@jorpet.. Re getting the SB600 first. Thats a good idea! Why didnt I think of that ... NAS I guess :-)

@JMG : Re another lens, I would say just play with what you have now.. and get that flash. You will soon find out what you feel you lack and can then get the more specialised lenses for it.

Have a friend who just bought the D90 about a month ago as well and he is loving. That whole bird in the hand thing. Waiting for a new camera announcement and then availability can be a pain if you want a camera now.

Sounds like you are making some great choices based on the excellent advice from the forum. Don't forget to post a few pics when you have them. I love flower shots (really, I have a ton of them) and green house pics would be awesome as well.

Depending on your needs, the SB-600 might be enough flash for you if you are only using a single flash. I bought the SB-800 thinking I would want it as a master flash, but with only a single flash that isn't an issue. If I were to do it again I would buy the 600 first and then if I got a second flash it would be the commander (now the SB-900).

just an update: I returned the Sigma 105 and bought the Nikon 60mm lens. That 60 will be a nice fit for me! thank you for the recommendation. I haven't used it much, but from what I have I really like it.

I am still learning all the features on the D90. Even though I didn't wait for the new D7000, I think I made a good choice. There are a lot of features on the D90, it has a great reputation and buying new just for the sake of buying the newest and improved version seems to me like just buying the next step up. So in my mind, it is still a new camera with lots of great features. The dollar difference between the d90 and d7000 helped fund the extra lens.

would any of you recommend any additional lens? currently i have the 18-250 Sigma and th 60 mm nikon. A SB900 (i think that is the name) is also on the short list for next purchases.

thanks jgm.

Granted digital is where it's at for commercial and snapshots. Digital has its place with digital graphic design and creating art with computers. What's real today in digital photography? What I see is a new medium as different as oil painting to watercolors or pastel painting. If anything digital photo creation is more like oil painting than it is to film photography. Film has it's masters and digital masters are more a master of photoshop and computers than photography. Film is harder to master and there are fewer each year. Yes, I've taken up digital and love it. It easy, fun and you get great results. I still have an F4 and shoot a few rolls a year. Just picked up an F6 because I could. Packed my darkroom stuff 5 years ago. Just unpacked it to use with my F6. Looked around my house and figured out that only 1 of 14 framed photo on my wall is digital. All my really best stuff was medium format film. Well I could go on and on but I think to a small part I want both. I plan this year to always have a film camera in my bag.

framer

Congratulations! Like you say there is much to learn in digital photography. especially the post processing side of things. As I mentioned before I think for what your stated primary subjects are, the 60mm micro Nikkor is probably the better option for you. however Sigma makes even shorter focal length macro that you may want to check out. http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/50mm.htm
Nikon also has an 85mm DX macro that is very good.

Also consider the sigma midrange zoom http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/17-70mmOS.htm which has a 1:2.7 "macro" capability.

As for flashes.. just get the nikon. there is no better flash system. some people have switched brands just to get the nikon CLS flash system. the flash will out last your camera. Its great working with 3-4 of them too(I have friends who have nikon flashes and we share them sometimes). I have the SB800 bought with my D70 I have upgraded my d70 and will be getting a few more cameras soon but will be keeping my SB800. Looking to get a couple more of them too.

Can't speak to the lenses, but I'm told that third party flash units can be a dicey proposition, especially on DSLR's. Essentially, they can feed back into the camera's electronics, at which point you have a problem (and a fried, or at the very least lightly sauteed, camera). Maybe this has changed, or depends on the manufacturer/mount?

an update: two days ago, I came home with a new D90 and a Sigma 18-250mm lens.

My rationale: The d90 will do everything and more than I need in image quality. I bought it under $1K (the rumored d95 will go for what? 1250 usd?).

Also, coming from the film world I have always thought of the body as the shutter, aperture and film speed part of the camera and the really important part were the lenses. Shutter speed is shutter speed, f stops are f stops (yea its a lens thing, but i have always equated that with the body, except for fast lenses) and ISO settings are just that. add a couple of fine tuning adjustments. IOW, I have always valued the quality of lens more than the quality of the body. Is that still a good rule with digital?

Knowing that I still need lenses. The zoom, mentioned above is nice, but I am not sure I like having that much weight with me all the time. Anna, my wife, loves the idea of a single lens for what she does. so the lens may stay or it may go. If I were to replace it, in its place would go two zoom lenses. (I will probably keep it). but your comments re: the lens is greatly appreciated!

I digress but only because you all have been really helpful and I want you to get to know me a bit more. I have forgotten alot of this photography stuff over the years and getting back into it is exciting. thank you!

Now today, I had to go back into STL and pick up a shipment of flowers at the airport. The camera store was supposed to have had a couple macro lenses for me to evaluate. They only had one, a sigma 105 macro lens. the 60mm Nikon lens wasn't there yet. I bought the sigma so I could try it out. First thoughts: I don't like it. It will work fine for wedding bouquet work, but not for my larger casket spray and other bouquet work. It's also not sized right for my greenhouse shots, but would work well in a portrait plant environment.

so I think I will take that lens back and try out the 60MM nikon. even the sales rep told me he didn't like the 105 as well as the 60 and he thought I would like the 60 better..... and he said that before he told me to take the 105 home with me.

so: any thoughts on the multi-purposed 18-250 sigma lens and the 60/105 macro lens evaluation?

also, flash units? the store sells Nissim and Nikon, the sales rep is saying both will work fine, but the Nikon sb900 is just fantastic and recommends that over the $380 comparable Niisim unit.

joe

btw: I belong to a lot of different forums and Nikon rumors is very helpful forum! thanks!

Technically the D3100 sensor already makes the D300(s)/D90/D5000 "obsolete" but its not only a sensor that defines a camera. The rumoured AF of the D95(39 AF sensors) may or may not be better than the one in the D300(s). but I really only use 1 AF sensor 95% of the time(the centre one) so it depend on what you perceive the value of these features are to you. Are you willing to wait?
The prices are starting to fall for the D700 which may or may not have anything to do with a D95 being announced. I would wait a few weeks unless you have something you want to shoot now.

well, I just received a phone call from the camera store that has my old cameras. They have a new D90 in the store and it is mine if I want it.

Should I take it? I inquired about the new D95 and the sales person expressed doubt that Nikon would launch a prosumer camera, aka the d95, without first upgrading their pro camera....D300. He said by adding the extra (rumored) megapixels and autofocus that a D95 would make the D300 obsolete.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Should I just buy the D90 and start using it? or wait for something that may or may not happen, i.e. a D95?

thanks joe

most likely a yashica

the first rolls of film I learned to develop was 120....i.e. learning how to roll the film on the developing reel. for the life of me I can't remember the name of the twin lens camera I used back then....

I started photography playing with 120 film. Should see if I can get back into that... Hmm... maybe thats why I like Square croping so much.

I know two "pro" photogs who actually sold off all of there digital gear and switched to film. They are actually doing pretty good since they really stand out from all of the other "pros" shooting digital. And there are a bunch of "kids" in my photog club who despise digital cameras and only use medium format and 35mm film cameras. I love cameras no matter what and I personally think it's dumb to say one is better than the other. I think they both have I place.

JGM411 said:
Thank you for the reply posts. Hearty, I think you are conveying what I am thinking. I am leaning towards a105 Nikon macro lens, unless I can compare it to a Tokina (just because I know that mfr'r and I like them)

the 18-200 lens will be a convenience lens when I don't have a need for a single focal length lends for more critical exposures....(i.e. my kids stuff). Eventually, I would like to buy a few lens with specific focal length, i.e. maybe some sort of wideangle, regular, and maybe a long lens...longer than 200mm, etc.

way way back (mid to late 70's), I did a lot (thousands)of shooting with just a lowly 50mm 1.9f lens and then let darkroom duties enhance the images. Professional photographers were more impressed with the composition of my shots than they were with the quality of the image, but overall the image quality was good....not great....but solid good.

I suppose a little background on me would be appropriate. The macro lens will be used to shoot images of wedding bouquets and funeral arrangements. In addition, I will use the camera in a greenhouse environment shooting various plants I grow.

Any additional recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Interesting to note that you're moving from film to digital, I started with digital and I am dabbling with film.

I would highly recommend the 105mm Nikkor Micro, that's the next lens I want to get. I am saving up for it though.

Maybe you might want to get a gen 1 18-200 Nikkor, the optics I believe are the same, they just add a zoom lock to combat lens creep. I would have recommended the 18-105, the kit lens with the D90, but if you're getting a 105 micro, no point in duplicating focal lengths.

@JGM411 I am recommending the D90 for about two years to many. I personally love the D90 (and my D300 and D700). I do know this......when the new replacement comes out it should be a winner! Getting into a D300s or D700 is a big step and I for one would not recommend it unless you are certain what you are doing and how you would use it. NEVER hesitate to ask pros! The best example I can ever give one contemplating a new camera is my purchase of a Horseman 8x10 view camera. As soon as it arrived I knew it was too big and not right. B&H photo and video said stay with 35mm ( great advice). I had a Zone VI 8x10 and it was s good camera. My posts show me with that rig. Large format drove me to framing scenes better and deciding what was photogenic and when NOT to shoot. I think a D90 or the replacement D95 will be the best buy for you. Good work on properly researching your investment. I would love to see your results. Best of luck!!

Hearty, again thanks for the explanation. I think the D90/95 will be a fine camera for me. The D300-700's really doesn't make economic nor sense given my skill level.

thanks joe

One of the big advantages of FX vs DX is the reduced DOF which you can use to isolate your subjects from the background. But for macro you really want greater DOF so DX has the advantage here. also longer focal lengths means lower DOF as well so a 60mm produces more DOF compared to a 150mm macro.

So for your stated use a 60mm micro nikkor on a DX camera would probably be best . If you like the FOV.

DaveyJ, you're not suggesting that I just forgo the new D9x and just move up to a D300 or D700 are you? ;)

Great advice on the ISO,. thanks.

@JGM411: I owned a whole fleet of Minoltas but they keep abandoning mounts so I switched to Nikon. I still have the Minoltas for the most part. I shot film for many years and sold my view cameras when I realized that digital was just better. Nothing has been as important in that switch as optimizing ISO and a D700 at relatively high ISO is a thing of great beauty and ultilty. I was considered synonymous with Kodachrome and Fuji Velvia. Due to archival considerations I strongly recommend you make the switch to digital and then make sure you are using a good external hard drive (I use the Lacie 1 Terrabyte model).

Macro shots will for sure become a signature for you as many do NOT use them. Heartyfisher has had some excellent suggestions for you and all of the micro-Nikkor lens I have used have been awesome. I also like the 60 Micro Nikkor especially on DX cameras.

Hi again. You are most welcome. The tokina 100 macro is a nice lens. it has a working distance of about 11.5 cm at 1:1. Tokina lenses does seem to have a nice solid build to them. I have an old tokina Manual Focus zoom and I recently tried it out on my DSLR and it performed very nicely. I would still consider the tamron 60F2.0 as it has a 10cm working distance (only slightly less) and for your stated subjects the wider FOV may be nicer. Still that tamron is DX only so if you are considering FX then the Tokina would be a better option.

On the other hand your subjects are not going to run away, so a Nikkor 60mm (1:1 5cm working distance) should be considered.

Good luck with your upgrade. I am looking forward to the D95 too myself.

Thank you for the reply posts. Hearty, I think you are conveying what I am thinking. I am leaning towards a105 Nikon macro lens, unless I can compare it to a Tokina (just because I know that mfr'r and I like them)

the 18-200 lens will be a convenience lens when I don't have a need for a single focal length lends for more critical exposures....(i.e. my kids stuff). Eventually, I would like to buy a few lens with specific focal length, i.e. maybe some sort of wideangle, regular, and maybe a long lens...longer than 200mm, etc.

way way back (mid to late 70's), I did a lot (thousands)of shooting with just a lowly 50mm 1.9f lens and then let darkroom duties enhance the images. Professional photographers were more impressed with the composition of my shots than they were with the quality of the image, but overall the image quality was good....not great....but solid good.

I suppose a little background on me would be appropriate. The macro lens will be used to shoot images of wedding bouquets and funeral arrangements. In addition, I will use the camera in a greenhouse environment shooting various plants I grow.

Any additional recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Minoltas are good cameras, But I have never managed to find them ergonomic, I much prefer pentax and olympus of the non nikon brands. Still I know of people who love them.

Re the macro. Consider the Tamrom 60 F2.0 macro. Its got twice the working distance as the nikon 60 macro and the same working distance as the tamron 90 macro. and you can use it as a portrait lens as well with that F2.0 aperture. The king is of course the nikon 105VR in this focal range. I myself have a Sigma 150 macro. but thats because I like that FOV.

I have the 18-200 VR nikkor. Its a very versatile lense. However 1 or 2 of the new sigmas and tamrons in the ranges you mention has just as good or better IQ. However you need to really investigate these and check out the reviews in detail as there are some duds in the 3 party ones of that range. Sorry I am not much help here but they have all become a blur to me .. so many of them.(I seem to remember that the tamron 18-250VC may be worth checking out but it may be out dated info on my part)
Generally I find that the 18-200 VR is a very useful range and if you want srarpish photos you need to stop down to F8 to F11. Still if you really want very sharp photos at wide apertures you need to go to another lens. For me these "other" lenses are my 150 sigma macro, 35-70 F2.8 nikkor and 12-24 F4 Nikkor. I Still use that 18-200 alot and its was great to help me find my favourite FOVs. and then I got specialist lenses for my FOVs. Saves me spending on expensive Good Glass that cover every FOV that I dont use.

What makes nikkors so expensive? peace of mind and high build quality. If you use your camera gear in extreme environmental situations I would bet that the nikkor would still be working when the others fail and all the expense spent in terms of time and money getting to those extreme environs would be wasted if your gear breaks. check out this. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

heartyfisher said:
What is the gear you are selling? The nice thing about nikon is that you can use most of the lenses from film days on your new DSLRs.

Yes I would say wait for the 95 at this point in time. You can still "borrow" "their" cameras if you need to. In the mean time have a good play with PPing some of those photos..

My old film cameras were Minoltas, I am also getting rid of a vivtar 283 flash and a Tokina ATx 90 mm 2.8F Macro lens (which the camera store appraiser says is broke). By dumb luck, I was ready to buy a new D90 body only on Sat, however, the store only had the d90-lens combo package. So, by default I might be forced to buy the new D90 version. For what I am wanting to do with this camera, a 85-105 Macro lens is a priority.

BTW: do any of you have thoughts on the 18-200 Nikon lens ($800) vs the 18-250 Sigma lens ($400 something) vs maybe a Tokina lens. What about Tamaron lens - anything that i should look at there.

what makes the nikon lens so expensive?

thanks joe

What is the gear you are selling? The nice thing about nikon is that you can use most of the lenses from film days on your new DSLRs.

Yes I would say wait for the 95 at this point in time. You can still "borrow" "their" cameras if you need to. In the mean time have a good play with PPing some of those photos..

Costco has a D90/D95 package for ? $1429
Take a photoshop class through your community college
Digital is like shooting slides, unless you shoot RAW over exposure is a bad thing
Buy and sell from Nikoncafe and Fred miranda if you do not want to buy new
use gear 3 years and trade up, after the 4-5th year little to no resale value

Have you ever shot professional video? or learn the Kelvin scale?
I shoot manual WB Kelvin almost always on my past D2x and D300
I learned professional video 3/4" sp Sony camera 1992, now my could years of schlepping someones gear pays off.

Technology has advanced so much in the past 5 years, IMO Film is now a four letter F-word

good luck