You'll love that grip, shivas. It's a completely different feel. If it's a subliminal ploy to get me to want a D3s it's working.

I did a D40x-->D200->-D90 move and couldn't be happier.

Agree with Goldilocks above, the Dxx series feels SO MUCH better in my hands (and I have a grip on order for my bday for the D90 to compensate for that), HOWEVER, what I have noticed is the following (when compared to the D200):

1. I have relearned the buttons on the D90 and it's not so bad compared to ease of all buttons on D200
2. Have gotten over the lack of info in the eye finder and just pull my head up to read metering selection (MM/Spot/etc.)
3. Have fallen in love with NOT worrying about shooting at ISO 800 all day with little to no noise; 1600 doesn't lose the DR I did with the D200
4. Have fallen in love with using one battery, yes, 1 BATTERY for a shoot of about 700 images RAW - my D200 would need 2 for that.
5. Want to make LOVE to the 3" screen that's just awesome
6. Love the size when travelling with lots of big glass. . .

Now, I'll drop it all in a heart beat for a FX body at $1700. . .until then though the D90 is pretty slick for being "so old" and will make for a great backup when I get an FX body (I'll probably keep the 70-200 VR2 mounted to the D90 and keep the 24-70 on the FX body). . .

I really like the D200, as well. I was just using one for a couple of weeks last month and I prefer the size of the DXXX series to the D90-type body. When the D300 came out, there was no question that I wanted one because I was using a D100 at the time. My sister owned a D200 and asked if the upgrade would be worth it for her and I told her I honestly didn't think so. Now that you can get the D300 sensor in a D90 for 800 and sell the D200 for 500, it's a harder question to answer and it depends more on how you use it.
So, one question no one has asked is how you intend to use it—what size do you print (if at all) and how often would you be shooting above ISO 400 or 800? Maybe you could try out that Tamron 17-50 2.8 while you wait to see what Nikon does with the next DX body.

A friend of mine shoots with a D200 and I shoot with the D90. With the exception of low light, the pictures he gets are every bit as good as what I get. The D200 is a nice camera and with the exception of low light performance not that far out from the current cameras. I'd save your money and wait for the next gen to come out or better yet put the money to more glass.

For low ISO shooting the CCD sensor found in D80/D60/D3000/D200 is superior to the D90/D300(s) in some ways, especially in shadow and sky noise.

mark - yes and no, up to iso 400 u will not see much difference (apart from the fact that u can go to iso 100 on d200, while the lowest calibrated iso on d90 is 200), as I have both of this cameras I can say that indoors and when I take pictures of ppl I like the skin tones from d200 more than from d90, outside they behave pretty much the same (in the low iso range) - above 400 iso d90 is a winner (clear pictures up to iso800 - acceptable up ot iso 1600.

Thanks for those with the positive responses. My question is simply will I gain image quality with the D90. More and more I think the answer is yes. I prefer to keep my ISO setting low and use a tripod so if the D90 provide me a better image to work with then I am thinking I can make a good move. The Tamron lens sounds like a nice move but that may haveto happen later.

Eventually a full frame Nikon is going to happen but until then a DX step up that is affordable looks pretty good.

Mark

D90 and 17-50VC. Have it. Great combo.

its a good idea to skip a generation... wait for the d400.. you wont want to go back down to a d90 level .. get the tamron 17-50 vc f2.8.. it should make your camera seem like a different beast..

First off all, please use search, as this topic was covered before.

If it's gonna be bright in the place You go, than get lenses - up to iso 600 d200 is a better camera (more solid, nice skin tones - IMHO better than from CMOS). D90 is scheduled for update in some near feature, and lenses are always a better investment.

I use the D90 and 17-50. It's a great kit.

To post or not to post, now THAT is the question.

There's a couple threads about D90 already your question is not really a question. what you seek is an affirmation of what you want to do.

I don't know what the hell is 17-80mm lens? You perhaps meant to write 18-70mm.

Well, in that case I think Tamron is a great bang for your money. People who own it tend to praise it for its sharpness and low price.

EDIT:

Ohh and I would not go only after the "technical" spec from DXO tests. There's more to making a great images than sensor etc. I happen to love the ergonomics of D200 and I plan to never go back to lower end bodies.

Ok gang, I got a D200 that has been great and the 17-80mm Nikon zoom on it. I want to upgrade before some travel next month and I am thinking I can make a move to the D90 and think it can be done for a fairly low cost. I know that dxomark.com rates the D90 sensor a good deal higher (see link below):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/294|0/(appareil2)/203|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon

Should I make the move and should I consider a different lens if I make the move? I find the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 an interesting option.

Interested in hearing from other Nikon users on this.

Thanks.

Mark