D90 On The Way? (Rumor)

Well, it helps to get your dates correct. As for the free NX upgrade, it applies in 2008, not purchases in 2007. My bad, I misread it. In other words, any dealers who are still dumping the older NX -- and have been since the beginning of May -- can now tell their customers they get a free upgrade to NX2.

They've got that upgrade plan all wrong. Those of us who bought NX back when it was just v1,1 or v1.2 should get a special award from Nikon for having put up with it until they got it working fairly well in v1.3, and downright usefully in v2.0. Ah, but us early adopters are always the sacrificial lambs, aren't we?

As for the D90. Video? Really? We don't need no stinkin' video! But then, some other modestly priced brands/models now have competition from Nikon. People coming from video-capable point-and-shoot cameras for the first time will be able to give the Nikon higher-end consumer bodies a look without having the lack of that ultimately irrelevant feature turn them away. Interesting, kinda.

Video, from a DSLR! If it is done correctly, I bet it would be the highest quality video cam money could buy this side of $10K.

If you don't want video then don't use it, or don't buy it. I for one welcome new features. Live view is great on my D3 for macros.

I'm all for new features... but only if their presence on the device doesn't come at the expense of it doing what it's primarily designed to do. I have no question that it will be a draw for a lot of people, and I'd much rather that Nikon get that business than someone else. I'm sure that if I happened to have it, I'd probably use it here and there. I just have to assume that the plumbing that supports live view is only a step away from dumping that video to the buffer and off to your storage... but probably only at the resolution of your rear display (which ain't too shabby these days!).

If Nikon puts video in a SLR I'm switching to Pentax or Sony!

John, I'm sure you'll be able to sell your current Nikon lenses to a new D90 owner.

I don't know how accurate Thom Hogan's information is, but generally speaking, he wouldn't put such information on his web site unless he is quite sure about its accuracy.

It is always hard to predict the future, but the general trend is that DSLRs will continue to be single-lens but the reflex part may gradually go away. Live view is merely the first step that an LCD image will gradually replace the optical viewfinder for composition. Another trend is that video will gradually replace still photography. Pretty soon not only Nikon but everybody else will have the video option. Of course in the early stage, video is not nearly good enough to replace still images and the LCD image is not as convenient as the image from the penta prism, but give it 5, 10 years, the new technologies will gradually mature. If you go back 9 years, the D1 also looked very primitive in 1999.

My suggestion is to keep an open mind. Photokina is a bit more than one month away. After the Olympics is over, we'll see major announcements from many different brands and that'll give us peak into the future.

Video? Microphone? Crying out loud. Like I really want people to hear what I say when I miss shots. Is the camera going to come in green, yellow, and pink too? Not sure what use I would have for live view, as Nikon does it. Why couldn't they skip the microphone goofiness and give me a tilt screen? This is starting to sound anti-climatic almost. Have to wait and see what the performance of the sensor does. If it at least equals the D300, I'm still in. What I want is a cleaner high ISO and low light performance. Don't need no stinkin' microphones.

Kent in SD

"I don't know how accurate Thom Hogan's information is, but generally speaking, he wouldn't put such information on his web site unless he is quite sure about its accuracy. "

Have to agree with Shun. That microphone detail is something he would be way out on a limb about. If not true, he would lose a lot of credibility and that's something I'm pretty sure he would avoid at all cost. If the camera comes out and there is NO microphone etc., he would be laughed at and I'm sure he knows it. For that reason, I think the story is legit. The fact he's posted some info makes me think it is just around the corner because Nikon has been VERY tight with info further out than a few weeks the past year or two.

Kent in SD

just get a D300 already, kent.

If you read Thom's posts on dpreview he says that he is following standard journalistic practices of confirming the information with two different sources before publishing anything. He has a photo of the camera but won't post it because he thinks Nikon might be able to use it to determine who took the photo so he is protecting his source by not releasing the image.

Wow, I've never seen so many people upset about having an EXTRA feature. What do you guys do when a camera is MISSING a feature???

"Wow, I've never seen so many people upset about having an EXTRA feature. What do you guys do when a camera is MISSING a feature???"

Nothing, we're used to THAT. Remember that we're Nikon users.

As for me buying a D300, I really don't like the larger size of it, and for the extra ~$600 my money would be far better spent on another monolight & battery pack than a camera. I got over "camera mania" at least 10 years ago.

Kent in SD

I'd be interested to find out about the AF sensors, particularly if it has multiple cross-type sensor that might make it useful for sports, birds, and other action. I suppose the really good DX sports models will have names like D400, D500, D600...

Any educated guesses on the retail price ? With the D60 selling for about $650 with a kit lens, and the D300 selling for about $1625 with no lens, the range is WIDE open. I would hope for under $1000.

Most likely $999 MSRP at the intro.

Not the direction I am headed. I have never wanted a camcorder. Nothing about them to complain about but they just do not interest me. I have been thinking about large format for decades and maybe it's time to head in that direction. I think I will go over to the large format area and start reading up.

http://yourphotoarchive.com/laugh.htm

I was guess at the $999 price as well. Considering you can buy a new, but about to be obsolete, D200 for the same price .... It does make you at least pause.

all the anti-video stuff makes me chuckle. like, bursting 8 fps on CH is okay, but going 30 fps isn't?

I hope that microphone and video can record and capture a thief :-))

John Schroeder,

"no matter where you read it"

I don't know where on earth you got this but AFAIK, the first recorded written teachings of the Buddha - 10 times the volume of the Bible - were made 400 years after his death!

So, you're right, don't believe anything you read...

"Video? Microphone? Crying out loud. Like I really want people to hear what I say when I miss shots."

I can see it now. Take shot, miss it. turn dial to video mode, Cuss about the missed shot. Turn video off. Blame camera for recording cussing.

I know you are only kidding but you do sound upset. Everything's gonna be alright. I promise.

Kent...

"Video? Microphone? Crying out loud. Like I really want people to hear what I say when I miss shots"

LOL that's great! You've been waiting so long! Now is time to cash on that. I would like to see your night train shots with added sound effects! i saw here a pink HP3 i think, it looked really cute, I'm sure a pink D90 would look as good!

Another trend is that video will gradually replace still photography

I don't see it at the ordinary people level, I don't see it at the amateur level, and I don't see it at the professional level. Can you report some statistics where the replacement of still photography with video become evident?

I don't know of any truly viewable amateur-made video, except perhaps the 8mm films my father took when I was a toddler. And that is viewable once in twenty years, and only interesting to immediate family. They've taken massive amounts of still photographs which carry much more information and are regularly viewed. The fundamental difference between a still and a movie has not changed: the photographer chooses the moment and edits the image to produce a picture of single moment in time, and you view it at your own pace. With movies, the photographer shows a stream of images and the viewer has little control in as how much time they spend studying an indidividual part of the work. Yes, you can play back but really the concepts are completely different and uses are also different. A video does not do the task of a still photograph and vice versa. If anything, digital has made still photography more popular than it was with film (due to the cost and convenience of viewing and editing images and compactness of cameras), and video is really only done well by those who work for TV and movie producing professionally.

Now, there are specialized fields like action photography where the integration of video and still photography into a single recording system might be of value. But to say that still photography in general will be replaced by movies is ... well, it's a bold claim but lacking in supporting facts. A lot of still photographers just don't want to do video, no matter what its technical quality might be. I personally don't even want to watch a continuous flow of images. I want to control my use of time.

Someone might ask what's the disadvantage of having video capability in a DSLR? Aside from the quality concerns, which are very real based on existing cameras, the user interface for still photography, video, or both would be compromised by introducing both in one. It's like cell phone cameras: the mobile phone user interface is worse, and the camera interface is worse than in separate units.

I might add that I am sure that in sports, theatre, music, and wildlife photography, there is common ground and one person would certainly be able to do these. But there are other fields of still photography for which there is no use of video.

"Casio says its $1,000 EX-F1 can shoot up to 60 6-megapixel images in one second." Id argue, thats video.

Ilkka - Video will replace stills as a way to take pictures, not view pictures.

When there was large format only, people took one picture of each thing. Ansel Adams would actually take the time to make things right in one shot. With roll film, this became less important, and when 36 exposure 135 film came out, even less so, people now would take more crap photos and just pick the best. With digital its the same thing, the person who takes three thousand pictures will get three good ones, say. And with high quality video, you can take a few hundred thousand and pick the best. This trend will continue until there is no skill in photography. People will take 120 14MP frames bracketed three stops in each direction, per second soon, and save it all to a 1TB memory card, then they will have a computer program with AI that sorts through the millions of pictures they took that day and find one very nice one. It still wont be as nice as the one Adams did in one shot.

I have to agree with Ikka. I have a video cam in mint condition, maybe it needs a new battery, don't know. My wife and I bought it for our first trip from Los Angeles to Yellowstone back in 1988. She was shooting movies and I was shooting my SLR's. It went on for years until my first son was born. We never see the movies and we never show the movies to friends but we go trough our pictures at least once a year and also show them to friends. We don't even have 1 video of our second son and the camera it's been in a closet for years. Of curse I wouldn't take it out now coz people would be asking what it is.

That's strange, I think it got to do with electric appliances involved in the viewing of the media. I have many thousands of slides but never view them, also digital files, I don't go showing them around except here and when I send them over seas to family and friends. At home and close by friends I always show them the prints. If I pull out my computer to show pictures people tend to be bored but it doesn't happened with prints.

Overall, I will stay with still photos for my landscapes and scenic shots. BUT I will welcome video for much of my wildlife work. For years now, each winter I spend dozens of hours standing in the freezing cold waiting for trumpeter swans to fly by. In the past I'd use a Fuji S3. They'd fly by real close and sometimes land right in front of me. With my slow shooting camera and smallish buffer I'd be happy to get 2 or 3 photos from one pass. BUT, my buddy with the latest Canon equipment would be shooting so fast it was like he was making a movie. At the end of the day we'd compare photos, and he'd usually have the best. When it comes to wildlife action photography - make a movie and then sort them out at home...

Those who bemoan the introduction of video -- if indeed the 'D90' does herald its introduction -- are either single, have very understanding photo-spouses, or are missing a key selling feature, as follows:

"Listen. It makes sense for us to get this new camera. We'll be able to take video without having to bring along an extra bag, or replace that old camcorder."

I can just about hear myself rehearsing that line. :-)

Shun,

Do you really think the optical viewfinders will disappear? I find the P&S style of handling quite unstable, and looking to a reproduction of reality it's not the same as looking at reality. Optical viewfinders offer many things that can't be found on LCD screens.

Shun did mention give it 5, 10 years. For normal shooting, today optical viewfinders are far better (faster, clearer, etc.) than using the rear LCD or an electronic viewfinder (EVF) but the rear LCD and EVF do have some advantages in specialized situations.

I think in 10 years EVFs will have matured enough that they will offer many benefits over optical SLR mirror viewfinders. Look at live view now, you can see a depth of field preview without the viewfinder getting really dim. Of course the image gets noisier but that's the tradeoff. The ability to zoom in live view is wonderful. I would love to be able to zoom in the viewfinder rather than using the rear LCD in live view. Frame rates will go way up since you won't have to move the mirror 11 times a second like the D3. Reliability should also go up if you don't have a mirror and shutter constantly moving. A good EVF would also allow you to customize the layout of the display (my Canon point and shoot with CHDK firmware allows you to do this)

Look at the new Olympus Micro Four Thirds format. They're getting rid of the mirror to make the camera and lenses smaller. I think they're about 5 years too early but we'll see.

Do I think the optical viewfinder will disappear? For the most part they already disappeared from digicams several years ago. Yesterday, I mentioned the new 4/3 mount for a new type of DSL but no R (single-len but no reflex mirror) camera that has no optical viewfinder by Olympus and Panasonic: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

Back in 1999 when I saw the Nikon D1 for the first time, the quality was so poor that while I thought I would get a DSLR in 2, 3 years (from 1999), I could never imagine that digital would so completely replaced 35mm film in the 6, 7 years following that.

The general tendency for this forum and many other people is that they have a hard time accepting new things. Recall that a few years ago, there was a long petition here requesting Nikon not to make G lenses again. Several tens of people signed it. What was Nikon's reaction? Except for the 3 PC-E lenses, they haven't introduced even one non-G lens since that petitioin. And guess what, now a few years later, most people are used to it and not complain any more.

Of course, today there are still film shooters. There will continue to be DSLRs with optical viewfinders and still-only cameras. But the general trend for the industry is shifting; at what speed I don't know. That is, it is hard to predict when a new technology will become mature and therefore mainstream. When you look at pre-mature technologies, they of course look bad. To me, this is very exciting times.

BTW, back to Thom Hogan, I correspond with him once in a while. While he doesn't post nonsense to his own web site and I am sure that he verified this "D90" information, I wouldn't take what he posted as 100% accurate. For example, Nikon might discover a late problem and pull such camera from their pre-Photokina announcement. Until Nikon announces it themselves, I wouldn't treat these rumors, even from a reliable source, as official.

I am amazed by the comments from people who think adding an additional feature, i.e., video capability, is actually *objectionable*. If you don't want to use it, don't. But I will. Having the capability to shoot short videos is a reason I usually carry a small digicam with me. The quality does not have to be HD-level; the idea is to have a short clip that can be put on one's computer and shown online. I take bird photos--and whereas I have no plans to become a "bird videographer," it's handy to be able to create a clip of a bird in motion in the field, as a complement to the higher quality still photos.

It's another tool that one can use, or not.

The Kodak point & shoot model 1285 has no viewfinder, is 12 mp, is priced $249 at Walmart, and takes HD quality video. It's been a so-so seller. Not sure why Nikon thinks a ~$1,000 version is going to fly off the shelf. I'm still thinking that what will sell the camera will be whether or not it has D300 image quality at less than a thousand bucks. Perhaps Nikon did the video thing as an after thought, a way to differentiate the D90 from the Sony and Canon competition? They just might have thrown those guys a curve ball here. As for the no-finder point & shoots, I find them very difficult to use (hold steady) and avoid them. If you knew exactly what my job is that might surprise you.

And another thought. If it doesn't have a jack so you can use an external microphone, what's the point of HDMI video?

Kent in SD

If people don't like new technology they will hate the D90:

http://yourphotoarchive.com/laugh.htm

Breogan, looking at reality as opposed to looking at a reproduction of reality? Since when is looking through a mirror reality? :)

Yes, you are right Michael... Mirror is not "reality". But I was just thinking about this video cameras with electronic viewfinders. Those are very tiring on the eye. After 5 minutes you get annoyed by the screen.

Also, the P&S style of holding is very bad for stability.

I would almost certainly buy one if it offered 30 or 24 fps progressive video at true HD or higher, even if its just through the HDMI port. I really can't see why some people think this would be a downside.

I have been doing more video that still photography lately. One of the major issues video shooters have is the severely decreased ability to capture images with low DOF due to small sensor size. Indeed an entire industry has sprung up offering DOF adapters which allow the attachment of a sort of mini-view-camera using 35mm lenses- just to get back DOF despite the compromises in IQ that such devices entail.

So, can anyone imagine why a DX sized sensor hybrid still / video camera would sell well? Even if you had to record off of the HDMI port, it would still probably outclass almost any video camera this side of the Red One. Sound isn't a big issue, though an elegant way to plug in balanced mics would be nice, sound can me recorded separately a lot more easily than getting shallow DOF on a 1/3" sensor video camera.

Well given all the silly anti video comments I have seen here, I reckon its a brilliant marketing ploy by Nikon. I'm not a serious video photographer; but I do use an old Fuji prosumer camera to do short video clips with sound. An SLR that can do video discreetly is brilliant idea for the occasional user like myself. I just hope they add a movable LCD screen.

It will be really neat to capture video. I'm not opposed to that. I'd buy it, then I could have both, depending on what I want. However, we all look at pix, rarely videos. When gulf war ii broke out, the number one "video" was a still montage one of the networks put together. Stills are just different.

But, don't take away my optical viewfinder. With fast action, watching a tiny LCD doesn't process in the brain the same way as actually looking directly at the image. Your brain treats seeing an LCD differently than looking at the actual event and that's built in to your brain. If you watch people try to use their LCDs for moving events, you'll find they always have trouble because you loose your peripheral vision conentrating on a very up-close object.

I just hate to think that the inclusion of video has compromised the still camera in any way, as in removing a very useful photography feature, or cutting corners in design to keep costs down and still include the microphone and video.

I think some of you don't understand what an electronic viewfinder (EVF) is. It doesn't mean looking at the rear LCD, it means still looking through a viewfinder holding the camera up to your eye just like with an SLR but instead of a prism and ground glass there is an LCD displaying an image. A good EVF would have an image the same size as a current SLR and would refresh so fast that you never complain of refresh lag. Obviously we aren't there yet but I bet in 10 years we will be.

Kent, the D70 sold for $1000 when it was released. The D80 replaced it with more features at the same price. The D90 will replace the D80 with more features at the same price. The Kodak comparison is apples and oranges. Let's say Kia put an ipod dock in their car and it didn't sell well. Does that mean a Honda with an ipod dock won't sell well? They appeal to two different kinds of customers. A D90 with or without video will appeal to a different kind of customer than someone who wants a point and shoot.

Universal VR? For Real?

Jeffrey, I seriously doubt it. The D300 and D3 already have live view. The D90 is probably using a version of the D300 sensor. I doubt the microphone adds more than $3 to the manufacturing costs. Nikon already has video compression algorithms from their point and shoot line. I bet it was pretty easy to add video. I'd also bet that Nikon has internal only firmware that redefines some buttons and lets the D300 save video.

After buying the Tamron 17-50/2.8 zoom it emptied my hidden stash so I will have at least a year to decide if the D90 will be the one to buy. Like Kent the main feature needed to sell this camera is the D300 image quality and an upgraded AF.

The inclusion of video is not really a surprise to me. If you look at the big picture, (no pun intended) this is where visual media is going. Stills/video convergence in recording devices is the future. As has been mentioned, we're already seeing HD video in smaller P&S cameras, and if you look at the video market you need not look any further than RED ONE, whose cameras are capable of capturing breathtaking stills. There is also rumour that the next Canon 1D xxxx will have HD video capture, which would/will revolutionize photojournalism. In my opinion this is an essential step for Nikon to take, Nikon can't let themselves become the proverbial stick in the mud. I commend them for being a trail blazer in what is inevitably going to be the next step in semiconductor based media.

Hopefully it will contain a voice recognition system so I can tell it what settings I want without having to go through those damn menus.

That' s right. More and more cameras have built in video. And why not? Making prints is becoming a quaint throwback to the old days. Most folks slap their photos on their computer or in a digital frame or on some sort of a PDA. And with digital frames having the ability for video clips, not having video will become a market handicap. Every time I see a Harry Potter movie and the "magical frames"' that show people moving, I just think, "What's so magical about that?". The future consumers of image capture devices are big fans of those movies. (Notice how I didn't use the word camera.)

Let's face it, photography as we know it is changing. And as far as I'm concerned, for the better. Smaller, faster, better, higher quality and cheaper - gotta love technology! One day, our grand kids are going to ask, "Grandpa, what's a camera ?"

Thanks Walt, I hope you're right.

Kent Staubus wrote:
> Video? Microphone? Crying out loud. Like I really want
> people to hear what I say when I miss shots. Is the camera
> going to come in green, yellow, and pink too? Not sure what
> use I would have for live view, as Nikon does it. Why
> couldn't they skip the microphone goofiness and give me a
> tilt screen?

Nikon already has a microphone in some of their other DSLRs such as the D2x and D3.

> and see what the performance of the sensor does. If it at
> least equals the D300, I'm still in. What I want is a
> cleaner high ISO and low light performance. Don't need no
> stinkin' microphones.

I would be very surprised if it didn't match the D300's image quality and use a similar CMOS sensor. Personally, I'd be happy to have the video ability. Currently, I have to bring along my P&S when I want the option of shooting video. Having both capabilities in a single camera that produces much better quality images would be great.

larsbc

The Casio that I think was touted above (EX-F1) shoots 6 MP at 60 fps, but only for one second. Call that video? You can do 1,200 fps (imagine the sutter speed - does it even have a shutter?) at a breathtaking resolution of 0.03 MPix! If expect a D90 to shoot 14 MPix video, or even HD1080, in addition to stereo-sound for more than a few seconds without streaming it to an attached computer (which kinda takes away the purpose of a relatively compact camera), I think you are fooling yourself. Maybe 1280 x 720 at 30 fps for as long as the CF/SD cards lasts..... the D900 will then have a Quad processors and 2 TB hard drive....

I think the video option is fantastic. I, too, carry a point & shoot just for this feature. To have it in a faster operating dslr with zooming and dof options is wonderful.

There are already point and shoots that can shoot 1280x720@30fps in real time so it shouldn't be difficult to do that on a D90. 720p compressed using a codec like H.264 can look good with a bitrate around 2-4 Mbps. Even at 5Mbps that's still only 2.2GB/hour. Even BluRay only has a max bitrate of around 40Mbps. 40Mb/s = 5MB/s * 3600s = 18GB/hour. Of course you can't compress that in real time without expensive equipment but storage space is not the problem.

I don't think many amateurs would be interested in the full 12Mpix data for each frame. In Hollywood the highest 4K video standard (4096 x 3112) is becoming more popular but it's really for mastering a movie. There is no consumer level equipment to display the data.

On the processing side, most cameras have dedicated logic in the image processing ASIC to handle image and video compression so you can get away with having a slow 100MHz ARM or MIPS processor.

The decision to add video was most probably made based upon a simple ROI calculation. The development/production cost was probably very little since Live View was going to be a feature anyway. Current D70/D80 users are the target market for a D90 upgrade irrespective of the video feature.

What they seem to be trying to do is entice potential D40/D60 purchasers who wouldn't appreciate the additional SLR features of the D90 into spending more to buy the D90 for a feature that they can easily understand and is already available in most compact cameras. That assumes that there is not a huge gap in the pricing between the lower end cameras and the D90.

And, of course, it may entice potential low-end Canon/Sony SLR purchasers into spending some extra money on a feature that they can easily understand. It gives them a reason to chose Nikon and to spend extra $ doing it.

Thinking about the video/ microphone thing, I'm uncomfortable with jack-of-all-trades appliances, like printers that scan, print, and fax, usually they're not that great at anything. At least with the D90 you can count on it being an excellent picture-taking machine, with half-baked video/ sound capabilities.

It seems Reuven K nailed Nikon's marketing strategy.

"If Nikon puts video in a SLR I'm switching to Pentax or Sony!"

John,

You might be able to sell your D40 and your kit lens on e-bay. I hear that the Auto mode on the Sony is better then Nikon anyhow.

Ben- I really don't see a big problem with storing and processing 1920x1080p30 to a CF card, this is what the RED Scarlet is supposed to be doing for release early next year. Though it will use two CF cards, they will be in series so it can have uninterrupted recording... that would be on a 2/3" sensor at 3k (3,000 ish pixels wide) using Red's codec and having considerably more bandwidth than needed for HD.

OTOH, perhaps it will just offer 640x480 video without focusing abilities while recording, like my antiquated Fuji FinePix S602.

Rather than the resolution, if its at least HD, I would be far more excited about the interchangeable lenses and the huge (compared to video cameras) sensor, presumably offering a much higher useful ISO and more control over DOF. I think such a camera could help take Nikon into the next century and if it functioned even marginally well we'll see a large crossover to it from videographers and "filmmakers".

As a side note, I am already using HDV progressive stills commercially- 24 pictures per second that offer reasonable enough IQ for the web, but truly excel at capturing "the moment". The next era of photography, and especially of photojournalism, will be marked by a blurring of video and photography. This is already happening and I dearly hope Nikon will be a part of it.

It makes sense. Film producers with small budgets can skip the mere 1080 lines of resolution from HD DV cameras and go to the D90 (assuming that it will have greater resolution than HD). Sounds good!

I, for one, would make much use of the video. I was looking for a new camera upgrade. In fact I am much more likely to buy this camera over the D300 now. I feel I'm going to enjoy this feature immensely.

http://www.popphoto.com/photonews/5470/nikon-coolpix-p6000-big-camera-features-in-a-little-package.html

this camera seems to have the features mentioned for the"d90" maybe the rumor mill was wrong....again

All this moaning about video in a DSLR is hilarious! Are these the same folks who keep pushing for higher frame rates!!!??? Well, this is the natural extension.

Warren, the P6000 is not even close to the features of the D90. This new P6000 is a P&S with some nice toys, i.e., hot shoe, Ethernet connectivity, shutter/aperture priority, and manual controls but of course, no interchangeable lenses.

At first glance, it looks pretty neat but it has one huge drawback. For a reason known only to Nikon, the P6000 comes with a new form of RAW called NRW. That means RAW converters like NX and Adobe won't be able to read the images. Instead, you need to use either ViewNX or the in-camera adjustments. Only minimal adjustments to the photos are possible.

Except for this limitation, I might have dumped my Canon P&S for it.

Maybe the extra feature is not video but built in GPS recording (like the P6000)!

is there a microphone jack so one can plug in a better mic? be nice to have a high quality mic slide into the hotshoe. :) I can't wait for this camera, what a treat.

"Hopefully it will contain a voice recognition system so I can tell it what settings I want without having to go through those damn menus."

Milo, good call. Just like our phones. It's be handy to go "camera, iso 1600".

Using the principal that the camera is just a box to hold film, I would say that the D90 is a pretty good buy because it's a "box" with a D300 (digital film)sensor in it. Everybody has been raving about the quality (especially low light) of the D300 sensor, for me, this is just what I need for wildlife and macro photography.. The D300 will be obsolete in a couple of years so just buy the D90 to save a few hundred bucks. Video might just come in handy when you are witness to some historical or family event. Why not? The sensor that is supposed to be coming with the D90 is one of the best on the actual market and that's what counts. The rest are lenses and the stupid guy who pushes the button (the weakest link in th production chain). Cheers.

I should point out one more time that Thom Hogan's information on this so called Nikon "D90" is unofficial. While I am sure that Hogan has verified it as much as he reasonably can, he has been wrong before. That is not to say this "D90" doesn't exist at all, but some of the details could be inaccurate. I think we are much better off waiting for an official announcement before commenting on the details.

However, if you have plans to buy a D80, I think it is wise to wait another month or so for the pre-Photokina announcements around September 2008. You may still want to buy a D80 anyway, but if it becomes an old model, you can potentially save some money.

I am going to lock the thread from further discussion.