Upgrading to a Nikon D90?

[~D~]

Another thread from me ;p

I've been thinking that the (AF-S) lenses for the D60 are very expensive (save the 55-200mm) so I considering an upgrade to a D90 as it would save me money in the long run - after selling my D60, the upgrade cost would be about ~£250, but if I can save money on lenses then I think it would be worth it.

However, looking at potential lenses, it seems that it is only the AF-S lenses that have VR on them anyway. I'm just wondering if I will miss VR if I opt for cheaper lenses with no focus motor built in.

I know in places like the London Aquarium and other low-light places I have been in that I would have been screwed without it, but for general photography do you guys rely on VR (or the canon equivalent) or are you happy to shoot with a fast shutter speed? (just a note that I do not carry around a tripod with me)

Edit: I'd also consider a D80 - as that has a built in AF motor too, if D80's are still recommended.

 

[Namistai]

Tbh I'd buy lenses without VR/IS everyday of the week if the other benefits of the lens (IQ, speed etc) outweigh the benefit of having VR/IS. I'm not sure how much you can save in the long run with buying lenses without the integrated AF motor - I guess it depends on how many lenses you intend to buy.

 

[Mud]

If you're going down the route of older lenses then consider pitching in higher to gain metering on non-CPU lenses. I love my D90, but the main thing making me want to upgrade is metering on my 200mm f/2 AI-S and 80-200mm f/4 AI. This is moot if you're limiting yourself to AF lenses.

I never use VR, it's mostly on slower lenses and telephotos, of which I don't have many.

 

[~D~]

Tbh I'd buy lenses without VR/IS everyday of the week if the other benefits of the lens (IQ, speed etc) outweigh the benefit of having VR/IS. I'm not sure how much you can save in the long run with buying lenses without the integrated AF motor - I guess it depends on how many lenses you intend to buy.

I definitely want a 50mm prime at some point, which is < £100 without VR, but is so expensive with VR, that'll save me at least a hundred. And if my family member doesn't end up getting me the lens I chose, a 105mm macro will be purchased too.

With a D80 or D90 I could still use AF with these, which would be a blessing for me, so I think it would save me money, even if only buying the two lenses above. H

owever I'm just wondering if losing VR means that I wont get the shots I want without really bumping up the ISO. I mean, if I'm going to end up buying VR lenses anyway there is no reason to upgrade (as I am not good enough to be limited by my equipment yet).

If you're going down the route of older lenses then consider pitching in higher to gain metering on non-CPU lenses. I love my D90, but the main thing making me want to upgrade is metering on my 200mm f/2 AI-S and 80-200mm f/4 AI. This is moot if you're limiting yourself to AF lenses.

I never use VR, it's mostly on slower lenses and telephotos, of which I don't have many.

Hello again Mud You seem to crop up in quite a few of my noob question threads so thanks for the help.

I wouldn't purchase lenses that are too old (this isn't so much to do with the three old lenses I got recently), it's more of a cost issue as I can't afford to be buying decent AF-S lenses.


Also, after owning a D60, which is relatively new, would I be frustrated with a 2006 D80?

 

[Mud]

I definitely want a 50mm prime at some point, which is < £100 without VR, but is so expensive with VR, that'll save me at least a hundred. And if my family member doesn't end up getting me the lens I chose, a 105mm macro will be purchased too.

With a D80 or D90 I could still use AF with these, which would be a blessing for me, so I think it would save me money, even if only buying the two lenses above.

This confuses me, there's no 50mm prime with VR. Do you mean AF-S?

Hello again Mud You seem to crop up in quite a few of my noob question threads so thanks for the help.

I wouldn't purchase lenses that are too old (this isn't so much to do with the three old lenses I got recently), it's more of a cost issue as I can't afford to be buying decent AF-S lenses.

Also, after owning a D60, which is relatively new, would I be frustrated with a 2006 D80?

I'm only qualified to answer noob questions

The D90 is a nice improvement on the D80, so unless you find a D80 for a song then I'd stretch for the D90. If your issue is reducing shutter-speed in low-light situations consider a tripod instead of an upgrade. Not convenient, but effective. Fast primes typically don't need VR as at wide apertures they can collect more light thereby allowing you to keep the shutter speed up. With this approach you'll lose depth-of-field and potentially pay more for lenses (cheapies like the 50mm f/1.8D withstanding).

 

[~D~]

This confuses me, there's no 50mm prime with VR. Do you mean AF-S?

Sorry, yea, I meant AF-S.

I'm only qualified to answer noob questions

The D90 is a nice improvement on the D80, so unless you find a D80 for a song then I'd stretch for the D90. If your issue is reducing shutter-speed in low-light situations consider a tripod instead of an upgrade. Not convenient, but effective. Fast primes typically don't need VR as at wide apertures they can collect more light thereby allowing you to keep the shutter speed up. With this approach you'll lose depth-of-field and potentially pay more for lenses (cheapies like the 50mm f/1.8D withstanding).

I have a cheap tripod, but for things like family days out or tourist locations with peoples kids running about it's not so feasible - I don't really make trips solely for photography (though I might check out Primrose Hill sometime).

Eventually I want to end up with something like 12-18mm, 18-55mm (kit lens - or the f2.8 version), 55-200mm and a 50mm prime and 105mm macro. Buying these as AF-S lenses would be crazy expensive and I don't want to lose AF capabilities.

My priority basically is money for the long term, especially as I am considering getting a 50mm soon too.

 

[m3csl2004]

Sorry, yea, I meant AF-S.



I have a cheap tripod, but for things like family days out or tourist locations with peoples kids running about it's not so feasible - I don't really make trips solely for photography (though I might check out Primrose Hill sometime).

Eventually I want to end up with something like 12-18mm, 18-55mm (kit lens - or the f2.8 version), 55-200mm and a 50mm prime and 105mm macro. Buying these as AF-S lenses would be crazy expensive and I don't want to lose AF capabilities.

My priority basically is money for the long term, especially as I am considering getting a 50mm soon too.

Then I reckon the D90 is for you - the video mode is a nice plus aswell.

 

[~D~]

I wish they did VR lenses without AF-S, Sigma do a few OS lenses without HSM (their equivalents) though, so I might look into that a bit

 

[Mud]

I wish they did VR lenses without AF-S, Sigma do a few OS lenses without HSM (their equivalents) though, so I might look into that a bit

AF-S is standard now, all new Nikon lenses (PC-E types aside) will have them since they give superior performance.

 

[Snapshot]

We managed perfectly well without VR for decades. Yes, it's a bonus if you have it but it shouldn't be a substitute for learning proper technique.

 

[DanF]

Here's some prices

D80 s/h £280~
D90 new £650
D90 + 18-105 VR s/h £600-650

Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 £88
Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX £173

and both from a reputable hong kong retailer
Tamron 90mm Di Macro 1:1 f2.8 £250
Sigma Macro 105mm f/2.8 EX DG £287

The 2nd hand D90 with 18-105 VR kit lens is a pretty good deal, it's meant to be a pretty sharp lens (similar to the 16-85) and has a good zoom range almost ideal as a walk about lens.

The 50 on DX cameras is like a 74mm lens on full frame which is more in the portrait range. The 35mm gives the more classic 50mm equivalent field of view, worth a thought when your deciding on which would be better for you.

The D80 is also still good and gives more money to get some of the lenses that your after which are more important than the body. Camera bodies drop in price faster than used car prices, you'll be able to get a D90 cheap in the next couple of years when the D100 (well whatever it'll be called) is out

 

[The Mad Rapper]

The D80 is also still good and gives more money to get some of the lenses...

I agree 100% with this. The D80 is a very capable body. It is easily good enough IMHO to take a user to a serious semi-pro level. Buy this body and invest as much as possible in the very best Nikon glass you can afford. The glass will make far more difference than a few extra features that you may or may not use.

I would seriously recommend for anyone starting out to choose their system (Nikon, Canon etc.), buy a capable, mid-priced body, but the very best glass available. As your skill increases you can move up to the next body in the range and still have amazing optics.

 

[Mud]

I agree 100% with this. The D80 is a very capable body. It is easily good enough IMHO to take a user to a serious semi-pro level. Buy this body and invest as much as possible in the very best Nikon glass you can afford. The glass will make far more difference than a few extra features that you may or may not use.

I would seriously recommend for anyone starting out to choose their system (Nikon, Canon etc.), buy a capable, mid-priced body, but the very best glass available. As your skill increases you can move up to the next body in the range and still have amazing optics.

I understand the logic and agree it's a good approach, but the D60's sensor is about the same as the D80's, whilst the D90's is a couple of stops better in dynamic range which I'd personally want. If you can stretch your budget and justify it you may hang onto the body that much longer, I know my D90 isn't going anywhere any time soon. Just an alternate point of view...

 

[DanF]

The D90 doesn't give that much more dynamic range, in normal use it's only meant to be about 1/2 stop more, also the D90 sensor at it's base iso of 200 isn't always as clean as the D80 (and D200) sensor at it's base. It's better at high iso work though, but you still need to watch what your shooting or noise comes through. The D80 and D200 can still both take great photo's, it's not like they suddenly broke overnight.

The money saved though buy lenses that will let you work in more situations than the difference between the D80 and D90 would allow.

 

[Mud]

The D90 doesn't give that much more dynamic range, in normal use it's only meant to be about 1/2 stop more, also the D90 sensor at it's base iso of 200 isn't always as clean as the D80 (and D200) sensor at it's base.

Where did you get this info? I'm genuinely interested. Can you define 'clean'? If you mean SNR then the difference is about 1dB, and the D90 used below base ISO (I believe ~166 equiv.) is slightly better. Splitting hairs here though...

 

[D.P.]

Another thread from me ;p

I've been thinking that the (AF-S) lenses for the D60 are very expensive (save the 55-200mm) so I considering an upgrade to a D90 as it would save me money in the long run - after selling my D60, the upgrade cost would be about ~£250, but if I can save money on lenses then I think it would be worth it.

However, looking at potential lenses, it seems that it is only the AF-S lenses that have VR on them anyway. I'm just wondering if I will miss VR if I opt for cheaper lenses with no focus motor built in.

I know in places like the London Aquarium and other low-light places I have been in that I would have been screwed without it, but for general photography do you guys rely on VR (or the canon equivalent) or are you happy to shoot with a fast shutter speed? (just a note that I do not carry around a tripod with me)

Edit: I'd also consider a D80 - as that has a built in AF motor too, if D80's are still recommended.

Wont lenses are you looking at that seem to have expensive AF-S? AF-S doesn't make the lenses any more expensive really.

The non-af-s lenses are all very old. What 55-200mm do you want that doesn't have AF-S??


As for D90, yes it is a great camera and one of the best bang-for-buck you can buy. The D80 is bets avoided really, the metering is terrible apparently. IF you really want to use old lenses then you will need a D200 or D300/s to get metering working.

 

[D.P.]

I definitely want a 50mm prime at some point, which is < £100 without VR, but is so expensive with VR, that'll save me at least a hundred. And if my family member doesn't end up getting me the lens I chose, a 105mm macro will be purchased too.

With a D80 or D90 I could still use AF with these, which would be a blessing for me, so I think it would save me money, even if only buying the two lenses above. H

owever I'm just wondering if losing VR means that I wont get the shots I want without really bumping up the ISO. I mean, if I'm going to end up buying VR lenses anyway there is no reason to upgrade (as I am not good enough to be limited by my equipment yet).



Hello again Mud You seem to crop up in quite a few of my noob question threads so thanks for the help.

I wouldn't purchase lenses that are too old (this isn't so much to do with the three old lenses I got recently), it's more of a cost issue as I can't afford to be buying decent AF-S lenses.


Also, after owning a D60, which is relatively new, would I be frustrated with a 2006 D80?

There is no 50mm prime with VR! And probably never will be. You can buy a 50mm 1.8 cheap and manual focus with the D60 or buy the 50mm 1.4 from Nikon or Sigma and get AF-S, great brokeh and 1.4 aperture!

However, if you want a good 50mm prime on a Crops sensor then look no further than the 35mm 1.8 DX Nikon lens. super sharp and very cheap.

 

[D.P.]

I wish they did VR lenses without AF-S, Sigma do a few OS lenses without HSM (their equivalents) though, so I might look into that a bit

Why on earth would you want lenses with VR and not AF-S???
AF-S is standard and has been for 10-15 years. Every new lens has AF-S. AF-S is faster, more precise and quieter.

 

[DanF]

As for D90, yes it is a great camera and one of the best bang-for-buck you can buy. The D80 is bets avoided really, the metering is terrible apparently. IF you really want to use old lenses then you will need a D200 or D300/s to get metering working.

Funnily the D80 and D90 share the same metering and AF systems, they have probably tweaked the metering in software though. The D80 is a little inconsistent but definitely not as bad as some make out. If it was better lenses or D90 metering over the D80's I'd take the lenses first.

 

[DanF]

Where did you get this info? I'm genuinely interested. Can you define 'clean'? If you mean SNR then the difference is about 1dB, and the D90 used below base ISO (I believe ~166 equiv.) is slightly better. Splitting hairs here though...

Well you might be right, I'm just going by some posts and articles that I read up while researching the D300, I had the D80 for just over a year and have recently bought a D300. The main reasons where I just wanted one but also for it's control layout, almost top end AF system and better high ISO performance.

It's not like getting a D90/D300 camera is suddenly going to make all your shots keepers.