Hi all, first time post.
I had a D80 up until last year but had to sell, which almost broke my heart. This May I had an upcoming trip and debated to buy a D90 or wait until Aug/Sep for its rumored replacement. I'm so glad i bought it, it's a great camera. I figured if the replacement is a worthy successor, I could keep the D90 as a backup and a secondary camera for IR, etc.
Ok, so here are my thoughts on if I'm going to buy the D90 successor or not --
I will not buy D90x if it's simply more megapixels with 1080p and video stuff I'm not going to use. I already get great 13 x 19 prints. Spending $1000 for an additional 4mp and video doesn't do it for me. If it removes the af motor and doesn't include the features I want, then definitely not.
If it's 16mp DX and has the features I would like, I would be on the fence -- mainly, 14-bit RAW (very important) and an intervalometer (nice feature but not a deal breaker).
If it's a 12mp FX (basically a D700 crammed into a D90 high end consumer body), then I'm buying, I wouldn't care about the lack of af motor at that point. Gaining a larger FX viewfinder and the ability to shoot ultrawide for landscapes + ISO performance would trump everything else for me.
Losing D90 ir remote port would hurt, losing the D90 wireless commander feature would hurt even more. I just got a SB-600 for off-camera flash. Losing that ability with a new body would suck.
Having internal geotagging would be awesome. Having the camera mount as a mass storage device like the old D80 did woud be awesome too.
So I guess it all comes down to a fine balance of features. If it's FX for under $1300, then I'm game. If it's DX, then it's gonna have to be a pretty precise feature match for my needs or I'll just wait/save for the D700 replacement.
How about you?