Nikon D90 revolutioary to me!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Frank Arthur, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. Frank Arthur

    Guest Guest

    yup holding a 1.5 lb camera with a 2 lb lens at arms length to shoot a
    non-standard movie for YouTube... That's what a SLR is for!!!!
    Guest, Aug 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. On 28 Aug, 02:14, Alan Browne <>


    Not entirely true. 1080p TVs are only really just taking off, most (my
    plasma 42" included) run 1024x768 or 1366x768. NOT 1080P. Granted
    there ARE 1080p TVs available and they are falling in price all the
    time but check your facts of the HD ready TVs against the Full HD
    (1080p) compliant TVs.

    I was surprised to see at the local Best Buy and Sears that
    1080p does seem to have taken over for all but the low end
    with 42" and larger panel HDTVs. BTW, while 1080p (1080i
    from most sources, which now includes most broadcast) does
    look better than 720p, the difference is not huge unless you
    view close in, as I do (I have both...;-). Also, 1080p displays
    will upsample 720p nicely, and look very good (better, at
    least with my TVs, than with 1080 downsampled to 720p,
    and even 720p viewed on a "720p" display must be upsampled
    to fit the 768 display, which is not ideal...).
    --David Ruether
    David Ruether, Aug 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is interesting. Too bad there is no external (and stereo) microphone
    input port (the 720p video format is fine with me). Unfortunately (and
    this is the "deal breaker" for me), this camera STILL will not meter at
    all with AI/AIS non-AF lenses (it would be a cheap feature to add - but
    it may then kill the D300 sales[?]).
    --David Ruether
    David Ruether, Aug 28, 2008
  4. Frank Arthur

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You can take still pictures with some movie cameras too...

    There are certain advantages in using the D90 for video clips
    (the allowed length is limited by chip overheating) and certain
    disadvantages as well.

    I fear that this will start a "cell phone" trend in midscale DSLR's.
    The "cell phone" trend is the one in which your cell phone will do
    almost anything from keeping your date book to surfing the internet.
    But it does none of them well, including (sadly) functioning as
    a phone.

    Will our cameras go the same way? The D90 reportedly can accept a
    GSP plugin. I can see how that will be useful. Will it also
    eventually accept an internet plugin?

    Paul J Gans, Aug 28, 2008
  5. Frank Arthur

    SMS Guest

    The microphone port is gone from almost all consumer-grade camcorders as
    Yes, they're stubborn about not adding this to the lower end models.
    IMVAIO, they're not just concerned about losing higher-end body sales,
    but also concerned about losing lens sales to those that buy the low-end
    bodies but that have older lenses that they would use if it were possible.
    SMS, Aug 28, 2008
  6. Frank Arthur

    Guest Guest

    according to someone on dpreview who used an infrared temperature
    monitor on his nikon d3 in live view mode, the chip doesn't heat up
    much at all and has no noticable effect on noise, even after 30-60
    it's not the first with the ability to attach a gps and there are
    already cameras with wifi.
    Guest, Aug 28, 2008
  7. Frank Arthur

    techblology Guest

    great camera,
    I like the features.
    techblology, Aug 28, 2008
  8. Frank Arthur

    Charlie Groh Guest BR as yet, but I've just about worn out my "normal" DVD of The
    Fifth Element so it's good to know that when I get on the BR
    merry-go-round there'll be another disc for me to abuse. What great
    eye candy that flick Bruce is still the bloodiest man in

    Charlie Groh, Aug 28, 2008
  9. [about "Fifth Element"...]
    They do look surprisingly good, even with my SD interlaced-only
    DVD player (RGB output, though). My 1080p TV upsamples
    everything quite well - although side-by-side, the same video on
    Blu-ray does look somewhat better (but not enough to make me
    spend the money quite yet). We have bought a Blu-ray burner for
    the HD videos I've been producing, though - but the cost for blanks
    is still excessive. (See some frame grabs from the first five videos
    at --
    I'm not a fan of these multi-channel video sound systems. Being
    an old audiomaniac (see -,
    I prefer the best possible *stereo* sound (although I'm not above
    adding a ***GOOD*** subwoofer to *good* speakers - but
    movies do not need that for good sound, since there is really no
    *very* low bass on movies...), and with that, video sound can be
    quite fine.
    Yes - as can many other movies be...;-)
    --David Ruether
    David Ruether, Aug 29, 2008
  10. Frank Arthur

    ASAAR Guest

    Thank you. But although imitation is the sincerest form of
    flattery, this, your third similar reply in this thread doesn't do
    much for you, since none of your replies contained anything
    meaningful, whether about the topic (Nikon D90), cameras in general,
    or even the video subthread. But you are doing a good job of living
    up to the self-description you have in your message header :
    The question now is can this old dog learn any new tricks, or is
    it your fate to obsessively wander from obsession to obsession?
    ASAAR, Aug 29, 2008
  11. Frank Arthur

    ASAAR Guest

    Your childishness continues, and in a supreme bit of irony, you,
    the one that has been finding fault with the D90 again got it
    bass-ackwards. Earlier this day in a reply to *you*, I said
    essentially the same thing that David Ruether said in your quote :
    You stepped in it again Alan, and then put your foot in your
    mouth. If you wouldn't try so hard to let loose your inner bitch,
    you wouldn't find yourself in this predicament so often.

    I've been consistent on this since for years I've desired good
    sound in P&S videos, preferring it over improved video. I noticed
    that while you (not I) faulted the D90's video :
    you didn't dispute David's contention that :
    thereby demonstrating that your "so what's the point?" was not
    just pointless overreaction, but showed your inconsistency. I'm
    sure that we can all count on you to continue with the insults and
    baiting, but so far it's only your own image that it's hurting.
    ASAAR, Aug 29, 2008
  12. Frank Arthur

    ASAAR Guest

    Yet when I disputed what you contemptuously said about S.I.'s
    15,000 Super Bowl shots, rather than admit your error you decided to
    abandon the discussion. If you thought that you could have picked
    apart any of my arguments, I'm sure that you would have tried.

    When you contemptuously responded to an obvious typo with
    derision, and almost immediately made a less excusable error, I
    responded in kind. Not to emulate your nastiness, but to attempt to
    show you what it looked like, hoping that you might be smart enough
    to gain a little insight. I even made it clear in the reply that
    this was what I was doing. Apparently it was wasted effort.

    You, on the other hand, don't make any attempts to defuse
    hostilities, but seem to enjoy fighting fire with fire, even seeking
    it out as your recent reply just upstream in this thread shows :
    Actually, it's not fighting fire with fire, it's responding to
    stupidity in kind, aka sinking to the other guy's level.

    and continuing with your reply :
    How big of you. Actually, 'trouble' replied to the OP, not to
    you. I'm sure that you didn't appreciate seeing yourself being
    described as possibly being naïve, but you have to have an awfully
    thin skin to consider this a taunt worth starting a flame war over.
    It's not just taunts that get your blood boiling, it's any
    disagreement, especially from those that you know little about.

    I did. Now you try it. You might learn something, although I
    wouldn't think there was more than a snowball's chance . . .
    ASAAR, Aug 29, 2008
  13. I review the Canon HV20/30 here -- It is a
    remarkably good camcorder, able to shoot near best broadcast
    quality video (in ideal light for it...) on a budget.
    I doubt that - I know from having built giant (and smaller but still large
    subwoofers) for decades, and having compared them with what others
    produce (and what other people consider "low" bass) that most people
    have never experienced truly low bass - and there are very few even
    purely audio recordings that contain it. These tiny "boom boxes" that
    5.1 systems supply cannot really provide frequencies that do more
    than (at best) only hint at low bass - and even the best large subwoofers
    will not touch the sonic reach and clean reproduction of a large driver
    with long excursion in a transmission line enclosure (think 24" driver
    with 3/4" clean excursion with a 10-12' line and a port the same area
    as the driver, doubling its radiating area - THAT is low bass
    reproduction!). My "small" box (2'x4'x14", with a 12" driver with
    1 1/4" clean excursion) is 3db down at 23cps, with only a 6db/octave
    rolloff below that (unlike any other box design). My large box (2'x6'x2',
    with a 24" driver with 3/4' clean excursion can shake the ground
    outside the house (or the rocks at the bottom of the cliff my old house
    was on). And, some audio recordings do have these frequencies on
    them, but no movies do that I've encountered (those tend to have mid
    to upper bass material, at best).
    I hope not...! ;-) The worst sound is in movie theaters (well, other than
    maybe in "surround sound" demos in stores...;-). One can do MUCH
    better with audio at home and avoid the "BOOM-BLAST" kind of
    sound theaters have.
    I guess...;-) But I still "switch" my rather high-end sounding audio system
    by disconnecting and reconnecting cable ends...;-)
    Hey, where is the picture, even with a large screen viewed close up?!?
    Well, entirely up front, by golly! Anything else seems like adding false
    "effects", like with the ill-fated 4 channel audio recordings of times past.
    I expect a nice spread of sound (and good sound "image") from left of the
    left side of the screen smoothly across to the right of the right side of
    screen. Period. If I hear a sound from behind, should I really look there
    to also see its source?
    If the latter, yes. But the picture is best viewed straight on, and the
    (for best directional cues and tonal balance) should also be listened to
    straight on. And you (grudgingly) cede the "prime" seat to a guest, when
    If you like confusion...;-) I prefer mine as described above.
    Nope. One can apply the same principles to both for best sound. Good
    audio is good audio.
    --David Ruether
    David Ruether, Aug 29, 2008
  14. [about the mic]
    Yes. Even with the wonderful Canon HV20/30 HD camcorder, the
    built in mic is essentially useless when outdoors (and even when indoors
    if the camera is handled or the lens is zoomed).
    One can hope...;-)
    David Ruether, Aug 29, 2008
  15. Not from those I would care to own... The "high end of the low end range"
    of models generally retain this important feature, without which good sound
    is nearly impossible to record.
    Worse, even AF non-G lenses don't work with the bottom end models.
    Remember when all Nikon gear was backward/forward and bottom/top-
    end compatible? I miss that a LOT!
    Yes, marketing strategies raise their ugly heads - and I guess Nikon finally
    learned a few things from Canon about that (but not everything...).
    David Ruether, Aug 29, 2008
  16. Frank Arthur

    ASAAR Guest

    Still whining, eh? You imagine attacks that are simple
    disagreements, while habitually insulting virtually anyone that you
    disagree with.

    Try reading the article again. Or better, read my extensive reply
    that provided a detailed explanation why you were completely wrong.
    In fact, it was only by taking shots using high fps rates that the
    cover picture was able to be taken and later selected. You tried to
    show that high fps rates were of much less value for getting great
    shots than having a skilled photographer :
    But I DID read the article you mentioned, and it did not show what
    you claimed. I explained this before, but it appears that you
    preferred to look the other way. Yes, the editor made the remark
    about 15,000 crap photos, but that was due to frustration a

    (Perhaps what is needed is the
    ASAAR, Aug 29, 2008
  17. Frank Arthur

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:02:42 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    Sorry about the previous premature post - this laptop's keyboard
    layout causes that to happen from time to time. Copied and
    continued :

    Still whining, eh? You imagine attacks that are simple
    disagreements, while habitually insulting virtually anyone that you
    disagree with.

    Try reading the article again. Or better, read my extensive reply
    that provided a detailed explanation that showed why you were
    completely wrong. In fact, it was only by taking shots using high
    fps rates that the cover picture was able to be taken and later
    selected. You tried to show that high fps rates were of much less
    value for getting great shots than having a skilled photographer :
    But I DID read the article you mentioned, and it did not show what
    you claimed. I explained this before, but it appears that you
    preferred to look the other way. Yes, the editor made the remark
    about 15,000 crap photos, but that was due to frustration examining
    those photos nonstop for several hours. He also remarked that it
    included a number of good shots, but they weren't "cover" quality.
    That wasn't referring to the technical quality. He was looking for
    a shot that would increase sales. I'm sure there were many great
    action shots taken, but the photographers can't always get not only
    the action, but the facial expressions (jubilation, agony,
    frustration) hidden by bodies, helmets, masks, etc. that cause
    people to see a cover shot on the newsstand and go out of their way
    to buy that issue.

    IIRC you and David talked about specific examples (baseball
    batters) where a good photographer might only be able to get a
    single shot off, and by timing it right, get more good shots than a
    bad photographer taking a high speed burst. OK, that may often be
    true, but you both ignored the fact that not only are there many
    other types of sports situations that really *need* bursts at high
    frame rates, but also (in the examples I gave), that there are
    situations where the slow pro would completely miss many great
    unexpected shots, that even a novice wouldn't miss in his/her high
    frame rate sequence. That was an example of an attempt to carry on
    a discussion (without insults) that you preferred to ignore, and my
    guess is that you did so because you didn't have any good rebuttals.
    Instead, you zeroed in on the closing line of the reply that
    mentioned Sigma cameras, and used the widespread contempt of all
    things Sigma as an excuse to ignore all that had preceded it :
    That's a typical Alan Browne reply, with the "some of merit,
    mostly none" an obvious attempt at an insult. In fact, your reply
    quoted above was the real deflection.

    A perfect example of "Do as I say, not as I do." You are the one
    that chooses to avoid reasoned interaction, and then accuse others
    of what you're most guilty of.

    And here we see you getting in more of your attacks/insults. Yes,
    when you're wrong and don't care to read corrections of your
    mistakes, I'm sure that they come across as tedious and boring. But
    it's not convincing and they weren't the attacks that you charge.
    That's your style, or as I said earlier, your M.O. I don't despise
    the substance of what you write. Much of it is informative. But I
    don't care for the way you tend to lard your replies with bullying
    insults and attacks, ranging from subtle to blatant. Based on this
    reply alone, I'd say that if anyone is suffering from elevated B.P.
    it's you. Plonking solves nothing in the long run. Showing less
    contempt for others will.
    ASAAR, Aug 29, 2008
  18. 8^) But, horns are notoriously not flat, and the low end is rather
    strongly limited by the horn mouth dimension, as I recall. It takes a
    VERY large horn mouth to get really low. I once compared a Klipschorn
    corner horn (15" driver) with a short T-line with an 8" driver, and they
    were about equal in low end extension. The T-line box has the advantage
    over all other box types for low distortion, bass extension, maximum
    output for driver size, and gentleness of the roll-off slope at the bottom.
    There is also the problem with horns of serious time delays through a
    long horn compared with other drivers in the system. But it was fun to
    see how far one audiomaniac was willing to go (although I once had
    about 1/2 ton of speakers in my system...;-).
    When the air feels heavy without your hearing anything, it feels like
    your eardrums are going to slap together inside your head, and things
    all over the house are moving and plants are doing 1/2" excursions, then
    you know you are there...! ;-)
    I have found this weird ever since hearing the first run at a big theater
    of "2001" in NYC, the first run of "Star Wars in a giant theater in
    Seattle (with a big curved and tilted screen, with me in the middle),
    while demonstrating my small subs for a theater chain in Seattle to
    compete with speakers the size of upended boxcars and a room full
    of amps (my "little" woofers were better, and they could continuously
    shivver the whole theater for a half hour + without blowing), with the
    new local "googleplex" with the usual also aweful (in the sense of
    "bad"...) surround sound, and even the much touted (but poor) sound
    in several IMAX theaters. It does make one wonder...
    Yes, and, yes. But for best home sound, I will stick with a really good
    pair of front speakers...
    I have heard it done well with well chosen speakers and good speaker
    placement. We have a local sound person who is great. He can make
    a person or players sound entirely acoustic, but still fill a room or cover
    an outdoor area (no "PA sound" with his work!).
    Sigh! ;-) I actually must get up out of my seat, go over to the cabinet,
    remember to turn the volume fully down, then pull the cord connections
    appart - then reconnect the other gear... So much work! 8^)
    But with the video, I don't expect to see the source coming from the
    rear - but with the plane engine noise I, uh, may actually look and see
    a problem...:-(
    I guess we must agree to disagree. For me, the discontinuity between
    narrow angle visuals and wide angle audio is not "correct". If we get
    surround visuals, then my opinion will change...;-)
    Of course! As I did today when giving the "Polar Express" experience to
    So you still play your 4-channel audio recordings (in both systems that
    were on the market, plus current high-end digital multichannel recordings)
    in multichannel? Not me! ;-) That just sounds fake to me. It doesn't sound
    at all like a real acoustic performance experience. For rock concerts,
    anything goes, I guess...

    BTW, I will say that there are some fun bits in Roger Water's "Amused
    To Death" (the dogs barking, the sleigh, and the race car) that are processed
    to appear hard right or left (well beyond the two speakers). I suppose
    that things like this that are not carried out to the point of being silly can
    be good (but this can be done with just a pair of front speakers, if they are
    good enough - no need to add 1, 2, 3, or more speakers and amps plus
    David Ruether, Aug 30, 2008
  19. I was making a (possibly poor...) joke to make a point. If you like good,
    realistic sound reproduction (as it appears you do), it is unlikely that you
    use multichannel gear beyond a stereo pair of speakers plus possibly a
    subwoofer - and that appears to be what you do. So why the use of
    many speakers for video, since it results in inferior sound quality?
    Yes. (Unless you have old RCA or Columbia 4-channel LPs or some of
    the new super disks...;-)
    Then you listen to movies also in stereo, not surround sound? I assumed
    from what you described earlier, and from your ownership of multichannel
    (7.1) gear, that you used it for surround sound...;-)

    Anyway, this is likely enough of this. We all have our own ideas of what
    is "best", and there is no real need to convince others beyond what we
    can all learn from such exchanges.
    David Ruether, Aug 30, 2008
  20. Nah - I'z tu pyur fer thet! 8^)
    David Ruether, Aug 31, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.