15 minutes could save you 20% on car insurance... oh never mind! The D90 rivals the D300 in Iso ans image quality. Of course Nikon realized that and came out with a D300s...

Some annoying advertisement perhaps?

"Also, WTF was up with that lizaard chasing me around the screen... that was just creepy."

A lizard chasing you around the screen???

I've got a 80 and a D90 that have been in semi-profesional use (1-2 shoots \ week) plus every day casual use. Both have held up fine. The D80 was dropped and has a small hole in the plastic on the top right (looking at the lens) corner. It still works fine, but I alwaays worry about moisture getting in there. I keep it taped up and that seems to have worked so far (15 months later).

Also, WTF was up with that lizaard chasing me around the screen... that was just creepy.

"Get d90. d90 isn't as rugged, but it is currently produced, and has much better electronics than d200."

Yes. And I can tell you that ruggedness is a bit overrated. I work in a theme park and we have those annoying photographer that attack you the second you walk in. They are now using D40s. They get pretty beaten up and are used throughout the whole day. They hold up fairly well under these conditions so a D90 being used by a normal person will do splendidly.

Get d90. d90 isn't as rugged, but it is currently produced, and has much better electronics than d200.

"I see. I haven't really looked at a D80 or a D90, so I really don't have much experience other than the D40."

The D80 and D90 are only similar to one another in name and outward appearance. The D80, like the D200, is a discontinued old camera with old technology in it. Being an electronic device (unlike a film camera), two years is ancient when it comes to digital cameras. Nothing evolves faster than the microchip! This is why the D90 beats the D200. The only arguments ever given for why a D200 might be better are cosmetic ones. On the inside the newer cameras can just do more. The D40 has better ISO performance the the D200 and it's an entry level camera! In electronics, upgrading almost always means newer. This is especially true with Nikon. It's just like computers which makes sense when you think about it because digital SLR's contain processors as well. Each generation steps above the previous one.

D200 - November 2005
D40 - November 2006
D300 - August 2007
D90 - August 2008

The D90 has slightly better IQ and ISO performance than the more pro D300. Makes sense, it's the newest of all these. If you just want another camera body, then it doesn't matter. However if you're "upgrading", get newest.

I see. I haven't really looked at a D80 or a D90, so I really don't have much experience other than the D40.

No camera is as menu dependent as the D40's and D60 are. Any move up with give you more controls on the outside.

As you already know the D40 inside-out, then I doubt that it will even take you that long to get in sync with the D200 and compared to a D60 there will be new things to learn on either camera.
With the D200 you will have more important camera controls under buttons instead of in the menus.

"The D90 you can probably get up and running with it in a couple minutes. The learning curve might be slightly higher with the D200."

Yes and no. The D90's menus are very much like those of the D300 because it has all the extra settings and tweaks the D300 has. I've seen the D200's menus as well and yeah, they're a bit screwy by comparison.

Very true. I had no manual with me, so that made the situation slightly worse. I think if I had a week with the camera and the manual I'd learn it eventually.

I don't really think that the menus and different buttons should be used as a basis for choosing the camera. Just add a bit of the old RTFM into the mix and you will be over that small obstacle :)

I would go with the D90. You're probably used to the menu system. I borrowed my friend's D200 the other day and I was completely lost. Keep in mind that I've had my D40 for a year now and I know it very well now. I had no idea how to change settings and such with the D200. Then again, I only played with it for 5 minutes, but it's a big leap. The D90 you can probably get up and running with it in a couple minutes. The learning curve might be slightly higher with the D200.

For me, the primary benefit of the D200 over the D90 is the ability to use some great manual focus lenses and get metering.

Thanks Gentoo...much appreciated.

I think I'll probably end up going with the D90. Seems like the best buy at this point.

willis - nice pun lol :)

oasisfan:

The picture controls I use are specific to the way I like to shoot my wildlife, mostly birds. The thing I'm able to do with the gen-two picture controls is control exactly how I want the colors to saturate. I like them vibrant but not wild. One thing about saturation in the gen 2 cameras is that it protects your grays and blues so they don't get bled into the way they do in the vivid modes in gen 1 bodies.

For things like birds I shoot in standard picture controls with the saturation pegged over to the right twice. For people I either use this or tone it down once. Sometimes certain skin tones can be made reddish if it's saturated too much. For landscapes and scenery, I go all Ken Rockwell and put it in vivid and crank the saturation all the way to the + sign. Active D-Lighting I set to normal most of the time but I may turn it off in direct bright sunlight. I've found it's not good to use in harsh light.

I should have told you that the ability to correct and change these extra setting in RAW is in Capture NX. I've not used the other software you mentioned. Also, as mentioned before, the D90 also corrects for chromatic aberration and to a certain degree, barrel distortion. These are things no gen one camera can do. So if you cannot afford really good lenses, the D90 by and large makes your current lenses look better than they are. This alone make gen 1 cameras obsolete IMO. Put some good glass on it and holy crap!

The thing is, the D90 will give you choices if you want to switch things up and gives you more control.

Oasisfan- You won't notice the jump in megapixils... its only about 5% different. Think of the camera senor as a square. A 3X3 sensor would be 9MP. to get from 3X3 to 4X4, a 33% increase you have to go all the way up to 16MP. So if you go from 10mp to 12 mp, your going from a 3.33 X 3.33 to about 3.5 X 3.5. The sensor is actually rectangular, so its not exactly like that, but its close enough.

Gentoo - Go with the D90 because its a Gen 2 camera... and your name is Gentoo :)

Gentoo -

I'll be honest, I've never experimented with picture controls like the standard, vivid, etc.. But my D60 does have active-d which is def nice. Would being able to have those extra pic controls like the vivid (and i forgot the others..like 7 right?) make a huge difference if I take every photo through lightroom/photoshop anyway? Just curious as to when they're appropriate to use (maybe even tell me which ones you like and why you like them)..

thanks!

starting to lean towards a 90 but since i have a D60 already, I dont know if i would really notice the jump in megapixels....im still on the wire between the two i guess...

the price isnt an issue (between the two)...not even thinking about it

1000% D90 if you don't need to throw your camera like a rock!!! lol

Aside from the build quality and price differential, the thing the D200 has going for it is its controls. Making changes to the ISO, and WB on the D90 is a bit cumbersome. You have to hold the buttons next to the LCD and twist the knob. With the D200, you have dedicated buttons on the top that you can hit without taking you eye off the viewfinder. If you are the sort of person that frequently makes these sorts of adjustments, then the D200 is for you. Also, the D200 has a less erratic meter than the D90 (and much better than the D80).

On the other hand, if you just leave ISO & WB in auto mode, or if you set it at the begining of your shoot and don't change it, the D90 is a better option. The D90 also has full auto mode. I don't use that myself, but if you are using this as a family camera, it can be pretty important. A D200 isn't something you can hand over to your drunk cousin at a family reunion and get good results.

I'd ignore price in this decision. Unless you as shoot professionally, price doesn't matter. Pro's need to pay attention to price, because every dollar they don't spend is a dollar that can be spent on something else that they may need to develop their business. Pros need to have equipment today. Waiting a year or two could mean business they can't book. To an amateur like me, money just equals time. Given enough time, even a D3x is in reach (Well OK, now we are talking about a LOT of time so maybe not for the elderly). As an added bonus, the gear (or at least the bodies) tends to get cheaper over time.

Just go with the camera that best suits your style of shooting.

As you may guess I'm going to agree with bibz for the most part. I never mentioned the ISO performance when I went off on my tangent in the other thread. I have three other amature photographer friends; two have D200's and one has a D90. The two D200 users love how our cameras make pictures look as well as the ISO performance.

As far as shooting RAW not mattering. I respectfully disagree to a point. Those extra controls in the camera such as Active D-Lighting can be adjusted in RAW.It has to be turned on in order to be adjusted which requires it be present in the first place. The extra picture controls are also adjustable in RAW. Since I started shooting RAW, I've been very grateful that I have been able to reset my picture controls if I shot in vivid and should have use standard or vice versa. In the case of picture controls, you can even fine tune them.

I'm using d200, and indeed the iso level is the main weeknes of this body. It's on very good level up to 400 iso, acceptable at 800 and ocasionaly at 1600 (bright scenes, no deep shadows, great when You convert to B&W). As I don't have a long experience with d90 (played with it only couple of times) I'm able to point out the differences between d200 and d80. The main and biggest difference is the low light AF performance, i.e. in situations when d80 is starting to haunt for focus, d200 works without any problems. Also as for d200 I've never faced any weather sealing problems, neither during showers or have rainfalls - not to mention very high humidity.
Overall, I will say that if You don't need video mode and high iso in Your dslr, than I will go for d200, as it's more robust - but, there's no auto mode on it, but who needs it in a semi-pro body.

Hi,
I think the biggest difference between the D90 and D200 is noise performance. My friend has a D200 and it bothers him that the ISO isn't as good as my D90. He barely goes to ISO 400. With my D90 i can easily go to ISO 800, even ISO 1600 if things are bad.

As for image quality, I can't tell since we haven't done a complete test with these cameras.

For build quality, the D200 is definitely bigger and heavier, but we never took them on "extreme" trips.

My personal opinion with this choice :
get the D90, you get a better sensor, better ISO, lighter and smaller. I don't know if you intend to share with camera with someone less experienced (like your S-O), but the D90 is great for that, i can put it almost full auto and give it to my girlfriend and she'll have fun

The reason i would get the D200 : more buttons to control stuff, less expensive. But the camera is getting old...

In my forum "is the D300 worth buying now?" I seem to have sparked a debate on which would be a better buy right now, the D90 or the D200. The D200 is currently $650 from best buy and I think the D90 is like $850.

So here we go... Which one is better? I shoot RAW so the newer image controls on the D90 don't matter to me that much, but if the D300 is a little out of my price range right now (dont get me wrong i could afford it, but id rather dump the extra 7 or 8 hundred bucks into a lens or two) which is the better pick up?

I've heard the D90 is just too new and has overall better image quality and noise performance to be beaten by the D200.

Also, since one of the benefits of the D200 is the build and weather sealing, could someone who has used both a D90 and D200 comment on the D90s build quality and whether or not it's all that great?

Fire away!