"Talking about glass... is the lens provided with the D90 kit that much better than the one provided with the D5000 kit?"

Good question, I've heard mixed things about the 18-105 that's in the D90 kit. I believe the D5000 is kitted with the 18-55. I have that one and it's a pretty good lens. I've never personally used the 18-105.

Talking about glass... is the lens provided with the D90 kit that much better than the one provided with the D5000 kit?

adamz
ah yes, that "no matter what lens used" comment grabbed my attention too. The camera bodies matter in terms of the tweaking one can do. However there is no substitute for good glass. It's why I am trying to get as many pro lenses as I can. In my experience as I'm sure in yours, the good performing glass makes whatever tweaks you do that much better.

Adamz has a very good point here (Yes I'm agreeing again); put the 18-200 lens on a D300 then put the 70-200 on a D200, the D200's pictures will be far superior! It's why I chose the 12-24 over the newer 10-whatever it is that's coming out soon. Apart from AF and to a slightly lesser extent VR, I don't look at too much of the electronics when it comes to lenses, that's what the cameras are for. It's all about the glass! It's why I got the AF-D rather than the AF-S version of my 300mmF4. They both produce the same image quality and owning a D300, I saw no reason to spend the extra cash on the AF-S. You cannot replace good glass, period!

I get my D200 on Monday. Perhaps I'll get a chance to take some comparison shots between it and my D90... that should put this whole debate to rest.

Personally, I don't feel like the two cameras are comperable. Sure the D90 is going to have better image quality at high ISO. I suspect it will also create more vivid colors when set properly (although plenty of people out there prefer the colors of the CCD Nikons over the CMOS... just not me).

The D200, of course, will have better build quality, higher FPS etc, superior controls, etc. These aren't things that you can see on the final image, but they are important. Its also about $400 less than the D90.... so there's that. I'd throw out there that a D200 + a SB-900 is going to be superior to a D90 with a pop-up flash if you shoot portraits. A head to head shoot-out with the D90 doesn't really seem fair because all of the 200's advantages have nothing to do with the final photo, but everything to do with making it easier to get a good shot in the first place.

LOL when I read that I knew it would "get you going" hehe ! and sure enough I am enjoying the fireworks !!

I still love my little old D70 ... Got to take it out for a walk tomorrow... lets see what crap pictures I get from that "ancient beast"

gentoo - sorry if my post was a little bit aggressive, I just got to hype when I read mb's "...Both D90 and D5000 will eat D200 for breakfast regarding picture quality no matter the lens used..."; anyway I'm glad that we agree on the lens importance and that the most important thing in photography is taking pictures no meter what You use for it

I never denied that good lenses matter as well. In fact somewhere on here when I was hyping up the D90 over the D200, I made a remark like "put some good glass on it and holy crap!" Or something to that effect.

Sorry if it makes you angry (I don't understand why anyone would get angry at someone elses opinions), but this is the way things move. I don't recall anyone ever saying that older DSLR's were "pieces of trash", I must have missed that post. It's just in the world of electronics, time moves much faster than in the old days and the newer products and the features that you mentioned making things easier is exactly the point! The less time I have to spend post possessing, the more time I can spend shooting. The better AF system means I can shoot more pictures and have more keepers. With Active D-Lighting having to spend a little less time fixing dynamic range in post and when I have a few hundred pictures to do, this time adds up. Same is true with color adjustments etc.

This statement:
"sure, high iso abilities makes life easier, all new improvements affect mostly the user interface and ability to produce better pictures straight from the camera and to take pictures with more Mpx or with higher iso, which helps of course."

sums up what me and a few others have been saying and these are the reasons we are getting at.

I guess like so many other things in digital photography it comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you have the extra time to spend perfecting this and fixing that, then by all means save some money and get one of the older (and still very good) DSLR's and use that time you have.

"...It's not the default settings that can bring out what a camera is capable of producing..." - just tell this to all D3x owners, where iso capabilities is not better than d60. as for the rest of Your post "...use the same lenses...", so You agree that it's not the camera but the lens that's more important?
as for Active D-Lightning, yes it's a nice feature, but if You don't have it than You just need to work a little bit more in Your digital dark room.

generally, any dsl'r which is currently on the market can produce stunning images, when handled properly. sure, high iso abilities makes life easier, all new improvements affect mostly the user interface and ability to produce better pictures straight from the camera and to take pictures with more Mpx or with higher iso, which helps of course. What really makes me angry, is the perception that some of You have. Newer cameras, sure have more things to offer, but on the other hand older cameras are not just pieces of trash. When You know Yours and equipments imitations, it really doesn't matter if You use d40, d60, d90, d200, d3x or any other model, as with all of them You will be able to take great pictures. And as for IQ d40 with a pro lens will produce better results than even d3x with cheap lens.

The D40 has better ISO performance than the D200. Leaving any camera at default anything will make them all look pretty much the same. It's not the default settings that can bring out what a camera is capable of producing. It's the settings and tweaks that separate them. If one cannot adjust ISO, picture controls and other things then a shoot off wouldn't really matter. This is why I never responded to that last "challenge" that was made to me in that other thread. You'd also have to use the same lenses beside shooting the same exact subjects.

Yes we can edit in RAW. With a D200, you cannot adjust picture controls as you have optimize image which is, by comparison, more archaic. With a D200 you cannot adjust Active D-Lighting because the D200 doesn't have it to begin with.

To make a far duel we will have to meet and make the shots of the same subject in the same conditions to test the cameras, and although I would really love to meet you I suspect it would be difficult to organize.
D200 was probably one workhorse camera that made Nikon survive digital shock that put out of business many others. In it’s time you could probably made a duel with someone using D2x and do not be ashamed. It was built as well as D300 is today; maybe not better but certainly not worse. It is regular Rolls-Royce among digital cameras.
But it has slightly lower IQ than D60, as you sad yourself high ISO is not something to be excited with, and time passed over this germ. It is better than D40, it is built well enough to serve you a decade if you do not carve your pictures in stone with it, but D90 is better deal.

"...Both D90 and D5000 will eat D200 for breakfast regarding picture quality no matter the lens used..." - as I once wrote in another topic, we can make a duel - one rule only - we are gonna shoot on base iso, just choose the topic;
and seriously, on base iso there's NO visible and reasonable difference in picture quality between d200, d5000, d90 - I'm talking of course about developed NEF files, not straight from the camera jpg's.

idan586 if you can afford a D90 and you are interested in the ability to have more control on your pictures go for it, if not go for D5000 put it on auto and shoot and it will provide, but please do not forget that it is a combination of lens and camera that makes a picture so try to squeeze and invest in something better than 18-55 VR.
Both D90 and D5000 will eat D200 for breakfast regarding picture quality no matter the lens used, but they are a bit more expensive.

Thanks for the tip Adamz, I had forgotten that the D200 uses CF cards and not SD cards. Transfer speed has never been a very big deal for me (one of the joys of shooting non-professionally) so I'll pick up a SanDisk III.

willis - good decision, You will be more than happy with this camera. One tip, if You gonna buy CF than don't go for the most expensive ones, i.e. Sandisk IV as You wouldn't see much speed increase, OTOH Sandisk III works really great. To save some power turn off the picture preview after each shoot (saves around 30% of battery). I also use the color space on normal. Also when You will keep the iso below 800 than You should be more than happy with the results.

update: I actually pulled the trigger on the D200 today. It's just to cheap to pass up, and will make a fine upgrade to my D40 (which I'll probably be selling soon if anyone is interested).

What lenses do you currently have?

I haven't seen a D80 on sale for less than Best Buy seems to be selling the D200 right now. I'd go that way if price mattered, otherwise go for the D90.

The D90 has picture controls, which will help you get better colors and contrast out of your landscape shots. For Macro work, either one is fine. The D90 will let you use some of the older macro lenses, but if bugs are your thing, you will want a AF-s lens anyway so as not to scare them off.

Well if you have any older AF lenses, make sure you get the D90, D80 or higher because they won't autofocus. I think you should look into the D90 if you plan to use older lenses.

if You want to go for macro - go for d40 (great flash sync speeds - macro) or d200 (robust, which is handy when You want to take the camera to remote locations) and Nikkor 105/2.8 vr micro, if for landscapes get the same cameras with sigma 10-20 - this should fit Your budget. If You have either one of the above lenses, go for d90 or d200.

Hey,
Sorry about the limited info, My budget would have to be $1000 and under, maybe $1100 but that would be a stretch. Also, I was thinking of taking macros and landscapes. Also, I have also looked around the forum and I couldn't find another thread that had what I was looking for in it. Sorry if I did repost though...

idan586

EDIT: I have decided to choose between the D90 and the D5000 now, the only problem is money. While I can probably get up enough money for the D90 I dont know If it is worth it. I know that there is almost positivly a thread about the D90 or the D5000 I just want to know which would be better for Macros and Landscapes. Thanks!

In addition to budget, some recommendations may also change slightly based on the type of shooting you intend to do. Landscapes may have different recommendations than portraiture, and those differ from sports/wildlife. Depending on budget, camera rec may change, and glass rec may change.

idan586 - please do a search on this forum, as this topic has been picked up couple of times.

Hi idan You need to tell us your budget ...

Hello All,
I have been looking all over for which camera I should buy and as you can tell, I have decided on Nikon. But why I like Nikon aside I need help with choosing my new camera. I have been using a Nikon N65 Film SLR for almost a year now and have had experience with DSLRs before. I would like a more professional camera but not crazy. I have been looking at both the D80 and the new D5000. Based on reviews and other sources I am leaning towards to D80, but I would like a couple more opinions. What do you guys think? Should I get the D80, the D5000, or even the D90? Thanks for your help!

idan586

EDIT: Sorry forgot to mention, for whichever camera you think I should get, which Kit should I get it in? Once again Thanks for you help! :)