tony12tt

<p>Early Sunday morning after a rainy night. I made a series of shots of these water droplets on a banana leaf</p><div></div>

<p>Some oversimplified advice. Dont let the megapixel marketing hype catch you. When I was about to buy my first DSLR I was almost certain it was going to be a Canon but after a few months of research I settled on the Nilon D90 in 2010. And I chose this against the competing models Canon because many of the reviews and comparisons I read cited the Nikon as having better high ISO performance. Most interestingly though, my choice was between a Canon 18MP (the 550D I think) and the Nikon D90. But heres the trick. Nikon placed 12.3 MP on a 15.8 x 23.6mm sensor size while Canon placed 18 MP on a 14.9 x 22.3mm sensor size. For competing model cameras Nikon consistently places less megapixels on a larger sensor size while Canon squeezes more megapixels on a physically smaller sensor size.<br>

So what does this mean? Less MP on a larger sensor allows for using bigger photosites which are more effective at collecting and recording light hitting the sensor resulting in better image quality. Squeezing more photosites onto a smaller sensor size just to get your pixel-count up results in less effective light collection and higer digital image noise as the photosites are closer together and are succeptible to receiving electronic interference from neighbouring sites packed too tightly.<br>

Other factors constant, I usually look at the sensor size rather than MP count. Again, this is oversimplified because there are other factors to consider in the brand - AF performance, metering, lenses etc...</p>

<p>Correct Eric. I couldnt remember the title off-hand.</p>

<p>Guys,<br>

I know Im entering this thread late; but I purchased the "Complete National Geographic" DVD box set a while aback (2009) which contained all their magazines ever published up until 2008. It included a bonus DVD on photography and one of the clips featured Joel Sartore. I remember seeing an instant in the clip where the NG magazine photo editor commented on Joel being one of the only, if not the only, photographer who still shot film. I estimated from this that film is a rarity in the business if still found there at all.</p>

<p>Inside hall at the Smithsonian Institure DC - Nikon D90 18-55mm AF-S VR @ 18mm ISO 400 1/50s and developed in Lightroom.</p><div></div>

<p>Im certainly not a gear-junkie and I dont go chasing after the latest model just because its marketed as an upgrade. In fact I bought my D90 in 2010 knowing that even then it was an "old" model and would be soon replaced. I agree with Ralph on his point that the D90 produces sometimes significant noise levels even when I take all necessary measures to minimize noise. I scarcely every shoot above ISO 320 and sometimes the level of noise still disappoints me. Of course it doesnt help that in Trinidad lighting conditions can go from manic harsh and scorching blazes to ridiculously overcast dreary darks in less than an hour.<br>

Also agreed with Ralph above, waiting for the next model can result in missed opportunities but there's also the toss-up with the present price and availability of the FX bodies and lenses. In light of this I guess I'll be sticking to the D90 at least for now and see how the next few months roll out price and model wise.</p>

<p>Timing would indeed be awkward at the moment. I also didnt realize FX lenses would be so expensive.</p>

<p>Sounds like the D7000 has become a quick favourite of forum members. I actually didnt consider this as I saw the move to full frame as the next step up for image quality, AF performance and build quality. Its good to see though that the D7000 is highly recommended so far. I'll definitely keep this in mind</p>

<p>Interesting points to consider. Indeed I expect that the upgrade should be a forward leap in the same way the D7000 is a clear step up from the D90. In response to Peter's question, definitely "poor". Its a future goal Im working towards, naturally it would take me a while to build a portfolio and get published etc... Im still learning the ropes of the industry.<br>

Waiting sounds like the best option for now. Its certainly not a rush especially knowing its due for an upgrade.</p>

 

<p>Current lenses are:<br>

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF-S,<br>

18-55mm VR AF f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX<br>

55 - 300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II<br>

I do currently get great 8x10 prints from the D90. Im hoping to branch into the area of photojournalism/documentary and travel photography. Yes I understand the D700 is a somewhat outdated model so I may just wait out the end of the year to see how the reokacement goes. Also of importance would be the AF system and the improved dust/moisture protection from the D700 build but chief consideration is IQ.</p>

<p>Guys,<br>

I've been using the Nikon D90 for just over 1 year now and am sincerely trying to take my shooting beyond the "hobby" level and into something I can make a living from. The D90 is truly a beauty superb in every regard. It has wowed me in every way since I got it. I've done some research into the benefits of going full frame and Im particularly interested in the low noise, improved sharpness and colour and non-cropped image advantages.<br>

For those of you who have made the switch from Dx to FX, would you say the benefits are worth the costs?<br>

On my budget Im considering the D700.<br>

Appreciate the feedback,<br>

Tony.</p>

<p>Makes sense. At 600mm usability of this lens may be tricky.</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

Was wondering if anyone has experience using Vivitar teleconverters on their Nikon D90 or any other Nikon for that matter. Im considering getting a Vivitar 2x teleconverter to use with the Nikon D90 and the 55-300mm f/3.5 I recently bought. Im interested to know if the Vivtar optics would in any way mess up the great image quality Im getting with the 55-300. I found Nikon's teleconverter to be way beyond budget, even Tamron and Sigma are a bit hot on their prices as well. Vivitar's is just under USD 100.<br>

Any ideas?</p>

<p>Corolla,<br>

I bought the D90 earlier this year and given the price it was something of a stretch for me then. But, the reason why I decided to go with the D90 over an "entry-level" DSLR was because I wanted to take my photography further. The entry levels are fine if you're a vacation shooter with an eye for a good quality shot. I must say after experiencing the D90 I know now that I would definitely have had regrets if I had bought the entry level. In my opinion it doesnt make sense buying entry-levels just to get used to them then spend more to upgrade afterwards. And if you really love photography you WILL want to upgrade. Truth is, it doesnt take much time to learn the handlings of a decent DSLR. If you can afford it go for the D90 or equivalent, I believe the D7000 is now replacing the D90 but its quite a bit pricier.<br>

On the lens, I currently have the 55-200mm lens and its great. However after getting to the 200mm end of the range (actually about 250mm on the D90 given the crop), I find myself wishing there was more. Nikon recently released a 55-300mm and I think its priced at around USD400 with VR technology. I would recommend going for that. In fact Im considering selling my 55-200mm and saving up to get the 55-300mm. But definitely stick with the 18-55mm as well. I think this lens is indispensable.</p>

<p>Mary, you just described the problem Im having in the most exact form. Its especially with red and orange flowers. The saturation becomes so intense that its blows out all details. I've now changed my settings to neutral and will see how the shots come out from here.</p>

 

<p>I prefer to keep my camera set to shoot RAW/JPEG full-time. I know it drastically reduces my storage but I think its worth it. I'll also try reducing the saturation on the in-camera vivid setting again and compare it against shooting in neutral.</p>

<p>Im actually using Photoshop Elements 8 to process the RAW. I usually add a little saturation and vibrance if needed but I've noted that recently there were quite a few shots with the saturation already so intense when I opened the RAW file that I actually had to scale it down in Elements. In those shots most surface detail (ripples and textures) on petals were lost.</p>

<p>Guys/Gals,<br>

I was wondering if someone had an opinion/experience on this. Im using the D90 and I always shoot in RAW/NEF. Is it better to shoot in the D90's "Vivid" mode or obtain my saturation enhancements in the RAW processing stage? Reason Im asking is that I've noticed that in some instances, Vivid has a tendency to oversaturate strong colours resulting in loss of surface details e.g. some flowers, butterflies.<br>

Thanks for any assistance.</p>

<p>A tiny wildflower about to open into a bloom. I found a bush laden with them not too far from home - Central Trinidad (W.I.). Colourful little fellers, but I really wanted to capture the symmetry of it.</p><div></div>

<p>Charles,<br>

I was in your shoes somewhere around March this year. Price was a very big deciding factor for me but I knew I wanted to get a bit more serious with my photography so my mind was set on the D90. My biggest hesitation was of course the price. I eventually found a seller on ebay selling it brand new (in box and full warranty) for around USD755 (body only). I bought the 50mm f/1.8 lens seperate from J&R electronics for USD124. All in all a pretty good deal.</p>

<p>Its amazing that someone actually finds the menu system as the main con on the D90 and D700. My first DSLR was the D90 and I found it incredibly easy to navigate and adjust on the fly. Im in the class of serious amateurs and I thoroughly researched DSLRs for MANY months before settling on the D90. In fact, I started researching with a bias for Canons and ended up changing my preference after reading reviews on the Nikons. None of this takes away from the fact that Canon makes excellent cameras as well. However in the category I was buying in, the D90 received the best performance and handling reviews beating the Canons in its class. In technology markets, equipment eventually reaches a point where features are ubiquitous and standard. The dedicated photographer sees the camera as a tool, just as the artist sees the brush. Its understood that the quality of your equipment impacts the quality of your shots. In this case since both manufacturers are at the least, comparable in terms of quality and features, Id say that there's no need to debate this.</p>

<p>Excellent, I'll check out the 70-300 APO. It will be used on a D90</p>

<p>Morning all,<br>

Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-6.7 UC DL (Nikon Mount)? I saw it on Amazon for USD89.00. Given the super low price I was skeptical about the quality but was unable to find any in-depth reviews or sample shots online. Im considering it for some backyard wildlife shooting, mostly birds/hummingbirds. </p>

<p>Excellent resource from the link Robert.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I do shoot in RAW and pretty much dont settle for just JPEGs. I was hoping to achieve some decent colour saturation with the Polarizer. I live in Trinidad and there is a tendency for light to become pretty harsh very early in the day. I dont foresee losing 2 stops to be a big problem. But even the quality of morning light can cause the flora to look washed out and faded unless the subject is wet. I like the variation a CPL can offer when the front element is rotated. I also love shooting sunsets and in our dry season sunsets can become quite colourful because of the amount of dust in our atmoshpere. Losing 2 stops for a sunset can limit my shooting time though but I do estimate Id get richer colours with the filter. Of course thats also achievable in RAW processing. I havent yet dont much shooting of sunsets over water but intend to start scouting some locations. In this instance I can see the filter being useful for reducing the harsh reflections off the surface.</p>