Worth it to upgrade to Nikon D90?

<p>I've been getting along all right with my D40x, but I'm missing a couple of features, including DOF preview. I'm a serious amateur who would eventually like to market my images, but feel I don't need a pro Nikon...at least, not yet. I welcome your feedback. </p>

Yes if you need it...

I shot with a D40 for a while and took some great shots. But the D40 couldn't handle some of the lenses I was looking to get into specifically the 50mm 1.4 or the 1.8 at that. No autofocus on these lenses with the D40.

 

So I step up to the D90 as I don't need th D300 or the 700 just yet.

 

The D90 handles so much nicer. The giant screen (compared to the D40) is fantastic not only for previewing images but for controlling all your settings. ISO's are very nice and I couldn't be happier with the purchase. I picked up a D80 recently and love it also but the 90 still takes it by a long shot!

 

I say get a D90...

<p>Nancy, I am also an amateur but feel if I would go professional I would upgrade to the D300 or D700. I would also have to bite the bullet and purchase some serious professional lenses, flashes, and tripod with a ball head. So my question is what do you have for lenses and what type of photography do you want to sell?</p>

<p>Obviously the D90 has quite a few features missing in the D40x. I would take a look at what those features and options are, see how many were important to me, then decide if it's worth the extra money. I certainly wouldn't be upgrading only for a DOF preview but of course, you would be getting much more than that.</p>

 

<p>the main advantage IMO is the internal motor in the d90, which gives you tremendous versatility in terms of lens selection. there are other differences as well, like two command dials, larger LCD, and more fps.<br>

a d40x>d90 move would be a modest upgrade, as you won't see much difference in IQ at low ISOs. but definitely an upgrade nonetheless. if you plan on expanding your glass arsenal, it's a good idea.<br>

but before upgrading, it's always a good idea to ask yourself, "what can't i do with my current camera"? and "would the $$ i spend on a new body be more useful if i spent it on lenses, external lighting, tripod/ballhead, etc."</p>

<p>The D90 had features you don't get with the D40--it will use autofocus lenses without internal motors. If you are serious I would think the D90 would be a good fit. I think you would be happier with it than with the D300 as you probably don't need a body that will handle MF lenses and the D90 is smaller and lighter than the D300.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So my question is what do you have for lenses and what type of photography do you want to sell?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have an 18-135, a 105 Micro-Nikkor and a 70-300 zoom, the latter two with VR (and plan on replacing the 18-135 for a decent piece of glass). I have indeed found the lack of that internal motor a bit limiting indeed when it comes to purchasing lenses. As for what genre of photography I'd be aiming to eventually sell, it would be primarily what I call "intimate landscapes". </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nancy, I am also an amateur but feel if I would go professional I would upgrade to the D300 or D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I agree, but as I'm not quite there yet, I feel something in between entry level and pro is right for me at the moment. That is, if the D90 can be considered somewhere in the middle....</p>

 

<p>I agree with the first response. I went from a D40 to the D90 after much agonizing. I was looking at the D90 vs D300 at the time. I'm glad I went with the D90 and am saving up for the D700. The ISO capability between the 40 and 90 is light and day. I think its also improved over the D80 and 70. It's also really nice to get access to a lot of features without going into the menu like the D40. Buying better equipment just makes you want more.</p>

<p>I love the D90. I don't know what advantages you're hoping to achieve. Upgrading your camera will not upgrade your images at all. Use what you like to use, that's all a camera changes--the usability.</p>

<p>This is very helpful for me. I am a D40x owner seriously eyeing the D90 or D300...makes me want it more!</p>

<p>Every step costs depreciation. Save and make the big leap all at one time.</p>

<p>Tens of thousands of good images were made with iso 25 slide film. Now we complain 200/400 is not enough. A tripod is the best iso increaser that exists.</p>

<p>I love my D90 it's a fantastic camera, it takes fantastic photographs...unless you want to throw your camera around I would buy it before the D300 purely because of cost and the fact that its apable of taking just as good photos as the D300 ifnot better some say. Read Ken Rockwell's review it is excellent. <br>

If I was to upgrade it would definitely be the D700 now...and I would love to do this but the $$$ for a D700 here in Australia is horrific, so I need to make a few more $$$ with my D90 before I do that.</p>

<p>nancy, for "intimate landscapes" (what's that?) or for landscapes, period, a d300 won't be any better than a d90, but a d90 will be better than a d40x.<br>

the d80/90 series are great landscape cameras -- with the right glass of course -- and the added durability and speed of the d300 aren't so much of an issue for posed or still-life shots.<br>

ronald is right that tripods are a must for this type of work, VR not so much, and there are many good older lenses suitable for this type of app that wont AF on a d40x.<br>

it's certainly possible to get "pro" images from a d90, which i believe also has live view (helpful for macro/tripod work, useless in most other situations), and it will make you feel better about yourself as a photographer.</p>

 

<p>"ve been getting along all right with my D40x" - so why upgrading ? You will not notice significant picture improvements. Wait a bit...Make more quantum quality leap with lower priced D700 - hopefully soon, or with newer cameras yet to come next year. D90 is around $1K, D700 prices drop and will come to $2K soon, in USA. Lowest honest D700 price was already $2200 with some substancial discount. Dishonest vendors advertise even lower prices, but many are bogus to catch customers, and make them pay more later...</p>

 

<p>Until yesterday, I had the same decision to take. I ended up ordering the D300 (and looking forward to getting it next week!), but only for one reason: speed. Would I be doing landscapes, the D90 would have been a no-brainer. I own a D200 (which I pass on to my brother), and want better high ISO and AF, since I mostly work in rather dark places (churches, offices ecc.). D700 would have been perfect, but body + f/2.8-zoom are way out of my financial reach. In the end I leant toward D300 for two reasons: coming from D200, handling will be easier for me (I tested both), and speed is important to me, since I photograph mostly people in motion in difficult light, and from what I have seen during my tests, the D300 does better under these circumstances.<br>

For landscape and general photography alone, I would have chosen the D90 and bought a SB-900 or a wideangle (need a 12-24).</p>

<p>I also wanted to upgrade to D90 from a 3-year old D50, but decided not to. Sure D90 is a nice camera, but I felt it still misses a few features. I therefore decided to wait for the next model, which I hope will have 1) more AF focus points for better 3D tracking; 2) tilting LCD for easier macro shooting; 3) better movie capture capacity.</p>

<p>Sounds like you're on the right track. The D90 is mid-level and has the DOF preview and internal focus motor you're looking for. I'm about the same level photographer as you. I use the D90 for landscapes and general photography and I think it's terrific. The higher-end models are much heavier and seem to be aimed more at speed shooting (sports and celebrity shots). Note, the D90 doesn't have have mirror lockup for shooting, only cleaning, so if you plan on shooting at night in very low light and want to dampen every last bit of vibration you may miss this feature. For me, that wasn't a deal breaker.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love the D90. I don't know what advantages you're hoping to achieve. Upgrading your camera will not upgrade your images at all. Use what you like to use, that's all a camera changes--the usability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nicholas, this I understand. I'm not hoping for magically improved images, I'm looking for more versatility, and so far it looks like the D90 will provide this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>nancy, for "intimate landscapes" (what's that?) or for landscapes, period, a d300 won't be any better than a d90, but a d90 will be better than a d40x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, when one selectively focuses on one small part of the greater whole (ie when standing at the base of a majestic mountain range, but photograph a tuft of grass falling artfully over a rock), I call that "intimate landscapes". <br>

I'm appreciating everyone's input so far. Thanks for keeping the discussion going....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>DOF preview is something I've never missed or used often. There are long articles written explaining the many advantages of using this feature but experience (and study) will have you knowing your depth of field based on focal length and F stops used. If money is not a concern get a D90 but if on a budget spend the money on a top notch lens that best serves your needs and photographic style. A 10mp camera with proper technique is going to give you a superb 11x14. The amount of money you would need to spend to sigificantly improve print quality would be large.</p>

<p>I doubt that you will see an improvement in your images by going to the D90, but a 'want' is always going to trump a 'need'. replace your DOF preview technique with a DOF review technique simply by looking at the LCD after you take the shot. Having a D40 without an internal motor also makes you buy AF-S lenses which are Nikons best lenses.</p>