basically takes a series of still shots and combines them to create a moving image. It's better than an anmimated GIF but not as good as a true motion format like MPEG or AVI.
The idea of being able to change lenses is interesting. While it's true that you can, most video cameras come with good quality lenses that have a decent, although not excessive, zoom range built in. With the Nikon, you only have a handful of lenses that have VR capability as well whereas a great many video cameras have stabilisation built in. There are also high quality accessory lenses that can be added for wider angle or greater telephoto if desired. Canon also has a couple higher end models that can take Canon 35mm lenses with an adapter. There are also adapters available to use 35mm camera lenses on many other video cameras.
I don't know whether the D90 can record sound but it certainly doesn't have an accessory mic input to get better quality sound.
It records at a frame rate that isn't compatible with (m)any of the video editing packages available on the market. This means that in order to be used with those software programs the file has to be interpolated to a different frame rate which reduces quality even further.
It's a gimmick. It's designed to give P&S users who've had video capability in their compact cams a reason to pony up bigger bucks for a DSLR. It's a way to suck them in to the Nikon system and keep them with Nikon for longer. Switching costs in the P&S market are very low. Switching costs in the DSLR market are much higher; particularly as you add more and better lenses. And for those users, who're used to low quality video, it's fine. For anything remotely serious though, it's not an option.
Posted by Scott Fricke on September 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM
It can record sound, the salesman said it had two "microphones".
Posted by Basil Greber on September 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Rosemary, any shop that claims to sell you a D300 for $100 more than a D90 (so, something like $1100) is trying to rip you off. Beware.
Basil
Posted by Basil Greber on September 11, 2008 at 3:18 PM
The idea of being able to change lenses is interesting. While it's true that you can, most video cameras come with good quality lenses that have a decent, although not excessive, zoom range built in. With the Nikon, you only have a handful of lenses that have VR capability as well whereas a great many video cameras have stabilisation built in. There are also high quality accessory lenses that can be added for wider angle or greater telephoto if desired.
Just curious... is there a model at the price of a D90 that can take lenses from a fisheye to a super telephoto, or do 1:1 macro?
Also, about the VR... a handful of lenses. I don't know. Seems like there's quite a bunch of stabilized Nikkors out there at this point (I count 16 in Nikon's line up, going from 16 to 600 mm, and including a Micro Nikkor...).
I'm not interested in doing video, and couldn't care less about the D90's video feature, but let's not bash something that may be highly useful for many...
Basil
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
"A handful" was a guess. I don't shoot Nikon so I'm not intimately familiar with their product line. The point was that not every lens Nikon produces will allow VR but that most videocams on the market do offer integrated stablisation.
As far as fisheye to super tele, as I said there are accessory lenses available for video cameras. I've got a wide angle accessory lens for mine. It's, if I recall, .7x or .66x but there are wider ones. And supertele, yes, again there are accessory lenses that let you narrow your angle of view quite a bit.
I can focus to within a few centimetres with my video camera. Does that get me 1:1 macro? I don't think so but I don't know what the mag. ratio is.
Keep in mind too that video and photography, while both image capture are different. The needs for 1:1 macro or fisheye in video are fairly rare; more rare I'd venture than in still photography.
You ask the question is there a videocamera on the market that can take fisheye or do supertele or do 1:1 macro at the price of the D90. I'd ask the question another way. What would the price of the D90 be if it didn't have the video capability and could they have put other, more useful features in it if it didn't have video? I'd also pose it this way: Are there videocameras available that can do much, much higher quality video capture at much, much less money than the D90? Let's put your question another way. What's the total cost of a D90 plus lenses to go from fisheye to supertele and include 1:1 macro? Because on its own, the D90 can't do anything. So add, say $600 for a fisheye lens (no VR), tack on another $1000 for a good wide angle zoom (no VR), another $1500 for a good standard zoom (no VR) another $1600 for a tele (with VR and only out to 200mm) and another $800 for a true macro lens and what are we up to? About $6500? Are there video cameras on the market that will allow you to do all that and capture much, much higher quality video? At that price or better? And with stabilisation throughout the entire focal length range? Yep, absolutely.
I'm not arguing that the feature will get used. I know it will. There just shouldn't be any expectation that the quality of what one gets with the video capability of the D90 will be anything overly impressive.
I also think a Live View LCD is a waste on a DSLR for the most part. I can see some uses for it's not mandatory. Again, it's more a carryover from P&S cams where people composed with the LCD. And you know what's happening now that they've got a DSLR with a Live View LCD? They're holding the thing out at arm's length and using the LCD to compose just like they did with their P&S cam.
It's an overall dumbing down of a market segment.
Posted by Don Miller on September 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Stock Video
Many of have photographed some amazing scenes. I would like to flip a switch and record HD video and sell it as stock footage.
The D90 isn't good enough, but future cameras will have professional quality.
There's little different in the camera other than software when video is added.
Robert, when you say
"a Live View LCD is a waste on a DSLR for the most part. I can see some uses for it's not mandatory. Again, it's more a carryover from P&S cams where people composed with the LCD. And you know what's happening now that they've got a DSLR with a Live View LCD? They're holding the thing out at arm's length and using the LCD to compose just like they did with their P&S cam. It's an overall dumbing down of a market segment"
you're overlooking the medium-format analog. Someone could say "with the hi-res LCD and magnification features, the D9 is aimed at TLR users who don't want to pay $25K or always, always use a tripod."
I got my first SLR in 1962 or so, and when my eyes did a major presbyopic change on me in the mid 1980s, it became really, really difficult to use a viewfinder. I want that hi-res LCD screen so I don't always have to depend on AF and hope for the best (that one of the images will be focussed where I want it to be). Tripods are a lot more popular since people can see their fuzzy images at 100% on their computer monitors, and the live-view screen is a godsend, especially since it shows what's captured more accurately than the 95% viewfinder does.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM
LOL! Not overlooking it Rosmarie. I did say I could see some uses for it. Macro work is one area where it might come in handy so you don't have to contort yourself into unnatural positions trying to get your eye to the viewfinder. Vision problems are another.
I've owned a Mamiya C220 TLR and do own an RZ. Some have also made the analogy to working on the ground glass of a large format camera. I've also got an old Crown Graphic 4x5 in need of a new lens sitting around here somewhere.
There are a few differences. The biggest difference though is that you don't hold your MF camera out at arm's length to use it. The ground glass on TLRs and MF SLRs is on top so you can hold the camera in at your body for stability. And if you're going to handhold a 4x5 you don't do it at arm's length either.
I'm nearsighted and have worn glasses since high school but as I age, I'm also developing an increasing state of presbyopia. Most people do. Haven't gone to bifocals yet. It hasn't affected my photography though because looking through the viewfinder I'm still looking at more distant subjects. Even for macro photography, I think my eye is still far enough back from the subject that it's not an issue - at least not yet.
Discussion
12 repliesWonder what Ansel's take on that would be!
Basil
While it captures in HD (that's just a resolution, nothing more), it's actually not video. It uses MJPEG which is a low quality format that basically takes a series of still shots and combines them to create a moving image. It's better than an anmimated GIF but not as good as a true motion format like MPEG or AVI.
The idea of being able to change lenses is interesting. While it's true that you can, most video cameras come with good quality lenses that have a decent, although not excessive, zoom range built in. With the Nikon, you only have a handful of lenses that have VR capability as well whereas a great many video cameras have stabilisation built in. There are also high quality accessory lenses that can be added for wider angle or greater telephoto if desired. Canon also has a couple higher end models that can take Canon 35mm lenses with an adapter. There are also adapters available to use 35mm camera lenses on many other video cameras.
I don't know whether the D90 can record sound but it certainly doesn't have an accessory mic input to get better quality sound.
It records at a frame rate that isn't compatible with (m)any of the video editing packages available on the market. This means that in order to be used with those software programs the file has to be interpolated to a different frame rate which reduces quality even further.
It's a gimmick. It's designed to give P&S users who've had video capability in their compact cams a reason to pony up bigger bucks for a DSLR. It's a way to suck them in to the Nikon system and keep them with Nikon for longer. Switching costs in the P&S market are very low. Switching costs in the DSLR market are much higher; particularly as you add more and better lenses. And for those users, who're used to low quality video, it's fine. For anything remotely serious though, it's not an option.
Basil
Just curious... is there a model at the price of a D90 that can take lenses from a fisheye to a super telephoto, or do 1:1 macro?
Also, about the VR... a handful of lenses. I don't know. Seems like there's quite a bunch of stabilized Nikkors out there at this point (I count 16 in Nikon's line up, going from 16 to 600 mm, and including a Micro Nikkor...).
I'm not interested in doing video, and couldn't care less about the D90's video feature, but let's not bash something that may be highly useful for many...
Basil
As far as fisheye to super tele, as I said there are accessory lenses available for video cameras. I've got a wide angle accessory lens for mine. It's, if I recall, .7x or .66x but there are wider ones. And supertele, yes, again there are accessory lenses that let you narrow your angle of view quite a bit.
I can focus to within a few centimetres with my video camera. Does that get me 1:1 macro? I don't think so but I don't know what the mag. ratio is.
Keep in mind too that video and photography, while both image capture are different. The needs for 1:1 macro or fisheye in video are fairly rare; more rare I'd venture than in still photography.
You ask the question is there a videocamera on the market that can take fisheye or do supertele or do 1:1 macro at the price of the D90. I'd ask the question another way. What would the price of the D90 be if it didn't have the video capability and could they have put other, more useful features in it if it didn't have video? I'd also pose it this way: Are there videocameras available that can do much, much higher quality video capture at much, much less money than the D90? Let's put your question another way. What's the total cost of a D90 plus lenses to go from fisheye to supertele and include 1:1 macro? Because on its own, the D90 can't do anything. So add, say $600 for a fisheye lens (no VR), tack on another $1000 for a good wide angle zoom (no VR), another $1500 for a good standard zoom (no VR) another $1600 for a tele (with VR and only out to 200mm) and another $800 for a true macro lens and what are we up to? About $6500? Are there video cameras on the market that will allow you to do all that and capture much, much higher quality video? At that price or better? And with stabilisation throughout the entire focal length range? Yep, absolutely.
I'm not arguing that the feature will get used. I know it will. There just shouldn't be any expectation that the quality of what one gets with the video capability of the D90 will be anything overly impressive.
I also think a Live View LCD is a waste on a DSLR for the most part. I can see some uses for it's not mandatory. Again, it's more a carryover from P&S cams where people composed with the LCD. And you know what's happening now that they've got a DSLR with a Live View LCD? They're holding the thing out at arm's length and using the LCD to compose just like they did with their P&S cam.
It's an overall dumbing down of a market segment.
Many of have photographed some amazing scenes. I would like to flip a switch and record HD video and sell it as stock footage.
The D90 isn't good enough, but future cameras will have professional quality.
There's little different in the camera other than software when video is added.
"a Live View LCD is a waste on a DSLR for the most part. I can see some uses for it's not mandatory. Again, it's more a carryover from P&S cams where people composed with the LCD. And you know what's happening now that they've got a DSLR with a Live View LCD? They're holding the thing out at arm's length and using the LCD to compose just like they did with their P&S cam. It's an overall dumbing down of a market segment"
you're overlooking the medium-format analog. Someone could say "with the hi-res LCD and magnification features, the D9 is aimed at TLR users who don't want to pay $25K or always, always use a tripod."
I got my first SLR in 1962 or so, and when my eyes did a major presbyopic change on me in the mid 1980s, it became really, really difficult to use a viewfinder. I want that hi-res LCD screen so I don't always have to depend on AF and hope for the best (that one of the images will be focussed where I want it to be). Tripods are a lot more popular since people can see their fuzzy images at 100% on their computer monitors, and the live-view screen is a godsend, especially since it shows what's captured more accurately than the 95% viewfinder does.
I've owned a Mamiya C220 TLR and do own an RZ. Some have also made the analogy to working on the ground glass of a large format camera. I've also got an old Crown Graphic 4x5 in need of a new lens sitting around here somewhere.
There are a few differences. The biggest difference though is that you don't hold your MF camera out at arm's length to use it. The ground glass on TLRs and MF SLRs is on top so you can hold the camera in at your body for stability. And if you're going to handhold a 4x5 you don't do it at arm's length either.
I'm nearsighted and have worn glasses since high school but as I age, I'm also developing an increasing state of presbyopia. Most people do. Haven't gone to bifocals yet. It hasn't affected my photography though because looking through the viewfinder I'm still looking at more distant subjects. Even for macro photography, I think my eye is still far enough back from the subject that it's not an issue - at least not yet.