New to SLRs. Is the D90 a good fit for me?

[william-porter]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Your question has no answer, or more precisely, you can't answer this question right now. Sounds like this will be your first DSLR. Sounds like you are not a working photographer at the moment and aren't sure whether you will become one in the future or not. In other words, you're a beginner. Nothing wrong with that at all. Actually, you've got a lot of fun ahead of you. But it's also true that your options are wide open and I think it would be wise not to close any doors prematurely. Until you actually learn more about DSLRs and lenses and the various products available, you simply won't be able to make an informed decision <em>for yourself.</em> If you do reach the point of going pro or at least getting really serious about photography, you will (a) begin to realize that the camera is the least important part of the whole process of taking great photographs and (b) you'll start to understand in what ways the camera DOES matter and why and you'll get your own feeling about what sort of camera you want.</p>

<p>Now, that said, it's hard to go wrong with a Nikon D90. I certainly would not suggest paying any more for a first camera than that, unless you're a millionaire and money doesn't matter to you - and that doesn't appear to be the case. Actually, if for some reason you want to try Nikon first, I'd suggest getting a Nikon D60 instead. Save the money now. If you want to spend it, learn something about lenses and buy one or two really good lenses. Or simply put the money in the bank, shoot photos, read and learn. That way, you have the money available in a year when you a starting to understand these product discussions better.</p>

<p>But it's hard to go wrong today with any purchase you make, because there are virtually no bad cameras on the market right now. Pentax, Olympus, Sony, and others make some really fine cameras - and equally, if not more important, really fine lenses.</p>

<p>When I went through this process a few years ago for myself, I decided to go with Pentax. A number of things mattered to me, but they mostly boiled down to price. A Pentax K20D can take GREAT photos. Indeed, if you can't take a great photo with a Pentax K20D, a Nikon D3X isn't going to do you any good. The Pentax system (like systems from several other brands except for Canon and Nikon) has shake reduction (image stabilization) built into the body. The advantage isn't in shake reduction in itself, it's in price and availability: Nikon has VR lenses, but you pay for VR over and over again, and of course you get it only with the lenses that have it, where I paid for it once and have it with every lens I use. Pentax lenses are outstanding. That was my decision and it's worked for me. I have more money to spend on great lenses - and I can hope to buy a new body more often.</p>

<p>But I'm not pushing Pentax. Remember, I said that you can't go wrong with the Nikon D90. If you do that, you probably will never give Pentax or Olympus or Sony a second thought. But I will also predict - and I'm quite confident about this prediction - that if you get a Nikon D90 as your first digital SLR, at some point in the future and perhaps sooner rather than later, you'll wonder if you should not have bought Canon instead.</p>

<p>In short, you simply cannot know what you want at this point, because you're not in a position to understand what's really important about the many, many options until you've spent some money and taken a lot of photos. In other words, to achieve real knowledge in this area you must take the risk of making a mistake. And my suggestion to beginners is to try to take cheap risks rather than expensive ones.</p>

[mark_o2]

<p>I ended up getting the D90 last night! Unfortunately, it was dark by the time I got home so I didn't get a chance to use it. I did, however, fire it up before I had to leave for work and got as many shots in as I could. (see attached.. hopefully photo.net will let me post a few of them.) I left the camera on all of its default settings and in auto mode and it will probably stay that way until I have time to devour the manual and get the magic lantern book this weekend. </p>

<p>As for the Pentax.. here's what I have in the case.<br>

1. Auto Vivitar Tele-zoom 85mm-205mm 1:3.8 no lens cap<br>

2. Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 28mm 1:2.5<br>

3. Aston DX MC Auto 1:2.8 f=135mm (55)<br>

4. MC Hanimex Automatic 1:2.8 (55)<br>

5. Toshiba ES-10s Flash<br>

6. Three vivitar 49mm close-up lens<br>

7. Pentax Honeywell Spotmatic SP II<br>

8. Velbon VEF-3 Tripod (one leg duct taped..)<br>

I'm guessing that there wouldn't be any point in trying to sell these? It would be nice to have a little extra cash for the D90.. but I'm thinking that buying an old body to use these with might be fun too.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's input and support!<br>

Mark</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The Pentax system (like systems from several other brands except for Canon and Nikon) has shake reduction (image stabilization) built into the body. The advantage isn't in shake reduction in itself, it's in price and availability: Nikon has VR lenses, but you pay for VR over and over again, and of course you get it only with the lenses that have it, where I paid for it once and have it with every lens I use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not exactly. The digital era means people upgrade their DSLR bodies a lot more often then film SLRs. Some people upgrade every year; most upgrade every 2, 3 years. When you have vibration reduction built into the body, you also pay for that again and again whenever you upgrade your camera. Lenses, however, last much longer.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Mark: The old Pentax stuff probably isn't going to be worth much in money. Probably worth a lot more in the fun you'd have using it. The flipside is, you can replace the broken camera inexpensively. I don't know much about your lenses but I have the Vivitar 28/2.5 in Minolta mount and it's excellent.</p>