I was also looking for that because I like that about the MB-D10 on the D300, but it's a shortcoming of the MB-D80, too, and not just the zeikos one. I'm glad I could help justify. ;-)

I know there are others who have used/do use both the D300 and D90 and they can feel free to correct me, but for my first three months of using the D90 I would have said there is no difference whatsoever between the image quality of those cameras, but that's just my subjective evaluation. Even DxO says they differ by a third to a half of a stop (~1.5dB) as far as noise goes, and I still don't think anyone would notice that in real-world shooting. I should have made it more clear that I think the image quality is practically identical, though.

Hey Jonny, re: DxO, really? I mean, they are accurate with the D700/D3s/D700 sensor scoring. . .so i just assumed the D300s one (rank 26) versus D90 (rank 19) showed that?

I def need to test out the D90. . .I think it honestly offers what Cross Over Vehicles do: you get the best of both worlds, world class sensor, quick AF-module, and semi-semi pro body; but lose weight, girth, and stamina of a D300s. . . .

I'm leaving work now to go home and "work". . .ie test shots from my balcony :-)

I need to get out and go for a hike and enjoy the good weather and put the combo to use. . .(updates to come). . .

PS - thx for advice on zeikos, at $66, it's a helluva lot easier to justify than the $141 for the Nikon. . .just wish it had a mini-AF selector on it :-(

Thanks for the fun review, Shivas. I'll let you know if the VR is worth waiting for. The grip for the D90 is worth getting, IMO. I have a zeikos one (less than half the price of the Nikon one) and it works great. The only complaints I have is that the command dials aren't exactly like the on-body ones. The shutter release is identical, though, and that's more important to me.

Awesome combination. Now let's all think happy thoughts of a D700s...

edit: PS, if you're saying the D90's image quality beats the D300/D300s based on DxO, I have to respectfully disagree. At least for shots that I accidentally underexposed, images from the D300 were easier to correct without adding too much noise in the shadows. I don't know if this is something to do with a different compression algorithm in the D90 or what, but I'm more careful not to underexpose and then push the data with the D90.

That sounds like a killer combination!

Nice purchase.

Pictures will be posted later, but I recently sold my D200 and DX gear to help the economy and keep Nikon share holders happy as their 2nd Quarter closed out (REALLY happy, I'm sure).

I'll post pictures tonight, but wanted to give a quick synopsis of impressions so far:
1. D90 - all of my assertions on this board before were true, it's a complete trade-down in size/weight/ruggedness/manual adjustment capabilities. It's smaller and awkward for me to adjust to the new button arrangement, especially the ISO and WB buttons. Odd that there is no C/S/M. I'll be using the Func for wide to normal AF cross hair arrangement.

HOWEVER, the image quality is LEAP years ahead of the D200 and I *surmise* the D300/D300s based on their sensor ratings on DxO (big follower of that group). So, I think if I can "get a grip" as NSX was kind of enough to point out before on another post, I'll be "okay". . .we'll see. AF-speed hasn't been an issue in a quick comparison to the D200, but yes, loss of all the fun dynamic AF-modes kind of sucked.

This was an intermediate purchase as I wait for the D700s and funds to collect for it.

2. 24-70 2.8; like Jonny and others on here, I was going to wait for a VR version (if ever), but gave up and sold my 17-55 2.8 and 35-70 2.8 for this. I lost/gained 7mm/17mm in comparison to the 17-55, and gained 11mm on the short end in comparison to the 35-70.

AF speed is noticeably faster than the 35-70 2.8. A hair faster than the 17-55 2.8.

Where this lens excels at is image quality and flare control; everything is just sharp, beautiful, and perfect either stopped down or up at f/11. I never got these results with either of the two previous lenses (things were always soft at 2.8 in both, sharpening up by 3.5 on the 17-55 and 5.6 in the 35-70). Must be the crack-Nano coating they put on the elements.

3. 70-200 VRII; i never like shooting telephoto lenses, and hence never had one. Sold my 55-200 VR a bit ago because i just never used it. Was actually going to just use the 24-70 exclusively on DX and just get the new 85 1.4G when it's released 3rd quarter.

But the rebates were like sex on a third date; virtually guaranteed happiness, no regrets, and you don't have to worry about next day remorse (insert your equations between the two here____)

This lens is f'in sharp. I mean really f'in sharp. Mine didn't have any of those "burrs" everyone whigged out about earlier (it's recent SN I guess). Physically, a lot lighter and smaller than everyone complains about.

Stopped down this will tear through anything, so I'm loving shooting on the D90 at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 - it's just f'in awesome. Bokeh is butter-fun-yum too.

Video with this lens is great as well - just adds a sexy dimension to everything.

All I can say about VR2 is it's just sick - I could barely hand hold my 55-200 VR or 70-300 VR (not direct comparitor's, but my only comparitors of recent) in available lighting without significant shake. Yes, I'm stopped all the way down, and on those lenses at 200mm, you're usually at f/5.6, but. . . .in comparison to the 80-200 af/d. . .not really one, it's just not as sharp betwee 2.8-5.6 (to my eyes!)

Only down side is length and weight; it doesn't fit mounted in anything but my Lowepro Toploader; and I can see the weight getting old at a wedding, for instance.