I didn't, but I gave him a gestapo interrogation. I thought that he had to have caught the strap with his feet as he was walking by to forcefully yank it off. He said he was grabbing some books and the strap happened to be caught on a book. The camera teetered on the edge before it fell and he wasn't fast enough to grab it on time.
It makes me think that his body had some kind of defects when they were pouring the mold, maybe the resin wasn't mixed properly, who knows. I have had a D40 and D80 survive a lot more!
I had two D200's for a couple of years, then sold them to get the D300. I was disappointed in the D300. It wasn't much of an improvement to warrant the expense. I just did not like the D300. I sold it and got a D700. The D700 is much better than the D300 or D200. It is noticeable enough to justify the cost plus full frame.
I purchased a Nikon D90 to replace a D50. I really like the D90. It has very good IQ. I believe it is better than the IQ of the D300, in a smaller, lighter package. The controls are very similar to the D200, with many new improvements in capabilities. The D90 will also take all of Nikon's AF lenses as it has the built in focusing motor that allows the use of all of Nikon's AF lenses, not just the AF-S.
In my opinion, the D90 is a great buy and very capable body. As mentioned, it does not have the heavy build, nor weather proofing of the D700, but at substantial cost savings,size and weight. I pack the D90 with ease. I strongly recommend the D90 over the D300 or D300s.
bhorst wrote:
Do you think there is enough of a bump from the D200 to the D300 to justify it though? I know the noise is a lot cleaner, but at this point, that is all I am upgrading for....
Yes, noise wise its going to be superior to the D200 at high ISO and the camera as a system is wholly different. Check out thom hogan's review and compare it to everyone elses review. The D300s from teh D300 is more like an evolution (and not worthwhile if you dont want the added FEATURES) but everyone I have seen has said that the D300 was more like a revolution.
I would say if you were used to a D200 and wanted to stay DX go with the D300 unless you wanted video or the quiet shutter mode and a couple more buttons. Else you could jump to the D700 and be full frame and gain more low light ability.
Well, after considering that I make less than 5,000 a year off photo stuff, have a stay at home wife and a 2 year old, and having 10 classes left on a masters degree....
I just ordered a D90....
On that note I may now have a D50 or a D200 for sale.....
I'd hang on to that D200 for a while until you have some time under your belt with the D90. Be a shame to sell it too quickly and then regret doing so.
I am kind of partial to it, and do love the clarity at iso 100...thought about keeping it for the times when I control the light....I'm not sure if I would use the D50 again though...
My D40, as light as it is, and having the unique 1/500 flash sync, is still relegated to backup duty. Two command dials, better AF, and megapixels to burn mean that the D90 is going to get the call.
If I take only one camera, it's the D90. Given that you have a D200 still, I'm thinking your D50 is going to spend a lot of time on the shelf with a D200 and D90 ahead of it.
I currently shoot with a D90. I've sold all my DX glass and now use an 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S and 80-200 f2/8 AF-S on that body. While I really like the D90 and FX glass combinations in the studio, I'm not thrilled with either the D90's high ISO performance in low light, or the 11 focus points. Next stop? D700.
I've only got one comment to add. I had the D300 and just picked up a D90 instead of either the D300 or D300s due to only the fact that I wanted as small as practical as an accompaniment to my D700. I was expecting that the only role of the D90 would be as a lighter walk around camera. Boy have I been blown away. The image quality is superior to the D300 in the high iso's. I'm not finding any limits up to 3200 and that is a huge surprise for me. What a great little cam and the best surprise I've had in a long while as far as having expectations exceeded.
Mattski1 wrote:
I currently shoot with a D90. I've sold all my DX glass and now use an 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S and 80-200 f2/8 AF-S on that body. While I really like the D90 and FX glass combinations in the studio, I'm not thrilled with either the D90's high ISO performance in low light, or the 11 focus points. Next stop? D700.
Really? I had great luck with my old D90 in low light. I ran it RAW with no preset NR and did my own in post to prevent that mush. The catch was it HAD to be exposed right.
I will admit, one of the big selling points for moving to the D300 was the AF system. The D90 did great with my 80-200afs but I had those AFD primes that were a bit off (helped by microfocus adjustment).
I have a d90 as my backup and though the shutter speed and burst capability as well as feel in the hand is different it gets the job done and is a good compliment to my d700. Downsides include that it has SD cards and not CF and that it lack some features found in the d200 and d300 and has a dial for mode adjustments that i find myself accidentally knocking in to either auto or manual from aperture when I have it hanging off of my shoulder.
So I just got the D90 today and am disappointed in how it feels in my hand...Image quality is superb, but it feels like I have to cramp my hands to hold onto it...
Not sure what I feel about it now that the price of the D300s is dropping to 1550...
Thinking about it....it's quite a bit smaller than my D200...not to mention that the controls are laid out funny comparatively....I'm actually thinking a used D300 would be good since I don't care about video...
Although I don't own a D300, I would imagine its similar in physical size to my D200. I have big hands, and find my D200 MUCH more comfy than the D90. Just a thought.
I have both the D300 and D300s (and had the D90's for a while too).
Things I considered as main differences were:
D90 iso @3200 was a bit better than the D300 and about equal to the D300s
D300s has backup card.
D90 lacks in AF esp. compared to the D300s and probably compared to the D200. That was the straw for me. I could not keep a body that could not get there with a 1.4 lens in low light.
