Worth buying today? Does anyone still own and/or shoot with the Nikon /D90? I presently shoot with the Nikon D600, but want a crop sensor camera for a second camera. Is the D90 still...

leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida

Does anyone still own and/or shoot with the Nikon /D90? I presently shoot with the Nikon D600, but want a crop sensor camera for a second camera. Is the D90 still worth buying? I know the specs, only a 12.3 MP camera, so would like some advice from use.rs of the D90.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I don't know about the D90, but I still use a D200. I also have a D750 and a D5000. Somehow I still favor the D200. The D70 was also a very popular model.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jradose wrote:

Does anyone still own and/or shoot with the Nikon /D90? I presently shoot with the Nikon D600, but want a crop sensor camera for a second camera. Is the D90 still worth buying? I know the specs, only a 12.3 MP camera, so would like some advice from use.rs of the D90.

Contact Nikon to see if they still support/repair it - otherwise not worth buying unless you need a temporary solution and are not concerned with poor image quality - digital sensors on 12 yr old cameras leave a lot to be desired.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

jradose wrote:

Does anyone still own and/or shoot with the Nikon /D90? I presently shoot with the Nikon D600, but want a crop sensor camera for a second camera. Is the D90 still worth buying? I know the specs, only a 12.3 MP camera, so would like some advice from use.rs of the D90.

That camera has not been supported by Nikon for several years. Not even basic parts are available for them. No new grips mean that you can't do any repairs that require disassembly, because the grips have to come off, usually damaging them beyond reuse.

If the one you are looking at still works, and if you can get it for very little, it could be an ok choice, depending on what you want to use it for.

I still occasionally use my D300 and D300s, and I still love the CCD sensor in my D200 for certain things, but none of them come out very often. The D500 is so much better in so many ways.

BebuLamar

If it's in good condition and the price is low ($100 or less) then yes.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

BebuLamar wrote:

If it's in good condition and the price is low ($100 or less) then yes.

I agree. It is an old camera, and I wouldn't recommend spending much for it. Having said that, my son has previously owned a D90 and it produced some excellent images for its time and specs.

User ID

A D90 as an APSC “second camera” along side a FF D600 ?

The D90 is not especially compact and has exactly half the pixels of the D600.
IOW the D600 contains within itself an APSC camera ... with a better imaging engine than the D90. If “reach” is one reason for APSC then there would be zero gain from a D90 for that.

The logical “second camera” for a D600 is another D600. They don’t cost much and seem to get cheaper every month (although it may bottom out soon). And acoarst perfectly matching controls and ergonomics is always a beneficial idea.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The logic of this idea seems faulty. First, what do you need a 2nd camera for? Second, if you want 'DX', why not your current D600 or a second D600 in DX crop mode, where large DX as 3936x2224 = 8.7MP, not much different than spending any trivial money for a ancient 12MP D90? If still not dissuaded, a DX body at least at the same 24MP resolution is the better choice.

User ID

CHG_CANON wrote:

The logic of this idea seems faulty. First, what do you need a 2nd camera for? Second, if you want 'DX', why not your current D600 or a second D600 in DX crop mode, where large DX as 3936x2224 = 8.7MP, not much different than spending any trivial money for a ancient 12MP D90? If still not dissuaded, a DX body at least at the same 24MP resolution is the better choice.

Not 8.7. It’s 10.3MP. I just set my D600 to DX and read the exif from a test shot.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

User ID wrote:

Not 8.7. It’s 10.3MP. I just set my D600 to DX and read the exif from a test shot.

Agreed. I searched for the DX image size in the PDF and see now I ended up at the movie size rather than the still image size, that is 3936x2624 = 10.3MP. The faulty logic remains or gets worse with the cameras being even closer in DX mode.

CO

I had D90's for years. It still holds up well today even though it was released in 2008. Nikon got everything right with it. It was a big improvement over the D80. Newer Nikon DX cameras have better dynamic range and higher resolution but the D90 does well. 12 megapixels is actually enough for good detail. I took all of the photos below with the D90's I had.

If you were considering a D80, I would recommend against it but the D90 was a very good camera and still worthwhile.

(Download)

CO

Gene51 wrote:

Contact Nikon to see if they still support/repair it - otherwise not worth buying unless you need a temporary solution and are not concerned with poor image quality - digital sensors on 12 yr old cameras leave a lot to be desired.

Newer Nikon DX cameras have improved but the D90 hardly has poor image quality. I had D90's for years. It actually holds up well today even with the improvements in newer cameras.

Drip Dry McFleye

I still have and occasionally use my D90. My son-in-law is still using his D90. It is still a good camera. No, it's not as good or feature rich as my D500 but at the prices they now sell for I would say you can't go wrong if you think you want one. They sell for so little that I'd rather keep mine than let it go for such small $. I am an outdoor guy and I'd rather risk losing my low value D90 on a canoe or backpacking trip than my D500 or D850.

Brenda IS Scottish Loc: GOLDEN Colorado

I shot with a D90 for years! Great camera. As with any purchase condition is everything.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

I bought a D90 when it first came out, used it for 10 years. The only reason I up-graded to the D750 was for low-light performance. In my opinion, this is the only weakness of the D90