Nikon D90

[Andrea Griffa]

Hi all
I was reading on the web that the new Nikon D90 gives the possibility to have both photo and video features. As about videos, D90 can register HD Movies and it's the first reflex with this feature. It would be fine to have the possibility to take pictures and then make a movie in the same camera, so while chasing, you don't have to waste your time to take 2 tripod, one for camera and the other one for video-camera.

I was thinking to sell my D60 and buy the new D90.

What do you think guys?

 

[Lanny Dean]

Andrea, would not be a bad idea if your into using the same camera for both stills and video.....if you do sell your D60, let me know, I would be very interested.
I currently shoot with the D80 and would like to find a decent back up.

 

[Thomas Dolmer]

Andrea,
remember that the video feature on the d90 has some limitations.
It is not full HD, but 1280x720p. Also you can't autofocus in video mode and each clip is limited to a maxumum of 5 minutes.

But still a nice feature.

I'm a Canon guy, so i'm waiting for the 5D mark II to hit the shelfes.

But IMO it will not replace the ordinary video camera - yet.

 

[Laura Hedien]

It's always hard to get the best of both worlds- especially when it's the first real attempt to make/sell both a high quality still and video camera. I don't know if there will ever be such an animal, but of course it depends on your expectations.
There are different expectations if you shoot high end or if you want the images for yourself and are not as particular.
I'm always leary of "shortcuts".
Good luck in your quest!
Laura

 

[Andrew Ryan]

1280x720 IS full HD. The quality is limited by the crappy codec and the fact that it is highly compressed.

Disregarding the fact that the D90 video feature, it is a great camera. You get the same IQ as the D3 for a great price. If you can live without the pro features, it's well worth it. I don't have the D90 (I'm thinking about getting the D300) but I would be perfectly happy with the D90.

 

[Tony Perkins]

1280x720 IS full HD. The quality is limited by the crappy codec and the fact that it is highly compressed.

As far as advertising standards go, the 1900x1200 ish resolution is "Full HD". I'm not sure sure if they qualify "Full HD" for both 1080p and 1080i, but defiantly not 720p. Full HD is tied to the resolution, not the compression quality.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I really don't know where to start with this one.

"Advertising standards" don't exist. According to the FCC, 720p is and ALWAYS will be HD. Full HD is bulls**t! It's what the TV manufacturers made up to sell more TVs.

The video sucks on the D90 because the technology is primitive and is in its development stage. The only way to get good quality out of it, and it is possilbe, is to properly set up the shot. AKA, you will not get good video in everyday situations.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Hi all
I was reading on the web that the new Nikon D90 gives the possibility to have both photo and video features. As about videos, D90 can register HD Movies and it's the first reflex with this feature. It would be fine to have the possibility to take pictures and then make a movie in the same camera, so while chasing, you don't have to waste your time to take 2 tripod, one for camera and the other one for video-camera.

I was thinking to sell my D60 and buy the new D90.

What do you think guys?

Well, I think it is a great camera and a good idea. It must be difficult to run a viddy cam and take still shots all at the same time - eh? That amounts to juggling. Still shots require a great deal of composition to get them to really 'pop out' - as the saying goes. I am working to get my camera chops up for the next year; I need to know my complicated camera and the principles of photography like the back of my hand - so to speak. But using two different cameras at the same time means that one will not get enough attention - IMHO...

Having a still camera that can double as a viddy camera also means that you can use all of your really good glass in taking the videos. Can you imagine the cost of supplying your dedicated video camera with all of the lens varieties to make them as you would like them to turn out great? But now we are talking about adding GOOD glass to the mix that you already have. The results can only be much better. Provided of course, that the camera has good low-light capabilities when shooting in video mode.

But there is no free lunch here; the usage of memory will be the pricey factor. Since memory is cheaper and larger, you must consider buying a lot more of it so that you can have your video and your stills. Better assume an extra few hundred bucks more in the overall operational cost of having this setup.

Personally, I would go with the Canon that does the same video/still arrangement - the Canon 5D MkII is about $2600 w/o a lens (body only). But if you already have your Nikon lenses of choice, then the D90 is an excellent choice and part of a good plan.

 

[Jeff Richardson]

Have to toss my two cents into the ring on this one...
Carrying around two tripods may sound like a hassle, but in the long run you're much better off with a good film/digital camera and a good camcorder. Depending on the scenario and lighting, I usually have my camcorder on a tripod and a SLR on a strap around my neck or shoulder. That way I get the best of documentation with both video and film. One thing that helped me was learning to multi-task with the camcorder and camera. It takes practice and while it doesn't always work, it's a good setup that has worked well for me. Hope that bit of 2 cents helps.

 

[Tony Perkins]

"Advertising standards" don't exist. According to the FCC, 720p is and ALWAYS will be HD. Full HD is bulls**t! It's what the TV manufacturers made up to sell more TVs.

That is correct, 'full HD' is purely a marketing term. But it has become a de facto standard to consumers (much like "Tivo" or "Ipod" or "Kleenex"). I challenge anyone to find a device specified as "Full HD" that is not 1080.

 

[Andrea Griffa]

I really don't know where to start with this one.

"Advertising standards" don't exist. According to the FCC, 720p is and ALWAYS will be HD. Full HD is bulls**t! It's what the TV manufacturers made up to sell more TVs.

The video sucks on the D90 because the technology is primitive and is in its development stage. The only way to get good quality out of it, and it is possilbe, is to properly set up the shot. AKA, you will not get good video in everyday situations.

Andrew, it depends on what do you mean when you say that video quality sucks; I mean, if you sell your movies to Tvs such as national Geogr or Discovery or other important Tvs probably D90 video quality is not that good: you actually should need at least an HD camcorder; but if you sell your videos to local Tvs or to privates isn't that quality sufficient? This is what I want to understand. If that is really crappy, as I don't think it is, it's better to keep my D60 and buy a high quality camcorder(as this one for exemple:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...0151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665291500l))

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Andrew, it depends on what do you mean when you say that video quality sucks; I mean, if you sell your movies to Tvs such as national Geogr or Discovery or other important Tvs probably D90 video quality is not that good: you actually should need at least an HD camcorder; but if you sell your videos to local Tvs or to privates isn't that quality sufficient? This is what I want to understand. If that is really crappy, as I don't think it is, it's better to keep my D60 and buy a high quality camcorder(as this one for exemple:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...0151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665291500l))

Yes, the definition of quality changes from person to person. The quality of video you get from the D90 is how you use the camera. If you use proper lighting techniques and compose the image well, then the results can be quite stunning. Now, for storm chasing, it's no good unless it is for personal use.

If you are looking to sell stuff to Nat Geo or Discovery, the D90 is absolutely the worst tool to use. They won't accept video from any camera that costs less than $25,000. Though they make exceptions, the D90 will never be used for to produce material for their networks.

The link that you posted doesn't work, but I assume it's an HDV camera. Both networks WILL NOT accept HDV material.

 

[Andrea Griffa]

Yes, the definition of quality changes from person to person. The quality of video you get from the D90 is how you use the camera. If you use proper lighting techniques and compose the image well, then the results can be quite stunning. Now, for storm chasing, it's no good unless it is for personal use.

If you are looking to sell stuff to Nat Geo or Discovery, the D90 is absolutely the worst tool to use. They won't accept video from any camera that costs less than $25,000. Though they make exceptions, the D90 will never be used for to produce material for their networks.

The link that you posted doesn't work, but I assume it's an HDV camera. Both networks WILL NOT accept HDV material.

Andrew, sorry for the link I realized just now it didnt work: however you understood what I was talking about.
Sure I don't want to sell videos to National Geographic or anything else even if it's not always true that you need a 25000 dollars camera for this purpose: I saw a lot of stormchasing videos made with normal camcorders.

Some of my videos ran on the most important italian television and I took em with a sony handycam bought more than 10 years ago. This is the reason why I want to understand better the real quality of D90 videos before buying, because if the quality is not that bad I could plan to buy it