First impressions: D90 over D40X

[robbie_robertson]

High ISO performance is superior, with images at ISO 3200 looking better than images taken at ISO 800 on the

D40X. I'll attach an ISO 3200 image taken Saturday at the end of this post.

Auto white balance appears to be fooled less than with the D40X. Where my D40X had to be set to 'incandescent'

indoors, the D90 correctly assigns the right temperature. I did note that in a deep canyon in shadows under a blue

sky Saturday, the D90 was assigning temperature in the 5100 degrees K range, where I had to adjust up to 6100

degrees in PS to correct white balance.

The 18-105 mm VR kit lens was a pleasant suprise, as I was able to handle shutter speeds down to 1/15th hand

held without motion blur. I note distortion to be higher than the 18-55 mm kit lens at 18 mm, but I can live with

that... I haven't had a chance to use all the bells and whistles yet, but I'm very happy with performance I've seen so

far.

BTW, Adobe Camera Raw version 4.6 runs fine in Photo Shop Elements 6.0 and Windows XP. This is a

prototype plug-in that I understand others have had problems with, as in not being able to use it with their older

model DSLR's. I'm able to use it with both D40X RAW images and D90 without issues: Well, there's this one thing-

Pure black tones have electric blue graininess in them in the ACR window, but the image transfers into PS just fine.

I understand Adobe began shipping Elements 7.0 with ACR version 5.0, so I'm looking for it to appear soon on the

Adobe download site. That should take care of most of the problems people are having with version 4.6<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

thanks for the report, robbie, but that shot looks like it could have been taken just as well at a lower ISO, like 800. also if you showed a crop (instead of the full image) it would reveal the noise at a pixel level. the real test of high ISO performance is to shoot a shot that could only have been taken at the upper reaches of the ISO range, such as indoors with dim lighting and dark backgrounds. hard to believe the d90 is two full stops better than the d40x in ISO, i would have guessed about 1-1 1/2 stops. if you wanted to convince me, though, you could post a side-by-side comparison at ISOs 800, 1600, and 3200.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

...and the crop:<div></div>

[robbie_robertson]

You can certainly pixel peep- A 100% crop would reveal exactly what you show here, because in-camera high ISO noise reduction is virtually the same between D90 and D300. For us casual farts, when I step back and look at an 8 X 10 print, I'm happy.

For the shot I posted, the camera auto-assigned ISO 3200 because I was in extremely deep shade. I suppose I could have assigned lower ISO, but look at the shutter speed: I don't think I'd be able to hand hold at a half second or longer... I performed lighting adjustment and unsharpen mask before posting, so maybe that influenced your opinion.

BTW, I also use the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 and would experience fairly severe CA at f1.4 under incandescent light witht the D40X. I used the lens under the exact same conditions, and note the in-camera processing to eliminate CA is very good. I meant to mention this in my original post, but spaced and forgot it.

[elliot1]

While in camera processing of the D90 and D300 have a clear advantage over Nikon's other recent DSLR cameras, NR programs and advanced image processing programs even the playing field through post processing. In any case, IQ of the D90 appears to be excellent and a big improvement (out of the camera) over the D40. Enjoy your new camera! Nice shot by the way.

[robbie_robertson]

Thanks Elliot.

RR